Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Looks To Stop KaZaA, Morpheus & Grokster
John Hampton writes: "The RIAA is going to try to sue KaZaZ, Morpheus and Grokster, according to this story. Internal memos from within the RIAA outline the record label's findings and strategy going ahead. Great story. Hilary Rosen begging executives to talk about the issue and the RIAA issuing the lamest statement ever. From DotcomScoop.com."
The artical says that Grokster, one of the P2P that might be sued by the RIAA, is based in the carribien iland of Nevis (or something like this). Offhand I would say that its based there primarly to avoid law suits of this nature. Any one have any info on how Grokster could be sued if they are not under U.S law?
Oh yah, FP
Sleep is for the weak!
You know what happens next? Some other freelance group of people will through together another decentralized sharing system, and this river will repeat, and repeat, and repeat.
I personally find that no matter how hard the RIAA tries, there will still be a network of people sharing music, software, etc, somewhere. It's sort of like prohibition.
The RIAA can't do sh*t to stop us from sharing FILES.
We have many lawyers
You listen to our music
Micr'Soft is our bitch
I think there's a radon leak in the RIAA offices and crack in their water-cooler...
Bill - "hey Jim, let's try and shut down a Peer-to-peer network today. They might be using it to do illegal stuff"
Jim - What's a "peer-to-peer"?
Bill - "damned if I know, I heard about it on Oprah"
Jim - "sure, I'm in. It's not like we do any real work around here."
If find it very hard to believe that this organization was allowed to exist. It functions autonomously using other people's money, but claims to do everything "on other's behalves."
SIG: HUP
The RIAA is going to try to sue Sunken Kursk, according to this story. Internal memos from within the RIAA outline the record label's findings and strategy going ahead. Great story. Hilary Rosen begging executives to talk about the issue and the RIAA issuing the lamest statement ever. From slashdot.org.
since the servers use encryption, someone must feel that the RIAA can't tell what's going on unless they break the DMCA. The funny thing is (and even the letter says so) they can get a court order to break the encryption to find out what is really going on. I am sorry to say, but the RIAA legal team has their shit together and these systems can expect to be taken down. There will always be something new that pops up, however.
I cant wait to see: :))
1. The moment when the industry realises how good they could have had it before they fscked up the server model of napster compared to a distributed self organising network
2. The moment when some dumb exec decides the only way to stop it is to take out EVERY supernode
3. The RIAA resort to hiring hundreds of consultants to try and fix the unfixable problem
4. The RIAA eventually succeed in closing down the big three and just as it happens, giFT is finished and goes mainstream, or even better fasttrak release the source (I can dream cant I
Napster died. KaZaA replaced it. KaZaA will die, something else will replace it for a few months (at least). Hopefully this will go on for another couple of years.
Maybe the next "napster" creators will find some sort of loop-hole in the law, or, host/register the software patent in a country with lax IT laws.
We can only hope.
I'd rather have a bowl of coco-pops.
Hey I know... If they won't pay our exorbently high prices for media that supposedly costs less to produce than than tape or vynal, lets shut down all the file sharing services by filing frivolous lawsuits with no real basis and use the power of money to instill fear in the free people. Go RIAA! Makes me wanna go out and but a few dozen CD's today... :/
"Hollowpoints: When you care enough to send the very best."
why the hell is the story just one giant paragraph? don't these people care about making their story readable?...
The music/movie industry has a problem, their products are easily copied. You all know that drill. And how do they react? Slamming laws on us. "yeah, fuck the man!", is probably a reaction from a bunch of you, but ripping other off isn't cool. It's a new form of mass accepted theft.
The software industry has survived despite the warez scene, though I must confess that I don't think we can draw as many parallells here. There are a lot of software that is not made for the general public, and then the software in itself could even be useless without the connection to the company which makes it, or it wouldn't even have been made unless it was ordered.
So what is the point of my rant? Well, the industry can either go on and be a royal pain in the ass and hated by soon everyone, or they can start thinking about their existence. This is what happened to people with the industrial revolution, and now it's reversed itself as large companies are on the loosing end instead. If they want to survive, they should find new markets, and they will prevail. There are brand new markets out there just ready to be exploited!
//John
I think you're forgetting the fact that the state of mourning ended last week (or the week before).
Life has to go on. Slashdot isn't a current affairs news-source. It's a..er, computer orientated current affairs site.
I'd rather have a bowl of coco-pops.
Kazaa/Morpheus/Grokster JUST broke functionality with giFT by causing the client to HAVE to contact a main server before it will participate in the network. This move makes this new network easily vulnerable to a shutdown since it relies on a few entry points. If they had left it alone the floating network would continue to float, but not now. Oh well.
Napster was a nice distraction, but I'm back to doing the same thing I did before Napster came about and there's no way for the RIAA to stop it.
Not that they should. What they should do is just get a clue. But they're not thinking outside the box, they're not adjusting to a new form of distribution for music. Napster came out late 1999. MP3s have been around since 1997, and that's not counting how old CDDA trading is. You'd think in 4 years they could've come up with a smart, valuable system. Oh well...
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
"I know you want your new businesses to be successful. So do I. Given the overwhelming volume of these alternative services, RIAA can't handle all of the enforcement alone. If they are not controlled more effectively and consumers redirected to legitimate offerings, there won't be new businesses. That's obvious," Rosen continued.
What the RIAA and other big industry orgs fail to understand is that it's not about directing users to "legitimate offerings", it's about not being a dinosaur in a fast paced industry. They are struggling to maintain old ways of distributing music and they don't understand that they have been replaced by a new distribution model. The record industry used to exist because some band, say "Vibrating Sandbox", didn't have the resources to publish and distribute nationally. Duh. Today, ANYBODY can send their music around the world.
I find it so amusing that the RIAA claims it hopes for the success of other music related businesses, then talks about handing enforcement. Enforcement!? RIAA: You are a conduit for music, not the source! Enforcement is up to the artists. If "Vibrating Sandbox" doesn't want its music distributed on *ster, then that's their problem.
The thing with organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA is they don't know when to quit. They need to learn a new way to make money that works with the modern world, or just go away all together.
Of course, not to mention that these "illegitimate" file/music sharing services actually give listeners access to a wide variety of flavors. Try finding the same obscure, yet decent material on an RIAA services as you would find on Napster. It's a shame how something so big, greedy, and ancient can have so much control over the methods of medium they contributed absolutely nothing to.
Why bother.
As far as I know all these three services use one common engine by that makes it possible for them to interoperate with each other. Basically, a user who is using Morpheus can download files shared by KaZaA and vice versa.
Because of this, at present, these three together form the largest network (far larger than napster or even gnutella's break-brick-block kind of network).
As fasttrack says, this architecture is distributed, self-organising network. Neither search requests nor actual downloads pass through any central server. The network is multi-layered, so that more powerful computers get to become search hubs ("SuperNodes"). Any client may become a SuperNode, if it meets the criteria of processing power, bandwidth and latency. Network management is 100% automatic - SuperNodes appear and disappear according to demand.
Basically, unstoppable!....You can stop the development of the code, and the program, but not the existing network. Just like gnutella.
For sure, they are RIAA, MPAA and the software industry's largest and the hardest to destroy enemies because they also allow users to share movies and programs.
Now that's what they say, let's see what the reality is!
Check out the emails on FuckedCompany! MIRRORS! RIAA lawyers are
saying its going to be tougher then Napster. Juicy stuff!
Here and Here
A wise man once said "Freenet views lawyers as damn apes and routes around them."
Do some thing useful with your Paypal account besides wandering ebay. Donate to Freenet
Let's take a quote from the giFT page:
Can you say "Ooops?"
Right - so you need to shut down your competition so that you may get more money. If think we should file an anti-trust lawsuit against the RIAA. And what defines legitimate anyway? I'm curious to know where a law exists that says you must be held liable by what people use your sofware to transfer since your company would be classified as a carrier. And the data doesn't even pass through their services anyway!
SIG: HUP
Gnutella is still as far as I've found the only true peer-to-peer network. There's nobody in the middle making money. If somebody is in the middle making money it should at least be the legitimate copyright holder.
If this was a GPLed application which was being oppressed I'd feel very differently. Right now I see it as one business using legal means of defending itself against another business. Kazaa and company in this case really are fences for copyright violations, even if they launder their money through spyware and force fed advertisements.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
IIRC it was NOT about copyright law but DMCA which
allows companies to probhibit fair use. Dammit.
while (moneyleft(RIAA_bank_account))
get_company_details(Napster-of-the-month)
if (buy_them_out(Napster-of-the-month)) then
quietly_put_out_of_business(Napster-of-the-month)
else
release_legal_winged_monkeys(Napster-of-the- month)
endif
wend
This strikes me very funny. All of these programs are nothing but wrapped up Gnutella clients. What are they going to do? Start filing lawsuits against the companes who create FTP servers/clients? Newsgroup decoders? Puhleeze.
There is no way that the RIAA will be successful here. I don't know why people think that they actually will be able to go after MusicCity and WIN.
If they succeed in getting rid of Morpheus/Kazaa, then they should go after other famous transport mechanisms for files:
1) wu-ftpd
2) wsftp
3) cuteftp
4) any alt.binaries newsgroups
5) any newsgroup decoders
6) all major web browser
7) inventors of the FTP protocol.
8) inventors of the telnet protocol
9) inventors of SSL
10) inventors of HTTP
... basically they should try to eliminate all forms of data transport.
Not gonna happen.
Thus, we recommend (1) filing claims against FastTrack, MusicCity, and Grockster, (2) immediately thereafter initiating discussions with FastTrack about resolving our claims in a way that will provide us with useful information and testimony against MusicCity, and if possible obtain FastTrack's cooperation in shutting down or converting MusicCity and Grokster, and (4) continue forward with litigation against MusicCity, Grokster, and potentially Timberline Venture Partners.
Gee, these guys manage to find out so much about the structure of the FT network, and yet they don't know how to count to three?
We need to discuss: 1. Spoofing and/or interdiction methods for existing peer to peers - (perhaps by adding promotional messages about the launch of various new systems)
Hey! Tired of not paying for music? Well Time/Warner has a service for you!2. A PR campaign
"The RIAA: Not as bad as cancer, well okay maybe just a little."3. We will share the latest legal strategies and RIAA's thinking on options
"Ten billion on legal death corps trumps Ten Million in venture capital money"Please plan on attending. I am cautious about sending alternates because we need people who have the ability to make decisions and commit to spending.
"I hope you are paying attention..."Best regards,
"I am warning you."Hilary
"Not Satan, no"[we do not know the nature of these communications/encryption/etc].
In the emails at fuckedcompany.com I found in this post, I read a number of instances where they plainly stated that they didn't know about how services uses FastTrack worked. I find it very amusing that they're threating lawsuits, but they don't have all the facts at their disposal. If they do not understand how the communications take place, how can they even assume that they can place liability on someone for "damages"?
Why bother.
This phrase has a couple of possble connotations. First would be "we need to bring our former customers back into the fold, and offer them some incentive to once again lavish our industry with extravagant and entirely unearned gifts of their precious, precious cash." This is, of course, not bloody likely, given that Hillary the Harpie views "customers" in much the same way as a vampire bat views an Argentinian cow.
The second, and much more likely, interpretation of her statement, is that the RIAA must seek some revenge against those who perhaps used to be paying customers, but were swayed by the RIAA's own retail guerilla tactics to pursue a different path, i.e., file sharing. This interpretation actually likens Hillary the Harpie's strategy to that of the US government, under the leadership of the winged monkey, in pursuing "war" against a methodology called terrorism (which is about as bright, in my book, as pursuing war against methodologies like pragmatism, or immunochemical histology, but then winged monkeys ain't made to be bright). I'd have the same advice for H the H as I have for W the Schmuck - give peace a chance, and, for the love of all that is decent and right, STEP DOWN NOW!
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
They've proved that an automatic two tier system can work (with user-node and super-node systems automatically finding the most efficient way of aggregating data).
Now we need a piece of software that will do all of this without the need for a central company. That way the RIAAA _can't_ shut it down.
Come on guys, we're one step away from success here - the power of Napster/FastTrack with the freedom of Gnutella - let's show them it can be done.
My Journal
The RIAA seems insistent upon escalating this pointless arms race. I am honestly surprised at their complete lack of foresight. They sued Napster into obscurity and walked away with absolutely nothing to show for it -- except for lending to the explosion of PtP networks. Now they're training thier massive guns on an even more wily target and expect to accomplish something? WTF?
I'm all for musicians' rights, however I am also very much anti-arrogance and anti-stupidity. If you're a member of the RIAA, I implore you (the technically savvy musician) to speak out against this pointless game. The rest of us, well... I'll be seeing you on Freenet.
Checkmate, Hilary!
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
In truth, it cant go "down"...
It is what gnutella should have been.. its decentralized so a company failure cant stop it, it is fast (instead of everyone being a node, only high bandy people are super nodes that carry searches), and contains encryption between sender and receiver so noone could tell what was happening...
The thing is, RIAA can sue Morpheus all they want... what are they going to do? Change the webpage that a Morpheus app goes to at the start to be one that says "please stop using this product" -- or maybe just put out an update (giving people the chance to choose to install it or not.. yea!) that disables morpheus...
I think the RIAA's hands are pretty tied in stopping the application... now destroying the morpheus and kazaa owners/coders.. thats in their reach -- but since they cant stop the app, it seems kinda pointless to me (though, I am sure, not to them)...
Filetrading will return to something like BBS only online and via TCP/IP.
I predict people will end up using BBS software over ssh and downloading using zmodem. (as some ppl are doing already)
I'd like to see the RIAA have ssh banned.
The sooner these goons realise that they cannot stop whats happening the better for them and for everyone else. Their business model is obsolete because copyright has outlived its usefulness to society in many areas.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
In a way, they're acting no different from the record companies in trying to stop an alternate method of distribution (of sorts).
It's ironic (did I use the word correctly?) that this protective action has openned them up to lawsuits from the record industry.
"Significantly, the FastTrack system encrypts all communications"
They then go on to discuss the packet communications and types.
Doesn't the DCMA prohibit them from doing playing with encrypted packages and attempting to decrypt them to see what's happening? Or don't I understand the law correctly?
ZDNet story
CNet story
Interesting story at BBC News
:wq!
In the beginning, there was silence. Then God made music. Man wanted to share music, so they converted it to mp3. RIAA didn't like the music, so they tried to stop man from sharing it.
Seriously speaking, we all knew that napster wasn't the end, but just the start.
I think that the CD protection that some companies are implementing on CD's are only going to be implemented so it becomes easier to sue people for the RIAA. They have realized they will never be able to stop the filesharing, so instead they are going to sue everyone that becomes so big they can afford the fines they are going to get.
This will be an interesting case though, considering the fact that FastTrack is based in the Netherlands. I just hope that some day, some judge will rule against the RIAA.
Man, am I getting drunk that day...
"If they are not controlled more effectively and consumers redirected to legitimate offerings, there won't be new businesses. That's obvious," Rosen continued."
This statement says it all. It's all about control and money. Sad thing is, if they didn't have these services to sue, they would go after individual artists that distribute their own MP3s. After all, it's stealing their (member companies) business.
-Shade
Shut down their IPIX picture service. I wonder if it's a coincidence that they are migrating to IIS.
"Bugger" say the RIAA, and then decied to go after the few p2p options that are now in use. And if/when they finally get those shut down, a load more people will learn from that, and come up with another way to avoid the legal hassles. And all the time more and more regular users find out about the service. Eventually it's going to get to the point where there's more P2P services than there are RIAA lawyers (and a nice bit of collaboration and standardisation should help users seach multiple networks) - when are they going to figure out that this "If it moves and doesn't pay us money, sue it" game-plan isn't working?
Actually, I kinda hope they don't suss that one out.
One thing that interests me, however, is that KaZaA is much more than audio file sharing. You can download audio, video, software, images and documents, and only one of those categories applies to the RIAA. I suppose it only takes one category, but it's interesting that no other companies or industry representives have become involved (yet, to my knowledge). I wouldn't be too amazed if the MPAA joined the fray, not to mention numerous software companies.
The thing is...how long can this go on for? Someone sets up a filesharing network. The RIAA sues them, bringing their vast financial resources to bear, which means that any other resources they require can be bought. They close-mindedly bring about the destruction or complete alteration of the network, not taking into account many technicalities like the way that Napster was demonstrated to actually boost CD sales, and that the server owners should not be held responsible for the traffic on their network, just as ISPs cannot. But in this time, another network has popped up in its place. In fact, several networks.
How long can this continue? Surely the RIAA must realise that it is a futile proposition (at present) to attempt to take down every filesharing network that may allow access to copyrighted material? I suppose that's why they are attempting to pass more and more fascist laws, and are encouraging other countries to do the same, in order to maintain their somewhat archaically-based real-world manopoly. Surely there must be an easier way for record companies etc to protect their copyrights, within reason, but to allow filesharing like this within reason as well (and I'm not specifically thinking of subscription). It seems that the RIAA, MPAA et al, rather than go with the flow and try new avenues of profit on the net, are attempting to stand firm in a present system that is rapidly becoming a part of the past. I am reminded of the SG-1 Archive, which was recently featured in Showtime's magazine (since Showtime produces Stargate SG-1), where the site was apparently hailed as a source of information on the series, and yet a couple of weeks later the webmaster received a CAD letter from the MPAA and was forced to remove the episodes available for download. This would not be a problem, legally speaking, if Showtime had objected to the site; but they hadn't. They had praised it. Apparently the MPAA is simply doing the rounds, attempting to scare everyone into submission, and sue those who are brazen enough to resist, despite the wishes of the people producing the actual material (who the Stargate SG-1 copyrights actually belong to I am not entirely certain, but I believe it is MGM/Showtime).
Having said that, I fearlessly and without disclaimer (partly because slashdot thinks my IP is a 203.97 subnet, which it's not) acknowledge that all the software and mp3s on my computer are pirated, and that I feel little remorse. Being what I hope is a morally upright person, this disturbs me somewhat, but when I see the sort of things that Microsoft, the RIAA, the MPAA etc do, and the tactics they resort to, I seem to feel a lot better. As a writer, I put a certain value on intellectual property, and I also accept that people will copy and distribute my work illegally. This doesn't bug me particularly, partly because I'd be a hypocrite if it did, and partly because people will still buy my work, despite those who pirate it. When I look at how bloated with money MS, RIAA etc are, I hardly feel sympathic.
disclaimer My ideas and arguments are subject to minor alteration depending on circumstances, and are probably slightly bigoted and not as balanced as those that I normally produce. Taken completely objectively, you may well be able to tear holes in them. If you feel the inclination to do this I would be appreciative, as I am still formulating my own opinions in this matter; however, I ask that you don't flame simply for the sake of flaming...it doesn't tend to be conducive to constructive conversation.
A word can paint a thousand pictures
Check out the version of the letter on DotcomScoop.com, it has the distribution list of who Rosen sent that email to. The FC one doesn't have it. Also, the DCS one was up early last night, I submitted it around 12:30.
Anyway, Jerry Yang and Rob Glaser are on the distribution list. Spam them!
I understand that "FastTrack" is a dutch company. I don't know FastTrack, but I do know Holland, *fuck* the DMCA, there is no such thing as DMCA in Holland. Fair use and backup is a right here, so I wonder what will happen. I guess its no use to file ligitation against a dutch company in Los Angeles...
Bizar technology?
after all you can find anything you want there as well, they may not promote it that way, but it can (and is) done
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
FastTrack, a Netherlands-based company
p in c=+next+%3E%3E&last_str=fasttrack&page=0
According to the article FastTrack is supposed to be in the Netherlands... It definitely is not. Although there is a site called FastTrack.NL it has nothing to do with the software used by Grokster, Kazaa and Morpheus.
According to the whois info it is a Chattsworth CA based company.
http://www.whois.net/search.cgi2?str=fasttrack&
Look at entry #40.
And Congress has thrown law enforcement behind the copyright holders in an act passed in 1998 after the David LaMacchia case (an MIT student who offered a central repository for the exchange of software). You don't have to upload software personally or benefit in any way from the exchange of software--you go to jail for providing a means of exchange. I don't think I'm giving away any secret here; while the law was probably passed at the behest of the software industry, it must be known to the recording industry too.
Before the RIAA sued napster, nobody in the general public had ever heard of Mp3s or sharing.
During the 2 odd years they took to tie napster into a legally binding state of disrepair, the Napster network grew almost 10 fold in size.
Finally, when it died, everyone just migrated to gnutella for a month or two, before they realised it was S*it slow, and moved onto MusicCity....
Now the process seems to be repeating. All MusicCity has to do is move it's entire advertising budget into it's legal department, and wait until every person on the street starts associating them with "Music sharing".
You'd think the RIAA would've learnt from before, and be looking at ways to work WITH the community.
Computer Software has been pirated since day 1, yet Bill Gates, chairman of a company which makes Computer Software is the richest person in the world. I would say this is some pretty compelling evidence indicating that people pirating your music/software isn't nessessarily a bad thing.
On the flipside, the powers that be have done a pretty good job strangling the DVD market here in Australia. We are charged royalties on BLANK DVD-Roms.
Indicitive costs of DVDs in AU:
One blank DVD: $30
Die Hard on DVD: $35
Why would you pirate? (Thank god for DivX)
Relax. He is only doing it because he realises that nobody pays attention to his(?) BSD is dying thread. (Either that or BSD is already dead.)
the "killed" napster, and three offshoot services became big.
then kill these three and you'll get more.
if they thought about things for just a little bit, they would understand that they are just taking up too much time and making the problem bigger for themselves.
what they SHOULD do is go bother some annoying people... perhaps the HarryFox agency could help out this terrorist hunt -- if we dont catch the terrorist, we could at least strike in him the fear of taking away his mp3s.
--donabal
Safety First Day?
The RIAA is a US setup, and from what I understand have no holdings out sidet the states. Well I am in canada A. So why don't we up here get a peer to peer setup on the go. Ok so canada May not be the best spot for it, but there are A lot of better places in the world where a music server setup would be able to avoid us laws and the jerks who use them to there advantage. And isen one of these servers already outside the sates. How can they be shut down by the RIAA
my 2 cents plus 2 more
If I had seen to future I would've studied law and become a copyright lawyer. Those guys must be making a fortune. I wonder was this the RIAA's idea or their lawyers. Anyway there must be a horde of idiots in the RIAA management!
Music CD's should include a sticker that says "10% of this CD's value goes to copyright lawyers support foundation".
Some info I couldn't find on their web page...
Does giFT run under windows?
Does giFT automatically promote clients to supernodes?
does giFT allow multiple downloads of the same file from different sites, to speed downloads and prevent loss of data if a source vanishes?
If it does all three of those, then I'm there!
My Journal
This is -the- best peer to peer transfer system going. Centralised servers to hold file information, but ANYONE can set up a server, MacOS X Clients, Windows, Linux & Linux/Windows server software. Download a file while uploading it at the same time. Searches can be spread over any server, downloads can be linked to from web sites.
There used to be a need for the industry when vinyl and CDs were the primary distribution mechanism for music. They held the whip hand over musicians, in the same way music publishers and patrons did in Mozart's day.
Now that musicians can produce their own material and sell it without reference to the music industry then there is little need for them.
In the push for online music we must not impoverish the artists who produce it. The fact that the music industry's profits disappear is irrelevant.
At first I laughed out loud at the ignorance of the RIAA (and the MPAA if you read the memo) believing that they could actually stamp out file sharing. But then I had a re-think, and saw only one way for this to go.
The RIAA will lose this one. Oh, maybe they'll win the lawsuits, or maybe they'll get the commercial developers to whore for them like Napster.
But the sharing will go on. Open source protocols and clients will spring up faster than they can beat them down. The genie is out of the bottle, and they can't put it back in. They can't win this through marketing, or through software technology, or through individual litigation.
The only way that the RIAA/MPAA can win this is by changing the world, starting with the USA.
The RIAA will use this case as a platform to push the overwhelming need for hardware copy control, for the banning or restriction of non-<strike>corporate</strike>governme nt controlled software including operating systems, for taxation of ISPs (who make money from facilitating the sharing of copyrighted material, and so are fair game), and for the need for easy <strike>corporate</strike>government access to ISP logs so that a trickle of users can be caught, given show trials using the laws the RIAA/MPAA have bought, and given harsher sentences than murderers and rapists.
So, while we can all have a good laugh about how stupid the RIAA are being by thinking that they can win this, just as we laughed at them for thinking that killing Napster would solve the problem, let's not forget that they're not idiots.
I truly believe that they are playing a long game here. They use idiotic lawsuits to demonstrate how helpless they are. They scream about every tiny periodic drop in CD sales and blame it on Napster (now Morpheus et al), while ignoring that overall sales and profit is up. They pay a few super-rich artists to wail about how sharing steals from them and tramples on their rights (neatly ignoring that nearly all artists sell all rights to one of five huge companies).
All of this is done to prepare the way for their bought politicians as they submit and re-submit ever harsher variations on the same dreadful laws that say: the profit of a few CEO's and major shareholders is a right that must be protected, regardless of the cost to individuals..
Cutting it down even further, let me suggest that there are perhaps two dozen people in the world who will lose out significantly if commercial sales of CD's and DVD's drops off (which isn't happening). These people are already rich beyond the dreams of avarice. They're not interested in profit or money in real terms, all they care about is the number of digits in their latest stock option exercise, because that shows that they're winners. That's all that matters, that they win the numbers game.
So the next time you gasp in horror at Son of DMCA, remember that it's even worse that it first looks. It's not about real people, or real money measured in human terms. It's about nothing more than two dozen men (and women) saying: I demand profit so that no one will question the size of my dick.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I keep wondering when will RIAA realize that there's no way to stop this revolution. They are trying to stop a train (they can't do that)
I can't believe that RIAA will try again. But now I wanna see. How will they shutdown each supernode? And the worst of this all, the more they fight against more and more users seems to appear. Fasttrack is getting even bigger than Napster.
Please, somebody from RIAA, asnwer my question. Does RIAA have any kind of technitians working for them?
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
So, if they are trying to figure out how the code works, are they reverse-engineering it? Are they not in violation of the DMCA? Trying to break the encryption etcetera?
Hmmm...enforce one set of laws while breaking another.
Maybe the targets can fire back with this ammunition.
"The way you think it is may not be the way it is at all">>>St. Oran
"The way you think it is may not be the way it is at all." St. Oran
In related news, the Register is reporting that this morning a huge flaming ball of plasma appeared on the west horizon and began rising. "It hurts to look at. What is this?" said personal privacy advocate Richard M. Stallman. News-watching experts were uncertain as to was the ball of plasma is going to do next, or for that matter once it reaches the top of the sky.
We knew this was coming. It was obvious this is the RIAA's tactic: sue or pass laws to persecute and shut down anyone that in some way facilitates either the sharing of mp3 (napster), or that in some way represents an alternative distribution channel. Then whine about piracy a lot and obfuscate the issues. Repeat over and over "we are just protecting ourselves from privacy" until some people start believing it. Do this slowly so it generates no significant private outcry or press which explains what the services being shut down actually *did* (news flash: slashdot is not significant).
They've shut down napster, mp3.com, and scour; the latter two were legitimate businesses who set out to provide something totally above-ground, and the third was a search engine which existed prior to mp3 and had little to do with mp3 itself. The only question is whether this new wave of file services will actually bother to fight this all the way to the end instead of buckling under the strain of hiring lawyers, settling, and disappearing-- because until someone actually fights this all the way to the end, untold millions of dollars will be drained out of any RIAA alternatives in litigation. (and the file search services will win in the end; i don't see how you could claim a directory service is not a form of speech; i don't see how this country could actually have law which says there is constitutionally some limit at which point you can no longer prosecute remote accessories to murder, but no such limit exists with mp3 piracy even when those remote accessories did not really mean to facilitate piracy.
The other question is when, and if, the news coverage will start getting better. The RIAA depends on two things for everything to come off smoothly; that the news never refers to the "file sharing services" as "search engines" or anything that makes it seem like they didn't actually pirate anything; and that the news makes it sound in the end like the RIAA shut down the services, not that the RIAA bullied the services legally until they ran out of money without any trial actually taking place. If these two things don't happen, the General Populace (and maybe even *gasp* some judges) might figure out there could be people who think things like napster, mp3.com's mp3disk (or whatever it was), and LiVid have an inherent right to exist and be created, but do not support piracy or think mp3 piracy should be illegal.
Otherwise next will be AudioGalaxy, then ISPs that do not monitor for and block gnutella, then ISPs that do not monitor FTP requests and block GET requests that match mp3s of RIAA songs, then Apple for promoting mp3 and cdr piracy through their iTunes program, then you. (Just kidding.. they'll never actually go after their customers, right?)
That sort of behaviour makes me SICK.
I cannot think of a definition of the ANTICOMPEDITIVE LAWS that that does not break.
You know, that one that Microsoft found themselves in court for... I'm sure it rings a bell here.
The RIAA seem to believe they are above the law.
I am really sickened by that sort of behaviour.
"Hmm... We're not making any money anymore."
"Yes, look at this, everyone's using our compeditor"
"Oh. Shit. Ummm... File a lawsuit. Get that compeditor shut down."
"Lawers, Translate this into legal talk: We need to shut down all our compeditors, so we can have our monopoly back, so we can make more money"
WHOAH.. DAMN.... HOLD THE PRESS.... I should have searched more thoroughly... it seems that FastTrack (Located at www.fasttrack.nu) is indeed partly dutch...
http://www.fasttrack.nu/index_int.html
Sorry for the misinformation....
From the RIAA lawyers' memo on FuckedCompany:
The FastTrack network designates (perhaps automatically) certain peers - more powerful computers with high-bandwidth connections - as "supernodes." [because of the system's encrypted communication, we are unable to determine how supernodes are designated].
I would love to see them suddenly understand how the supernodes work and the FastTrack developers sue for an incredible amount. It would be nice to see Slashdot's favorite law get used to help the little guy once.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong. But the more users a P2P network has the better it is, isn't it?
If this affirmation is right, then Fasttrack doesn't want to be a good P2P network. A week ago I tryied to connect Fasttrack network using giFT, and then I discoverd that their servers has banned giFT. :o/
They have banned all non-MS/non-Macs users! That sux! Why don't they let the comunity access their network? If there was an official *nix client, that's ok. But they don't build one and don't let anybody buid any!
I'd like to understand this, please.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
STOP this stupid propaganda !!! Can't you read ? It's in the first paragraph. Damn it...
From CNN :
"Officials told CNN they have no reason to believe the crash is linked in any way to recent terrorist events."
I think the whole "free-music" community (everybody who wants to be able to download music for free) should stop worry about {RI|MP}AA lawsuits. The reasons:
:)
1. no matter how they can protect audio cd, anybody can still play the cd on a cd reader and capture the audio stream with a computer.
2. if they develop a new technology, such as new cd player that can play only "approved" cd, see point one: if you can listen for the music, you can digitalize it and copy it.
3. distributed file sharing cannot be stopped. they can slow it down, close the main nodes, whatever. new versions of the programs used can be updated for better node search, and so on.
4. if they pursue the writers of such programs, they'll fail: a disclaimer is enough to avoid all that lawsuit stuff, according to the laws *they* are using
solutions: keep sharing music, keep writing peer-to-peer file sharing software, keep buying the music you like as a *tribute* to the artists you like.
consequences: improvement on the quality of the music [because today artists fill their albums with crappy music just to sell *one* song, admit it please], more power to the netizens, less power to the lawyers who wants to stop a system bigger than theirs.
keep doing what you want. they closed napster - we switched to morpheus. will they close morpheus? the community will adapt.
adapting is a sign of strength. enforcing old rules is a sign of quick death, as in all dictatorships.
how to stop free music on the internet: make connections > 28k8 illegal; force people all over the world to use new sound cards that cannot digitalize "protected" sound [good luck]; kill every artists on the face of earth. Chose one
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
BSD isn't dead. It's pinin' for the fjords.
Why doesn't the RIAA just go all the way and charge us all a connection fee? I mean, since we're all obviously thieves, and they can't trust us (hell, we can't copy our own CDs anymore, can we?) why should we be getting away with using our modems, DSL lines, and cable connections without paying the RIAA, to whom we obviously owe some sort of tribute?
"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?"
Where the hell do you get MUSLIM from that article? Are you paranoid, racist, or just learning how to read?
"The way you think it is may not be the way it is at all">>>St. Oran
"The way you think it is may not be the way it is at all." St. Oran
Since filesharing networks like KaZaA are technically illegal in most respects, I hardly think this is surprising.
If I claimed that the internet was technically illegal because you could use it to distribute copyrighted music or child porn, you'd think I was an idiot.
And yet you've bought in completely to the "sending files from one computer to another is morally wrong" claim, just under a different name. And all of the implicit assumptions that could justify that claim, "A tool is evil if it can be used to do evil things", "The RIAA owns everything that can be encoded as a sound file", did they manage to convince you of those too?
Sadly not. IANAL and all that, but as I understand it, the relevant part of the DMCA says that if you own the copyright in something and you put some sort of access control on it, such as encryption, it's illegal for someone else to circumvent that access control. Clearly, p2p users don't own the copyright in all those Britney Spears tracks that they're swapping, so the DMCA doesn't apply here. The RIAA may have to get a court order to intercept p2p communications, but they're entirely within their rights to break any encryption that might be in use.
For those who enjoy tweaking lawyers' noses, create a file that's about the right size to be an MP3. (They use about a megabyte per minute at 128Kbit/s.) Something like an uncompressed high-resolution photograph of you at your desk should do. Encrypt it with rot13 or xor63. Then call it something like Metallica-Enter Sandman.mp3 and share it on every p2p network you can find. When the lawyers come calling, remind them that they have to prove that the file really is a Metallica track. When they break your encryption and find that the file isn't what they thought it was, countersue them for violating the DMCA.
Just a thought...
Just another wannabe fantasy novelist...
Ten years back, when i was 0dAY-War3z junkie, most BBS used "disclaimers" such as "If you are affiliated with law enforcement and such, and don't state that in your account, yoùr are not allowed in this system." (And if person stated to be in law enforcement he would be deleted).
Were/are these means actually effective in a legal sense? If I ran a system like this, could evidence gathered by breaking the rules of MY User License Agreement be used in court? Or was that just a cover-your-ass vaccine sysops used to get some good night sleep at all?
+++ath0
Yes. Many people died. Yes it was a tragedy.
I'm sure that you realize this more than other people. Thats why you quit your job the 12th. Because now your job is just petty and its a disgrace to go on coding, or being a banker, or serving burgers, or whatever it is you do.
I mean. 7000+ people died. How insensitive is it to try and make money after that. Their souls are watching in disgust. They can no longer make money. But you do. You sick person you.
And you should dump your girlfriend/boyfriend or divorce your wife/husband. 8000+ people died. They are no longer happy, and they would be upset if you were happy.
Of course you upset the souls of the people who died just by living. I bet most of those people who died are upset that so few people died. They probably wish that people would just give up their lives and mourn for them until they die themselves. They probably scorn every minute we spend enjoying ourselves. They must be disgusted with the number of people who still watch sitcoms on TV. Or people who kiss their significant others.
We should all just wallow in sorrow and pain for the rest of our lives.
[end sarcasm]
While I cannot say that I watch Coyboy Bebob (I dont get the Cartoon Network in here in Arlington, can anyone tell me why?), but I enjoy my job, we have a few Nerf guns, and I was playing Diablo II last nite. Do you mean to say that I shouldn't enjoy myself?
If I would have been one of those who did die, I would be compeletely enraged by your attitude. When I die, I want people to be happy. Not because I died, but because I lived a happy life. They should go and try to do the same.
I'm sorry that you work at some boring job and have to try and be what you feel an adult is. But dont try to say that anyone is dishonoring the memory of those who died because they are happy. It is you who are dishonoring them, and the people who live on and have fun, they are doing exactly what every living human being should do.
"It is time to get coordinated and aggressive with the new round of peer to peer services. The amount of music being downloaded is, as you know, reaching unprecedented levels. Since college started last week Morpheus traffic was up to 19 million downloads per day. AND THAT'S JUST MORPHEUS. With the imminent launch of legitimate subscription services we have to get our customers back," Rosen told executives at various major labels, Yahoo, Real Networks, Microsoft and AOL in an email.
---
Hello? "we have to get our customers back"? What the heck is THAT supposed to mean?
Are we supposed to merrily spend our money on whatever fucked up business plan THEY find suitable? I wonder how much longer it will take for them to realise that the bird's out of the cage.
Without the ability to run its own SuperNodes, giFT is hardly better than Gnutella. The fantastic thing about FastTrack was thw ability to perform extremely quick searches, because your searches didn't need to get distributed to tens of thousands of nodes, just the main supernodes.
Without this, the traffic swamps the network before it can scale well.
My Journal
When the RIAA starts shutting down all of the supernodes, a little worm should be attacking M$ servers converting them to supernodes :)
There is no
and the RIAA issuing the lamest statement ever.
What do you expect from them? They've got the best lawyers on the planet that money can buy.
PPA
-- I feel better now. Thanks for asking.
As much as I think the RIAA is mistreating its customers and egaging in anti-competitive practices, I would be willing to pay $5 per month for Napster. That doesn't seem like a bad deal for legally acquiring music. I'm not sure if everyone acts like I do, but if I was paying a subscription for Napster, I would actually buy less CDs. Today, I get recommendations for an artist, download, listen and then (if I like them) go buy the CD. I don't mind supporting artists I like. But with a legitimate subscription service, I wouldn't feel as compelled to go and buy a CD.
So I wonder if this will backfire and result in less revenue for the record industry.
then kill these three and you'll get more.
if they thought about things for just a little bit, they would understand that they are just taking up too much time and making the problem bigger for themselves.You're assuming here that having three servers is better than (or at least equal to) one. It's not the case. Three servers have fewer users, on each, besides that many of the napster users have just given up completely, rather than be bothered by downloading the P2P app of the day...
"... we have to get our customers back ..."
More like *drag* their customers back, kicking and screaming the whole way. Hello, maybe you should ask yourself why you've lost your customers in the first place?
I am NOT paying $17 for a copy of Eve6's CD.
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
You don't prosecute someone from another country doing things that are legal there and not legal here.
Please name the countries where copyright infringement is legal (as opposed to illegal but unenforced due to how widespread it is like in most parts of Asia).
Artists literally can get checks from the RIAA of 0.12$US for a 20$US record sale.
That was my point about selling a million copies. Artists that go multi-platinum do fairly well while those that don't end up with a few good memories and sometimes in debt. This gamble is still preferable to making no money which is what the P2P services would eventually lead to given enough time.
Artists could make a LOT more money if they distributed online and took all the profits from said sales (and more power to them on doing this - I would buy music if my money was going to the artist, and not the RIAA).
This is very amusing. Why would anyone pay to download a song when they can get it for free on Morpheus, Gnutella, KaaZaa or Grokster? Wasn't there a recent Slashdot story about They Might Be Giants and how they were pissed at Napster because they had created an online presence only for Napster to render it all irrelvant?
BOTTOM LINE: For artists to make money from online music, free music services must disappear.
Just curious - how much did your college education costed? That's the worse example of english I've seen in a while.
First, I will assume the numerous syntactical errors in your own missive are in fact an attempt at humor.
Second, many of the users of Slashdot hail from countries where English is not the primary language.
Come back and post a message in your second language (if you have one), so that we all get a laugh at your expense.
xie4 xie4 nin3 shou3 kan4 wo3 de5 liu4 yan2
(thank you for reading this message!)
As the battle between the music industry and Peer-To-Peer nears an end, the major record labels are preparing to launch a new offensive aimed at wiping out sneaker-net, loud stereos, and people humming.
"Just yesterday while I was driving my new bmw to the country club, I stopped at a red light. While I was sitting at the light I heard the low bass rumbling of what sounded like music! and this morning I swear I heard my children's nanny humming "Always Look on the Brighter Side of Life", I don't even have a licenses to listen to that song and here that nanny was giving it away for free!"
--RIAA President and CEO Hilary Rosen
..looking at the latest levels of consumer debt, and from what I know of college-age persons' spending patterns, they're milking this demographic for about all it's worth. The music industry is still a huge market. There's no clouds on the horizon..
unless they were to suddenly stop investing in developing their artists, and turn to the latest marketing virus to sell low shelf life songs (unlimited free listening is a good quality filter: no need to buy that song you so easily sicken of hearing)
unless they were to start mistreating or pissing of their artists, thereby encouraging them to search for other, more independent distribution channels..
unless they were to, say, sit on their hands for a decade and produce inferior firmware music formats, thereby lessening the quality differential of physical vs. available free media...
unless they, due to consolidation or collusion keep prices for their firmware products artificially high, decreasing the incenstive to pay..
hmm.. The whole business plan changes, when technology obviates a monopoly.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
If you read the email, it states that the actual MP3 transfer is not encrypted. So, it doesn't matter that the p2p users don't own the copyright, because there is no encryption involved. However, the communication between the supernodes and the client is encrypted. The email states the following:
Significantly, the FastTrack system encrypts all communications (a) between a peer and the log-in server, (b) between a peer and its supernode, (c) between a supernode and the central servers, and (d) between supernodes.
The communication between the servers, supernodes, and clients are controlled by Fasttrack's software, and Fasttrack does own the copyright to that. So, in theory, it should be protected by the DCMA.
Check out giFT and the GUI kift.
This network is a lot better than gnutella, faster and more reliable, really good.
I have been using it with joy, very good downloads, excellent. Then 5 days ago the assholes at fasttrack changed the format, centralized the access, you know NEED a central server to get the passphrase. No more decentralized network. It was called a "security update"
So, I hope they DIE a horrible legal death, greedy sobs. No compassion.
The companies involved have NO interest in a free client at all.
Read the whole story at the homepage of giFT:
http://gift.sourceforge.net/press_9_29_01.html
Moritz
2.If you are an artist with the choice of getting a major label deal and maybe making a profit if you sell over a million copies (or being in debt otherwise) or making no money from the spread of your music while being popular among the fans that don't pay for your music, what would you choose?
If you mean ``can artists feed their families without RIAA'', the answer is of course. Some of them could do it via art, some via day jobs, but all could do it. If you mean ``could a few artists get very rich without RIAA'', the answer is far fewer.
I don't think that's bad. I don't believe that any of us have a right to get rich from our art.
I think that the current "winner-take-all", advertising driven model of music has given us a horrid snake pit of problems. We have a few "artists", some of them talented, some merely near-naked, who make fantastic amounts of money because they have been decreed ``marketable''. Meanwhile the many very competent musicians who haven't gotten the record company's stamp of approval not only can't make a living, they are hard pressed to get any exposure at all. For a lot of artists (as opposed to entertainers) the exposure is the thing, not the money. Being able to express ones self is what art is about. Being able to gouge the public for a popular act is what entertainment and RIAA is all about.
Cuz right now they don't have enough brandy and cigars for everyone...
"Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
Right now there's a lot of file swapping services out there, but none like Napster. Napster offered a central location to share your stuff. Now with all the clones, the file sharing is spread out and finding what you want can sometimes be a challenge, hopping service to service. Thank you RIAA for starting to clean some of this up and centralize sharing a bit more.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Please name the countries where copyright infringement is legal (as opposed to illegal but unenforced due to how widespread it is like in most parts of Asia).
Afghanistan. Hell, anything's legal there (except women feeding their families). But I am CERTAIN they don't care if you make a copy of an N*Sync CD.
That was my point about selling a million copies. Artists that go multi-platinum do fairly well while those that don't end up with a few good memories and sometimes in debt. This gamble is still preferable to making no money which is what the P2P services would eventually lead to given enough time.
Other replies to your original post already address this and do it better than I can, so read theirs.
This is very amusing. Why would anyone pay to download a song when they can get it for free on Morpheus, Gnutella, KaaZaa or Grokster?
You're not very observant are you? Look at the real world. Why would anyone buy a CD when they can get it for free on blah blah blah. People STILL buy music in a day and age where music can be got for free. It's reality. It will still be reality.
Wasn't there a recent Slashdot story about They Might Be Giants and how they were pissed at Napster because they had created an online presence only for Napster to render it all irrelvant?
It's not the consumers fault that they jumped on the bandwagon after someone else did. It's call competition. Sometimes other people get to ideas before you do.
BOTTOM LINE: For artists to make money from online music, free music services must disappear.
What a flaming crock of horse shit. You basically deny the existence of companies like RedHat that sell free software! That's right, they sell software that is given away for free everywhere else. The difference is, when you buy it, you get trimmings like actual CD's, manuals, and so forth. This model is very simple, works, seems pretty damn honest, and makes money. It could be very easily applied to the music industry.
Ugh, we need less of corporate bottom feeders like you.
Why bother.
The RIAA's trying to end
Programs that all they do's send
Tunes from my 'puter
To yours, through Bermuder
Without paying them or paying their friends
Download a stable version of giFT that works with other copies of giFT. Develop an "Upgrade" install program which upgrades Morpheus, Grockster, and KzAaA to giFT; or intalls giFT if none of the above are found. Download the latest Windoz virus source code and modify the virus to download to the infectee a copy of the "Upgrade" program from the infector. Let the giFT virus loose on the internet anonymously.
Within a few days, the entire internet will be a gargantuan "giFT" server. Going after KaZaA, Morpheus and Grokster will be futile. And... if they go to hunt and shut down "super servers" they will be shutting down alot of innocent people who just happen to be infected but had no idea that their box is being mis-appropriated. Probably people within the RIAA itself will be infected... for those who are using the software, it makes for a nice excuse: "Huhh? I didn't know that was installed."
I knew there was a good use for a virus!
lie in the price of CD's. If they would just drop the price of them to reasonable levels, say
$5 to $7 a pop, I guarantee over half of the file trading would drop overnight. But then again, that would be an action in favor of the consumer, and we can't have that can we? *sigh*
I see only two choices. Either we recognize, that copyright at the network age can no longer be enforced, and decide to live without it. The historic age has lasted thousands of years, yet we didn't need or have copyright laws until some 200 years ago.
Or we decide to enforce it. The simplest and most straightforward way to do this is to attack the actual violators: individual distributors. Everybody who published copyrighted material on the net could be sued, and compensations big enough to make this a business for lawyers could be ordered for the individual to pay. Many people will not like this, though.
Enforcing this globally is like controlling the drug business: it is hard, but the life for drug dealers can be made somewhat difficult. Besides: drugs bring money to criminals, and no money to the society, so financing the war against drugs is difficult. Most copyright violations don't bring money to the criminals, but enforcing the law brings profits for those who are willing to pay for tracking down the violators.
Technology can't solve the dilemma. Note that we can't make it illegal to only _sell_ pirated material, so that free distribution would be allowed. It won't solve anything, and it will open up all kinds of businessess which offer "free" files for download but charge for some kind of "not-related" service, like indexing, searching, disk space or bandwith.
And for the entertainment industry to set up its own network distribution system won't solve anything. It will not have a market, as long as individual violators are not punished hard enough. It will only feed material for illegal distribution. We know that copy protection cryptography is doomed to fail. Whatever people can see, they can transform to a not-copy-protected digital form. Cryptography can help though, if we decide to enforce copyright. In that case distribution of files encrypted with reasonable quality crypto may be allowed for free distribution through Napster, FT, Gnutella etc... After that only the _keys_ to open the encryption will be the copyrighted material, which you will have to obtain from legal, payable sources. But this only works if an army of detectives and lawyers will hunt down every individual who distributes copyrighted keyes illegally.
Anssi Porttikivi / app@iki.fi
So the future's looking pretty bright here.
Napster is turned into a pathetic excuse for a service and looses all users. The users then flock to other alternatives (Morpheus, Grokster, et. al) and these become the shining beacons in file sharing. Then they go after them and shut them down. 9 more alternatives popup which are quickly shut down. Then 27, 81, 243 then thousands of file sharing programs ream the planet and nobody can keep up.
In the meantime, the RIAA shuts down all playing of CDs on computers by copy-protecting them. DVDs are banned from computer players as well. So much for that multi-media concept. Your computer is back to being a system that runs software, but forget about running anything except Winamp playing MP3s that are deemed "acceptable" (whatever that means and whatever Barry Manillow songs you can download from the web).
I still fail to see any proof that Napster or any of these file sharing programs (central based or not) are making any impact on the reduced sales of music media. If anything that has been learned by this fairly time wasting effort it's that Napster promoted the songs and artists and let people make more informed decisions about buying or not buying that album. The RIAA should treat this as an educational lesson not an attack. The artists should look at it as a godsend and start making albums that have content that people want, not just filler material to cram onto a 12 song CD.
Of course this battle will go on forever. We have open source alternatives, engines and libraries that allow anyone with a compiler and half a brain to make the next Napster. So for every one the RIAA shuts down, three more will be right around the corner to replace it. If you can't beat them, then join them. What's next? Let's shut down Google, Alta Vista and Yahoo because they allow people to search for music (just like Napster, Morpheus, etc.) and you can download copyright material right to your hard drive! Oh my. What is the world coming to.
Wake up RIAA. You're just pissing more people off and you can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting.
liB
I am a wealthy IT professional, and I assume that a lot of you here are too.
Assuming that we could get a lot of people similar to myself to contribute $100, could we buy the ability to shut down the RIIA's legal efforts for awhile?
It appears to me that we have two options: attack their lawyers or attack their revenue sources. If we don't do one of these things effectively, they will continue to oppress the public (and us specifically).
I'm tired of listening to the RIAA tell me how bad I am. Let's do something!
"I know you want your new businesses to be successful. So do I. Given the overwhelming volume of these alternative services, RIAA can't handle all of the enforcement alone. If they are not controlled more effectively and consumers redirected to legitimate offerings, there won't be new businesses. That's obvious," Rosen continued.
So although it's the customers who are considered to be the actual ones 'violating copyrighted works', we're going to litigate the technology companies who provide all those degenerates the method to 'violate copyrights' in an effort to win back all those degenerates as paying customers once again? That does not make sense to me. Besides, college students are probably RIAA's biggest customer base in the first place, so screwing them over by getting rid of their favorite technology toys sounds like a bad business decision, despite whatever laws you may be trying to uphold. And it's pretty clear that the RIAA is in it for the money, not for protecting artist's interests.
Basically the article has the RIAA saying 'Our customers don't like us, so we need to beat them back into line, otherwise they won't be our customers any more.'
The concept that MP3.com was probably the right direction (until the RIAA caught them playing napster with my.mp3.com); distribute music from independant artists. The only problem is getting people to look for these new artists instead of the RIAA sponsored Metalica et al.
This is where the radio stations come in. Where do poeple hear new music? Most often on the Radio. They have a station tuned in, and rather than change channels they listen to whatever gets played, thereby exposing them to new music. When they hear something they like, people say "Who is that? I like it!" and then look for other things that artist made. What we need therefore is to have some independant radio stations, playing music which is distributed only (or mostly) over the web.
Catch people in their cars, but give them a convienient way to link in when they get home and have web access. Or with the increasing inclusion of telematics in cars, perhaps eventually "push this button on your radio and download the song now!" (that is a bit in the future, but perhaps not as far as one might think!)
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
this is offtopic. But the parent of this post wasn't.
when an organism finds that there is competition for its food source it either adapts or becomes the food source of little organism eating organisms.
Heh, I have a clone out there. Cool. I agree with everything you say. But, did you know that KaZaA now has a family filter. So no more pron. Damnit, back to filetopia, or maybe I should download mirc and see what I can find in IRC.
Every so often, something happens that changes the rules by which the world, and in particular the business world, operates.
A few personal examples. My grandfather was a professional signwriter. Not so long ago if you needed a sign above a shop, for instance, you used to have to go to a signwriter, who would labouriously paint it by hand. There are of course very few of them about nowadays because there are so many other ways to create signs. A perverse way of looking at this would be to think that the signwriter profession has been 'robbed' of its rightful earnings because bad technology has made them irrelevant.
My grandmother was a double entry book-keeper, a kind of accountant's clerk. She would labourously enter figures by hand into big books, do sums and checks to make sure everything was correct. My grandmothers profession has also been 'robbed' of its earnings because it has been made irrelevant by those bad computers.
The men and women of the record companies have made money in the past by promoting music, making copies of it and distributing it. Their profession has been made irrelevant because the Internet means that anyone can promote, copy and distribute music at virtually zero cost. They are desperately trying to stop this happening, but being a record company is becoming just as irrelevant as being a signwriter or double entry book-keeper.
In the short-term the record companies will use their financial power to get bad laws passed which will slow this natural development down. But in the longer term, sorry folks, but you're history.
Doing so may be a breach of agreement when you use the software for those purposes. It could open the RIAA and it's member organizations to countersuits, etc.
They're not entirely stupid- they want the upper hand on this situation from start to finish. If they don't go about it in a just-so manner, they don't have the upper hand.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Furthermore, we should make no distinction between the pirates who copy these files, and those who harbor the software enabling them.
Someone will have to win in the next years, and that will either be the record compaies or the consumer.
If the record companies want to win, it will take them a lot of effort, technical and legal. They will have to find a way to close all sharing services and/or find a way to copy protect CDs that actually works. But we all know how hard that will be, with sharing (p2p)networks popping up everywhere. Especially when computers and the usage of digital music like mp3 will catch on even more among the population as computers and networks in general will spread (I guess in a few years even your fridge can play mp3s you have on the main computer in your house).
Imagine what will happen if the record companies finally have to give up due to lack of money/customers. Many artists will not be able to contine to make a living off their music. But some will, through the sale of concert tickets, and sponsors. Those will continue to make their music as the do know, but I guess many 'middle-class' bands, who now can live on their music through CD-sales, will not continue, because they will no longer have the money to professionally produce their music, and devote all of their time to it.
If they didn't have a warrant, it might be. Unless it's known to be a warren for warez or hack info, they'd not have enough for probable cause and that would mean they broke into the system without either probable cause or warrant- which, while it's an LEO doing it, still makes it a computer crime in and of itself.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
there is no need for zmodem over ip. heavily redundant, with lots of unneeded features.
ftp, sftp, scp, http(s) etc are more suited.
it's about time someone extended gnutella, etc. (or maybe a brand new decent protocol?) to allow for a single well-defined protocol for file sharing, open source client code, and *authentication* for any distributed network. the important part is that a user needs to only have one account/one client to use any gnutella, bearshare, goatshare, kazzaa, shmazza... after all it's the end users that would keep any such service alive, thus it makes senese to build something replacable, usable and well defined.
By not purchasing any CD, movies etc for one month before x-mas? Wouldn't that send a message to the hard heads that we users are really fed up with the skyrocketing prices of CDs? We as consumers do have a voice. And a strong voice to boot. Lets stop buying CDs and hurt them where it really hurts.
ps I am not an Anonymous Coward. Just have no time to create an account
Dazalq2@hotmail.com if u want to send me comment
Come on, don't even try to kid yourself. How many people use morpheus to download videos and mp3s for cds they don't own? I bet its over 99%. The majority of traffic going through ftp servers is legitimate, and I wasn't aware telnet could transfer binary files.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
use SSL for all connections to the p2p network? Then, if the RIAA tries to snoop and see whats being passed around, they just broke the DMCA. COUNTERSUE!!
You do know that Reagan actually said that about the Iran Contras in 1987 right? Oh but, it comes up ina google search, so it MUST be true.
I thought that the RIAA would go after AudioGalaxy before it went after KaZaa... I use KaZaa to download movies, not music :)
http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/stickers/310a.shtml
i wanna see hilary rosen hanging from a tall tree by a short rope.
intelligent comment? what's that?
someone has to take out/stop the riaa
back in the day we didnt have no old school
From the article: MusicCity is a Nashville outfit that's backed by Timberline Venture Partners, an affiliate of respected VC firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson. ::shudder:: the RIAA is actually right this time. Now when they come for gnutella on the other hand..........
So this is backed by a VC company? Which means that someone is trying to make money off this service. Which means that all the standard "information wants to be free" arguments go right out the window. This isn't Gnutella where its a labor of love for the people in charge, someone is trying to make a buck of off someone else's intellectual property/art, which makes it the category of piracy. I think that
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
I saw the gift info on the broken Fasttrack compatibility.
Why would a company expose itself to more lawsuit risks deliberately by centralising control? They throw away the very reason of P2P.
On september 29, the protocol changes, and 4 days later, there's a RIAA attack. A coincidence? Kazaa, Morpheus and Grokster must have known...
Then why did they do this?
You know, a limerick.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Look at this chart [warning: Acrobat file produced by the Evil Empire] and check the numbers.
2000 was the first year that overall sales went down. They lost 2.6% of the total retail value of products shipped.
Meanwhile, in 1999, they gained 7.3% on total retail value. That's a lot of dollars, nearly all of it coming in the form of full-length CD sales. (For CD singles, the peak year was 1997. For full-length cassettes and cassingles, the peak year was 1992.)
Napster operated for a lot of 2000, but it was interfered with greatly. I expect music sales to decline further this year, which has been generally napsterless.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
makes me sick, really does.
have anything insightfull to say? going to actually do anything?
ya thats what i thought, have fun with your karama.
whore.
My main question is, has the RIAA gone after AudioGalaxy yet? It seems like they have a better case against them than against FT.
Why the hell did these programs move one step closer to a central file server system? It seems to me to be a colossal act of stupidity, not just a major pain in my ass as my giFT client stopped working last Friday (and kift was working soooo nicely).
Even with this move by KaZaa/Morpheus/Grokster, what does the RIAA expect these programs to do? I think that they're logging supernode ips, not file transactions, so they have no way of controlling who transfers what. It seems like they still have a "plausible deniability" of sorts...
On a more positive note, the people at the giFT project say that it will be working again soon with the existing FT network, and that in the meantime, they're planning on creating a FT equivalent, open source network. Read a bit about it here, and check it out on irc.openprojects.net at #gift.
"Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
RIAA is the bane of the tech industry. Lets never buy another album untin the RIAA disbands! The damn luddites will halt all advancement until we're back in the 70's.
Yes.
-- MarkusQ
Sooner or later, the RIAA is going to have to learn that there is no point in going after these networks. Shut one down, 3 more pop up in its place. It doesn't take an extremely talented coder to write one of these things, just a guy with a couple college CS classes under his belt. Even if the RIAA is successful in shutting down Morpheus/Kazaa/Grokster, there will be others, and the RIAA is going to have to decide wheather or not they're recouping the lawyer fees by shutting these things down. If legal action != increased revenue, there's little point for a corporation.
i doubt it. the DMCA seems like it was designed to work for corporations and against consumers...not the other way around.
We need to remember that programers and lawyers are in essentially the same business--bending complex systems to their will. Just because the programers pull a nifty twist, we shouldn't assume that the lawyers won't have an equally devious "Ah, but I'm not left handed either" response.
-- MarkusQ
I can't believe we're still going on about this.
GUYS!
1) There will be file sharing on the Internet, partly because the Internet only does one thing and that's to share files.
2) CD sales and vinyl sales will continue to thrive, because people like these things.
3) Musicians will not go out of business because of bootleg recordings.
4) The RIAA has been such a villain in this stupid war that some people actually enjoy downloading music in part because it makes them feel like rebels against an empire.
5) Fewer people would care about the issue if the RIAA didn't make headlines every week.
That's it, get a life.
Somebody or several somebodies are out there with a serious fucking agenda, or they're seriously fucking stupid and can't be bothered to read more than the subject line and first few words. I'm going through in metamod and smacking these fuckers down, when I can find them. God damn they are irritating, though.
I know this is somewhat off topic, and will probably get lost in the noise, but...
Machine guns are not illegal in the U.S. Many private individuals happily -- legally -- own machine guns. I know a couple. I've been to the target range with them. Forget the stigma associated with machine guns for a moment. They're just plain fun to shoot. Useless for target shooting, though.
To legally own a machine gun in the US, you must first undergo an FBI background check. If you're crime free/arrest free/drug free/not a threat to national security/not a threat to your neighbors, and if you get a permission slip from your local police chief, then and only then will the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms issue you a permit to own a machine gun.
from the memo: "we have to get our customers back" - with an implied "wherther they want us or not"
mas cerveza, por favor politically incorrect stu
Her letter reaches an unprecedented low when she starts quoting Jerry Maguire with "Help me, help you."
Hmm... I wonder if the MPAA would be interested in partnering with me to fight against copying and exploitation of movie quotes :)
[posted at: Packphour.com]
-p4
(c) All Rights Released.
I would love to see this whole mp3 thing just die. Yep, I love music as much as anyone, sure I believe in my rights as a consumer, whatever. However, I would MUCH rather see the internet go back to a data haven/playground for geeks like it used to be, let companies have their ways as long as they don't interfere with LEGITIMATE internet users. That's right, let the GenX thieves go find a new hobby. Sure, I might not get some empeethree's myself, but small price to pay to be able to surf without a bunch of FlashyEyeCandyGenX targeted web sites with some useless warez/mp3 crap always getting in my way. The banks, edus, & mils were on the net long before mp3, and most of us were having a much BETTER time than we are now. Let's cut out this cancer.
...the parent post may be the RIAAs only long term strategy which would work.
Charging an access tax for Internet access would be the same as adding a copyright tax for blank media, which many countries have implemented.
The real solution is to start backing off on copyright; a 20 year limit would be fine for a start. 95 years or so, as it currently stands for Disney et al is unsupportable except for pork barrel politics.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Musicians and record labels have had a good run, but perhaps it's time to give up. With few exceptions, I don't think any popular major-label musician is talented enough to earn what they make from their music. The money they make is a result of the recording industry's ability to promote.
Consider the hundreds of thousands of musical artists that aren't signed to a major label. What separates them from their signed counterparts? Promotion. The money the signed artists receive isn't based on their talent, but their management's ability to drive up demand for their art through many marketing techniques. Of course one entity controlling both the supply and demand of something is a dangerous situation.
I wonder some times if the RIAA is really afraid of peer-to-peer file sharing, or something deeper. It may be that they're not just losing their ability to control the supply, but losing control of demand as well. When I found songs I likes on Napster, I would always view other songs that that user was sharing, and inevitably find more songs I liked. In many cases these songs were not artists under RIAA-member managers. Could this be what RIAA is afraid of?
_______
2B1ASK1
Here in Taiwan, I've seen tourists shopping for software and giving each other that knowing wink when they see a copy of Photoshop for six bucks right out in front of a well-lit display case for everyone to see.
What they don't pick up on is that a lot of this stuff is older product that is licensed for sale at prices that seem free in the States, but are considered reasonable here. So, tourist go back with these stories about rampant and scandalous piracy when actually they're seeing is simply discounted merchandise that is totally legit.
Now I'm not saying there are no pirate software sales. Hong Kong used to have a great market near the Mong Kok subway station where you could even get alleged Windows source code CDs, but it had a definite air of secrecy with fidgety teenagers chain smoking and scanning the crowds for signs of cops who did eventually make them get rid of all the fun stuff.
So, I'm not saying there is no piracy, but I've also seen legitimately discounted merchandise that fooled Americans into assuming that it MUST be pirated just because it didn't cost hundreds of US bucks and had a familiar logo. That's simply a problem with American perception and the above post is yet another example.
Looks like they're reluctant to break the cncryption on the system by reverse engineering or cryptographic attacks. Looks perhaps like they're afraid of DMCA repercussions if they lose the case?
Let this be something we all do--encrypt all our traffic between any applications they think are borderline, and do it in such a way as to make their job "just that much more difficult."
No one says we can't use the DMCA ourselves until it's struck down, right?
A few years back, IIRC, Jesse Helms, former chair of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee (and credible evidence that neanderthals still walk among us) was pushing or backing some legislation which would restrain trade with Canada (the U.S.'s largest trading partner in the world!) because they were still on friendly terms with Cuba.
U.S. policy, often shaped by commercial interests, could be to place economic pressure on Nevis, i.e. no U.S. commercial flights to land there, harrass people with visas, impose huge duties or restrict exports to Nevis, etc. It used to be that the U.S. waged war, assassination, covert ops for commercial interests. (I remain convinced that U.S. policy toward Cuba has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with the seizure of land and property, it's their right as it's their country, but tell that to the U.S. Govt.)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Is the morpehus/kazaa network _totally_ decentalised? Certainly not. How do you think you logon to the network in the first place? You need a permanently online powerful server, with a static ip or dns name, so users can connect to it and receive the ip's of super-nodes to then connect to. These servers are called "host caches", and Fasttrack, Musiccity and the Gnutella companies are all running them. If there is one weak point to p2p networks, this is it. The RIAA and MPAA will take these down, not sue the super-node operators. An alternative is to post the ip's of nodes onto a website, like http://www.gnufrog.com. Again, this approach suffers from the same weaknesses as host cache's, not to mention the extra hassle of C&P'ing. We're still a long way away from pure peer-to-peer networks.
I haven't upgraded in at least several weeks... wouldn't my copy still work considering that they're just trying to shut down the supernodes, yet mine never contacts it?
So they shut down the supernodes and what are we left with? Exactly how it was a week ago -- which worked perfectly. *shrug* Sounds good to me.
yoo gies ar funy
I agree. Should we sue Boeing for making airplanes that could be hijacked by terrorists? Sony for making blank tapes? Office Depot for blank cds?
The thing about these arguments is that it is purported that companies involved have to have a belief that the systems will be used for legitimate purposes, i.e. trading non-copyrighted songs, software, etc. I don't see why they can't just post an agreement to the users of their systems that they will use them for legitimate purposes. If the record companies want to come after the American people, come after the American people, not those who make tools we can use. The sheer numbers involved testify that we are growing less and less tolerant with money hungry record execs who were perfectly happy spoon feeding us our (read THEIR) music through selected distribution outlets at inflated prices, meanwhile pilfering a huge portion of the profits from said works and distributing miniscule dollar amounts to the artists responsible for the very works that make their evil possible. Fuck the RIAA.
The RIAA is intent on suing our rights out of existence, so why aren't we suing them into the ground? Is there a class action suit against them out there? If not, can one be begun? According to new sites online there are millions of users who are affected by this, and it seems to me that if even half of those people donated $10 to a legal effort we'd have a real war chest. Clearly the EFF is not going to do this, so we need to find someone/thing who will. If you know of one, please pipe up.
And the second thing I wonder about is how can we build an alternative to the record companies and their business model for the musicians? The fans and consumers are pissed off, but as long as the musicians largely stay with the record companies, then the RIAA and its ilk will still act like they control the music supply. If the musicians believe they'll starve without the record companies, then they sure won't be on our side. We need a real plan to convince the musicians that there is a better way to reach their fans.
Whats it gonna be next? Are they gonna try to stop all kind of filetransfers on internet? Maybe ban the whole internet and finally shut it down?
2 reptiles beneath your current threshold.
Yeah. Battle is to be won in courts, not on the net. If they succeed in proving that internet damages their profits, then they will be able to sure anyone that has any link to the internet community. SUE THE WORLD, IT CAUSES LOSSES IN OUR ANNUAL PROFIT MARGINS!
DCMA is a tool and we shall use it, but it shall be only a sand speck in an effort to topple RIAA and MPAA. Some may say that I am missing the point, but laws once created and made REAL, we're all fucked. This is a HEIST OF THE CENTURY and we have to prove wrong those SHITESTERS. Making money out of the thin air - americas freedom is under siege!
Stop. They already lost. But its not about that. It is about GET RICH QUICK scheme, one that is forced down every one's throat of this world citizens! Corporations now own the culture, and if we to change it, we are danger to their profits, so we have to advise them of culture change - or we're criminals and RIAA will have to call Defcon5 because no one pays taxes anymore to RIAA. FUCK THAT. How do we proceed from here on?
No one really knows. All we can do is peep,"We are the internet, resistance if futile. You will be assimilated."
p.
Falling sales that are being seen are from me not buying new cds anymore but going to different stores and paying $5 for a used one. Therefore they don't get the $15 from me! Also, i tend to buy from very small stores that don't have deals to give some of that money back.
I read the internal memos, and it sure looks like RIAA has been analyzing the packets, and using "reverse engineering" techniques to figure out how to defeat the fast track technology.
Does anyone think the RIAA can be prosecuted under DMCA or any of the various "computer crime" laws? In essense, we have the RIAA accessing other people's data in an unauthorized way.
I wonder if this might be a great use of "weak" encryption; just enough to make use of DMCA.
The consumers. The consumers are the absolute highest power in the economic process. Consumers provide the money that makes the whole damn thing work. If consumers decide they don't want to spend the money, then all those musicians who are in it for the bucks are just out of luck. We as consumers have the right to force the music or whatever industry to do exactly what we want. The only trouble is getting us all organized. This guy did it. He said, "you don't have to pay for a high quality operating system", and made it happen, changing the face of the software industry.
WHY do you all persist in being such slaves to corporate power!? We all have a choice on what we want to consume an how!
Why bother.
Seriously, let's look at that memo if it's real. They are going to take every P2P to court and suck the life out of them, win or lose. While they have them against the ropes, the offer a settlement like Napster. The RIAA gets tens of millions in a settlement as well as control over the P2P's new business model that the RIAA approves of. Meanwhile all of the different P2P users are searching for somewhere to go, and decide that they'll pay the money to download from an RIAA approved network. Sounds like they are having there cake and eating it too.
My sig of choice is Marlboro
American Flag - Fade to whitehouse, and bush sitting in his chair.
(Que background music)
Bush: God bless America - where speech is free (unless its owned by a big company) (or the government) and justice is served fairly (along as it makes money [dmca]). But now, now its being changed! changed by a small people, people who will do anything to harm the freedom. These people are called 'file sharers' They are evil hackers who roam the sea of the Internet pirating as they go. The use their ships of software to go from point2point. They steal from the poorest artists and the companies that represent them (poor artists like Jackson and struggling companies like Warner, Polydor etc.) They trade sick and pornographic images that no human should be subjected to (because no-one actually _wants_ to see Alysa Milano lesbian action) and whats more, they send plans of terrorism! Yes, thats right, Bin-Laden and the Taliban used these systems to swap images and files containing hidden plans for their terrorist attacks! These people must be stopped, they are as guilty as Bin-Laden himself! To save America you, the citizens, must vigil and report these people. Do your duty for your country and your family. If you see anyone using file sharing programs, report them to the authorities (who will have their equipment destroyed and them put in prison for a long long time) and save America. Everyone must decide: You are either against file sharing, or your with Bin Laden!! No amount of bolding and repeating, repeating! can do enough to stress the importance of this.
Thank You, and, goodnight.
Fade Out, titles
"this presidential speech is protected under federal copyright laws, reproducing it in any form without prior consent is a federal offence carrying penalties of upto (15) years imprisonment."
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I don't think I should give any more money to the RIAA and well half the 'artists' out these days usually suck anyway.
Go ahead and moderate this down as overrated and let your ass bleed profusely for moderating this down!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Considering the quality of the music that they have created via "producing, promoting, and distributing" I would like them to go broke as quickly as possible.
When I frequented places where live music was performed, the quality averaged much higher than I hear on the CDs now. Still, there's a lot of personal taste in this, I admit. But it's also true that the "music industry" has had a large part in the shaping of that taste. And I feel that it has been a major factor in the degradation of the standards of music. I certainly wouldn't want to claim that it was the only factor, but it was a major factor.
There are definitely age related taste issues. People of one age do not prefer the same music or the same issues as people of a different age. But that does not suffice to explain the degradation of quality. I think that it was around the period that "heavy metal rock" first became popular that I noticed this phenomena really kick into gear. It was one of the factors that really convinced me that advertising works. (I noticed other examples later, but that's the first time I saw a convincing example.)
Fads are to be expected. "Valley Girl" talk is an example. It was probably pushed commercially, but it was essentially a natural phenomena. This isn't what I'm talking about. And it's also true that, e.g., the Beatles actually were exceptionally gifted, so it would be unreasonable to expect the subsequent groups to maintain their standard. But the current (last few decades) groups have fallen far below the standards of even SF Fan groups. They are actually LESS tallented than people who don't bother to develop their musical abilities as a profession.
So those companies can't go broke too quickly to suite me.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Now, maybe I'm missing something here, but from the memo, it seems pretty clear they've been hacking into the packets of FastTrack's protocol. They know the packets are encrypted (and don't know how), which seem to me to imply that they've actually tried to determine what the encryption is. Now, wouldn't that violate the DMCA they so cherish?
While I'm unaware of whether or not FastTrack has applied for a copyright (I'm sure they have) on their protocol, it is under copyright protection the moment it is created.
Sounds like they've been reverse-engineering FastTrack's protocol. Hmm, I think it's time for these guys to sue the RIAA.
Jeeze, the RIAA will not stop at anything just to get the extra buck, in there pocket, face it, Digital music distrobution is the FUTURE!!!!
Hey, this is my sig, if you don't like it, STOP READING MY POSTS!
I just typed a HUGE reply in the comments area and hit "Preview". The server timed-out and gave me an error message. So, I hit the back button. The message had expired and the page was gone! 10 minutes of writing a well-thought-out comment was FUCKING GONE! And, to top matters off... my cookie disappeared and /. forgot who I was!!! It took me back to the default page that Anonymous Cowards see.
CmdrTaco... I HOPE YOU BURN IN HELL FOR THIS YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!!!!!
By selling unencrypted cds the RIAA and its affiliates are assisting, with knowledge of infringing activity, the infringing conduct of another. They know people are ripping mp3s from their cds but they continue to sell unencrypted, insecure content to the public, fully aware of the consequences. They are assisting in this highly illegal activity and they need to be stopped! Let's sue 'em.
Uhhhh, they can stop Morpheus and Kazaa, but if they go down, Freenet will take over. At least by then. What will the RIAA do about that?
Artists should get nothing for recordings. They should realize Kazaa is giving them free advertising for future concerts.
A no-name band should try to get their music circulated on as many peer to peer networks as possible. They should build a fan base. Then the band should annouce that they are touring.
Bands should only make money doing LIVE shows. This nonsense of getting paid infinitely for recorded music is nonsense.
Same with movies. I pay eight bucks for the stadium seating, the Lucas THX, the Dolby stereo speakers etc... The movie should be for free.
This guy needs a cookie!
"We have to get out customers back"
Hil baby, if you didn't spend so much time on your back with your legs over multiple sex partners' shoulders, you'd have heard of the term: "shopping with your feet".
What this means is that if you burn someone, or try to screw them with a bad deal, or get GREEDY, they will walk away from your store, product, etc., etc. and get what they need elsewhere.
Hilslut, you're not going to "get your customers back" (with the possible exception of those who pay you for sex) by suing all their alternatives out of business. How you can do that is by giving them what they want at a reasonable price. It's called capitalism, babe and it means that those other whores down on the street have as much right to earn a buck for (bad) sex as you do.
Get it??
Although I doubt the FBI would arrest a member of the RIAA on a simple rumor of infringement from a small business, like they did with Dmitry, but its about time we started hitting them over the head with the very laws they use to hurt us. Encrypt EVERYTHING and copyright EVERYTHING from now on!
(c) Copyright 2001 by Caleb Mulford. All rights reserved
Ever wonder why cracking is about to be classified as "computer terrorism", yet you couldn't so much as get a cop to unplug one of those Code Red servers spamming you? Because it's not the crime that matters to the FBI, it's the damage. If the damage is billions of theoretical dollars of "lost" publisher revenue, or a scathing Newsweek expose on the rise of internet child pornographers, then you can get some FBI attention. If the crime is that somebody is misusing your little soundbite on Slashdot, you're not going to see squat in the way of enforcement.
I just love this quote from Ms. Rosen... "It is time to get coordinated and aggressive with the new round of peer to peer services. The amount of music being downloaded is, as you know, reaching unprecedented levels. Since college started last week Morpheus traffic was up to 19 million downloads per day. AND THAT'S JUST MORPHEUS. With the imminent launch of legitimate subscription services we have to get our customers back," Rosen told executives at various major labels, Yahoo, Real Networks, Microsoft and AOL in an email. the part I took note of was the "we have to get our customers back...", The more I read about this topic, the more it makes me think that /. needs to put the 'ol Borg outfit on Ms Rosen.
People do NOT want to be dragged kicking and screaming back to purchasing overpriced CDs and
tapes, that's the whole problem they have to
realize. If they want to get their customers back,
they should develop a competing system, otherwise
come up with a different, cheaper distribution system. P2P will not stop as long as entertainment
media (especially of the digital variety) is so
ridiculously overpriced. It will even flourish
as more people like Ms Rosen try to strangle it
to death with litigation.
ice deliverymen demand some kind of legal protection from refridgerator manufacturers
Well, we still had new ice being made once they went out of business. We still had transportation when horses weren't being shod. Then we were replacing a service with a better one that achieved the same ends. If we put musicians out of business, then there's no new music, which is, I think, pretty sacred to many people. So free music doesn't achieve the analogous situation as the ones you mentioned, since it kills, rather that replacing, the original product/service.
I realize musicians could still make money from concerts, etc, but if there's no economic incentive to distribute music, the world will be a poorer place for it.
THAT'S what's sacred.
Step 1) The RIAA sues
Step 2) The P2P networks adapt
Step 3) Repeat until information is free.
I'm a 2000 man.
From the "What is freenet?" page:
----
Freenet is a large-scale peer-to-peer network which pools the power of member computers around the world to create a massive virtual information store open to anyone to freely publish or view information of all kinds. Freenet is:
* Highly survivable: All internal processes are completely anonymized and decentralized across the global network, making it virtually impossible for an attacker to destroy information or take control of the system.
* Private: Freenet makes it extremely difficult for anyone to spy on the information that you are viewing, publishing, or storing.
* Secure: Information stored in Freenet is protected by strong cryptography against malicious tampering or counterfeiting.
* Efficient: Freenet dynamically replicates and relocates information in response to demand to provide efficient service and minimal bandwidth usage regardless of load. Significantly, Freenet generally requires log(n) time to retrieve a piece of information in a network of size n.
---
Project info here.
Donate money here.
--Greg
The morons in the "industry" are so riveted on video-on-demand services they don't realize that they've skipped a step. They're trying to invent the Television before they've perfected the Radio. Actually, I guess that should be digital television and digital radio, but whatever.
Develop Audio-On-Demand and THEN do Video-on-demand.
Clearly, the public is ready for these services. Why don't the VOD companies shift to offer AOD?
DMX, are you listening?
I'm a 2000 man.
Whenever the RIAA stamps out a filesharing network (such as Napster) it creates greater animus between music consumers and music companies - there's some awareness in the industry, which is why companies are hesitant to really go after these services. Assuming the lawsuits are a decoy, and are intended to rustle up congressional support for hardware detection/locks || taxes on blank cds, would also incite (possibly far greater) animus against the music/movie industry. There's a far greater resistance to taxation in the US than there is in Germany or Britain. I do not buy the arugement that since the American public "accepted" the incursion on freedoms that has taken place during the war on drugs, they will also accept incursions on freedoms in the war against filetrading. The war on drugs could point to examples of young men and women who had suffered tremendous physical and emotional ills because of their addictions to justify their actions - the war on filetrading cannot make any claim that it is trying to save lives. I am not suggesting that the RIAA/MPAA strategy will necesarily fail, or that it will be short-term. However, the costs to these industries, whose main demographic is under-25 youth, and whose product is ostensibly about freedom and especially freedom from petty laws and "authourity figures" - could be severe in terms of audience alienation/consumer loyalty. Eventually, these suits and the resulting consumer fallout may serve as the main incentive for an alternate music distribution model, with artists selling their wares online through centralized and decentralized networks, and independent companies hired by some of these artists to do the promotion that the major recording companies do now, but for a smaller share of royalties.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to these letters, it looks like the RIAA recruited some firm to reverse engineer the way Fast Track works by putting some faux supernode on their network to watch traffic. Doesn't this violate the DCMA? Oh no!
By the way, Hillary Rosen just seems bitter cuz she is fat and unattractive and can't get laid. Perhaps this bitterness is causing her to lash out against P2P software. Maybe we should start some sort of fund to pay some dude to sleep with her and all of the problems she is causing will go away.
"The Afghan Mujahedin are the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers of America." Ronald Reagan, March 2000.
.sig.
By Y2K, Reagan was lucky if he could say "Help! I've fallen, and I can't get up." Find another urban legend for your
'Liability for contributory infringement attaches to "one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another . . . [L]iability exists if the defendant engages in personal conduct that encourages or assists the infringement." A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004,1014
(9th Cir. 2001)'
Since the RIAA is:
"one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity"
and the RIAA:
"induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another . . . " by placing their work in a format easily available to those when RIAA knows there is infringing...
RIAA is liable as well.
"[L]iability exists if the defendant engages in personal conduct that encourages or assists
the infringement."
emphasis added
of course people will argue that RIAA is the copyright owner/holder and therefore has a right to provide works and find others liable, but RIAA needs to take some responsibility too. They are not totally "off the hook".
don't stop buying just buy INDIE artists. Then when RIAA members point to a slump, INDIE music can point to a growth...VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLARS, the RIAA understands NOTHING ELSE.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I'd like to help but I refuse to provide them the information they wish just to participate. Try and find a more politically suitable place to host and you might find more than 40 people willing to help.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Why doesn't the RIAA let the FTC know about TopText while they're at it. I'm sure that the FTC would be interested in taking that waste of code down, since it overlays links without user knowledge, not to mention is installed when KaZaA is.
Good thing I didn't download KaZaA when I heard about it. Noticing that it REQUIRED Windows Media Player killed any chance of that happening. I like my WinAMP in Winblows, and love my XMMS.
Makes you wonder if they'll ever notice where 90% of music trading happens. I know where it is, do you? Here's a hint: it's been around for a long while...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
I have since had the truck repaired, but have not replaced my box. It was my only piece of audio equipment which was not computer-related.
Members of the RIAA: I will always continue to burn every single cdrom I purchase into electronic format (a full ISO image), stored on several of my systems here as a backup (ISO image and ogg of each song), as well a burn a duplicate copy on CD-R for myself, in a format which allows me to listen to it on all of my computers and hardware. I do this, because I was raped by carrying the "real" media in my car.
My rights as a consumer allow this, and you will not ever, ever stop this. I do not "share" my purchased music with anyone by sending out ogg files of the songs, other than letting them listen to them over my icecast stream, or by borrowing the disk (sure they can burn it, but that's not a law I have broken).
RIAA, thank you for your opinion on what music I should listen to, and on what device, and at what cost I should be bent over for this "right", but you can take that opinion, and call someone who cares, at 1-800-POUND-SAND.
Once again, laws like this that creep their way through the books, only serve to hurt people who are innocent of their accusations of the guilty. It's happening with music, it's happening with encryption, it happened with guns, one notch at a time, and pretty soon we'll all be turning our backs on the "ViewScreen" [1984] that will be installed in all of our rooms.
I go to Johnson and Wales University. At this college, none of these file sharing programs are blocked. I believe that my college should block them because they are choking all bandwidth we have. Most of the time I'm downloading at about 5-10k/sec. I'm lucky to get bursts up to 30k/sec. This is at a university too guys. This is just HORRIBLE. Last year I was always maxing out the line at the capped rate 150k/sec (yeah that sucks, but it's a shitload better than what we get now).
The problem is all the morons at my college run these file sharing programs 24/7. I know this because I go around fixing peoples computers when they ask. I have seen people running Morpheus with about 20+ files downloading or queued with about 60+ files uploading or at least trying to. These people are just completely choking off all bandwidth. Buying more bandwidth will just get filled up as fast because the problem is the people letting all that crap transfer around.
If you guys know anyway on blocking morpheus/kazaa from the main server point at the IT department, please tell me so I can forward the information over to them. I personally don't care if my college blocks it. If they did I'd have more bandwidth and a much higher latency. (I'm pinging about 600ms+, so playing games online is not worth it and that pisses me off. I'm a big tribes2/counterstrike/Quake3/Return to Castle Wolfenstein fan).
So really, even though I'm not a real fan of the way the RIAA works, I'm all for them getting Morpheus/KaZaA blocked. I'm sure that would temporarily provide much wanted bandwidth before the next big file sharing program comes out.
For the time being I'd like my college to block it. So if any of you know how to do it, I'd merrily send the information forward to the tech department.
----------
Check out my blackbox styles
Freenet is absolutely fantastic, except that it's not easily searchable.
My Journal
Many of these systems rely on dedicated servers to get people linked up - I remember at the start of this whole P2P thing, people would post chain lists of other running gnutella systems, etc - so that if a chain is broken, it was still able to get reconnected. This might happen again as this progresses...
What I wonder though is about the elimination of these servers...
Would it be possible for each "client/server" node to "broadcast" that it is available - and other "client/server" nodes could look for that broadcast? When I mean "broadcast", I mean in the traditional sense - a way of communicating far and wide "I'm here! I'm here!" without the need for centralized servers - the chains then established could morph, reorganise, and disconnect at will - appearing in an instant, vanishing in a puff of smoke - a true P2P solution.
I am sure such a system might cause routing and caching issues to appear - but it is something these kind of systems need. I am not sure what the broadcast would consist of, or where it would take place - maybe it would have to rely on some form of stego, or something else - how han we treat the internet as a true broadcast medium, similar to radio? Maybe participants would go into some kind of promiscuous mode on there ethernet card, analyzing packets, maybe?
In a way, the so called 802.11 freenets are like this - because they are based on a broadcast system of radio - is there a way a wired network can operate like this? Has it already been done? Does the Freenet project work like this?
Ideas?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Since people talk so much about making copies (for backup purposes) legally.
Question I have is..
"What happens when the ORIGINAL is duff'd"? Can we retain the backup and use that LEGALLY?
Hmmm... How are we covered then?
----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
Do you have an attribution for that quotation? March 2000 was well-after Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and the primary source for your quotation seems to be this web site.
Reagan revealed he had Alzheimer's in 1994 and no longer appeared in public after that point. According to PBS, Reagan was unable to recognize anyone except Nancy on February 4, 2000.
I can understand not wanting to spend money to listen to music, but radio is only free because they're selling a product. Pre-processed pop music, selected by the giant companies that control radio stations playlists. Plus, you get to listen to ads. IMO, you're more than making up for the money you're saving with the crap you have to put up with. I'm not trying to say "only stupid people listen to the radio. i only listen to vinyl imports from select european countries." In fact, there is even some pop music I like. But in general, everything about commercial radio tends to irritate me.
As for making requests.... For what? The same songs they're already playing anyway? How often do you hear a radio dj announce a request that they're playing? How often is that song already in heavy rotation? Almost always. This is either because people never request anything else, which wouldn't be terribly surprising, or they don't have the "go-ahead" from their controlling media company to play anything else.
By any chance, are the sucky artists you're referring to the ones you are hearing on the radio? There are a lot more out there for those willing to dig, and they're not all associated with the RIAA.
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
One of the interesting questions asked about the copyright debate surrounding p2p is that if it continues, how will the artist make money?
The apologists for the RIAA state that the only way to make money is to provide legal protection to the artists to guarantee their rights to a living. The interesting thing about special protection is that for every group that it descriminates in favor of, it also must descriminate in disfavor of everyone else.
The DMCA and bills currently before congress are examples of political rent seeking. The RIAA has found that its current model is threatened in a free economy, and that it can find favoritism through legislation giving it and its interest legal protection. It is, in fact, a much more economically efficient model for the RIAA than actually struggling through the tumult of a free market. However, it also violates the basic tenet of a free market: Competition is good.
In a free market economy, those industries that are most efficient in producing and providing goods and services tend to succeed, while those that are not tend to fail. This insures reasonable distribution and pricing. If there is demand for a product, a free market economy will tend to meet this demand, and at a reasonable price.
The RIAA realizes that they are not the most efficient means of distribution, and are not as competitive as other services. They are in the process of attempting to subvert the tenets of the free market to insure their continued existence. Their success will not be the first example of political rent seeking, but will provide precedent for future political rent seeking by other industries threatened by the changes of digital technology and the network age.
If there is a demand for music, people will create it. They will also find a way to make money on it. To attempt to delineate here the ways in which they might accomplish this a disservice to entreprenuers everywhere. I make no claims as to being the most imaginitive in the ways in which to make money in a free market economy. I have not made a fortune in business, so to lay claims as to having the answer would be questionable at best.
Money can be made on any product or service for which there is a demand. History shows us this. However, until competition and market forces are reestablished in the music industry, the incentive for solutions to be found are very very small. Why would capital and imigination be applied to an industry in which the RIAA has a government mandated protected interest? It is easier to make money elsewhere.
zor_prime
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." -Mark Twain
You obviously never listen to college radio.. there are some decent college radio stations where they are not 'seeling' out to the riaa or promoters, they are playing what they like and have.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Sure, p2p users don't own the copyright on the underlying data being transferred.
However, FastTrack (or KaZaA, Morpheous or whomever) owns the copyright on the client and server, and have put access control on that system. As such, it seems like the RIAA is reverse engineering *that* system. Potential DMCA violation.
You're looking at the wrong copyright as being protected by the DMCA.
P.S. potential DMCA violation because there might very well be (probably is) an allowance for investigating theft of some underlying copyright through the DMCA-protected system. Some sort of safe-harbor provision.
HAHAHAHA bomb it agian! and then hit wall street!
These corporations violate our Free Speech rights and shut down our networks, then they jack up the price of their CDs to pay for their legal bills! Of course, a large portion of the 15$ pricetag goes to the research and development of CD-copy protection.
I say, who cares? We're not doomed to be consumers, why should we follow the will of a dying economy! Let them waste their money on useless legal battles, we've got enough Napster clones to last us at least 2 years. It's their problem if they can't adapt the the new marketplace, but instead place useless restrictions on "intellectual property" .
The more they attempt to constrict this nation's free flow of information, the more talanted individuals will see the situation for what it truly is and begin to develop new ways to distribute and extract data.
I know, I know, its illegal and all, but I just spent a year over in Asia and I will tell you, in the countries I visted, you cannot find one legitimate CD, Software CD-ROM, Game Cartridge, PS CD. They are all fake. Movies come out on VCD before they are even in the theatres, and they all cost a buck or two. In Thailand, Tower records had to leave Bangkok because they could not sell a CD for 10 bucks because all over the city the same cd's we for sale for 2 bucks.
Anyway, while over there I wrote an email back to people at home, and it went something like this:
I was reading the Bangkok Post the other day and Hollywood was tossing out another peice of self congratulating propaganda about how they are making more money now with their movies than they had in the last couple of years. They thought that this was nice (of course) but did go on to say that they are also losing more money than ever to kids who are downloading movies off the net, much like the recording industry is to people who use Napster and Mp3 format files.
Darn kids. Making the media moguls lose so much money, they may go bankrupt. Which of course would mean, no more Tom Cruise in MI VII, no more lite(tm) and fluffy romantic comedies set in Seattle, no more Brittany albums, no more Westlife CD's. What oh what ever are we to do?
Before you believe another word Hillary "I am on TV now" Rosen of the RIAA and her dupes/pawns and ex metal stars sans credibility Metallica tell you about how piracy of copyrighted material is being led by some file sharing software company and the evil children who use it. Ponder this little nugget they wont tell you on CNN.
I have been in Asia for almost 6 months now. Everywhere I go there are tons and tons, shop after shop, table after table, nook after nook of places to buy anything and everything that is copyrighted in the west. Books, CD's, DVD's, VCD's, Software, hardware, jeans, shirts. You name it, they got it. And it is cheap. The situation is so prevelent, that I have only seen ONE legitimate place to buy a real CD. Tower records in Bangkok. The place is pretty empty too. Why would you spend $12 on a CD, when you can get 'em anywhere else for $3?
So where is it all coming from? Before Miss Rosen or that Lars from Metallica starts thinking for you and leads you to believe your kids are downloading this stuff and amassing a fortune with the digital equivalent of smuggling right under your noses. Almost everything I have seen on the street has its origins in China and The former Soviet Union. You see it printed right on the back of the CD, or book, or VCD movie disk. Why should they care? Your kids are being blamed back home. Not China.
You know China? Those wacky "most favored trade status" human rights activists over there in the mystical East. A movie "comes out" back home, and less than a week later it is showing at a guesthouse resturaunt in Kathmandu or Bangkok with Chinese subtitles on it. Granted, the early copies may have been shot in a theatre in Hong Kong, but it does not take long for the real digital copy on VCD to show up in stores, with a color copy cover art package for the price of a little over a buck. Want Windows 2000? One buck. You know the score.
So anyway, my point is, who the heck knows? Sure kids are downloading music and movies and stuff. That is for sure. But those kids have so little impact compared to the Big Red Bully in the East -China. The place that we ignore the worst human rights record in recent history so we can have em all smoking Marlboro lights, sucking down a Brownie Peanutbutter Grande mochachinno frappe lite(tm) from Starbucks, and powerlunching at the foot and mouth disease capital of the world- McDonalds.
Guess its just progress.
This was originally a very long post, but a trip to "preview" and back without cookies enabled nuked it all I guess..? Wait a second--THAT'S how it works. Go figure.
;) anyhow, rock the f*ck on. I went back and read some of your earlier posts and I'm glad there are voices out there that can challenge current beliefs and localized brainwashing.
Basic summary as I'm far too lazy to type it all again:
Keep up the good work Rogerborg. I hope you never tire of trying to open peoples minds to alternative thinking. I'm glad SOMEONE around here gets it.
Nothing is black and white. The world is full of sinners and saints. Corporations are evil. No, wait a second, I guess that one is black and white...
People, please don't trust corporate owned media. They're in the business of selling to you.
Yah this is off topic; mod my ass. Had to be said. All these "nothing can get TOO bad, the world won't let it" types are beginning to piss me off.
'nuff said.
what I Should have done, >> is not shut down napster. . cuz it was a very centralized type orginzation, that had many loya people that would have loved to pay 10.99 a moth for that service (and that just soungs), now>> we have lost control of the masses, all napsters "loyal" followers have fleed to other services which carry much more then songs.
.. I would then realize that I should not make the same mistake again. and act quick in trying to set up a system where any p2p service would be forced to give me money at some point.
.. or at least the apperance of such, you might stand a chance.
.. we have problems, ownership of things is sooo built into our sociaty, the idea of owning something without paying for it and not physically steeling it/ taking it away from any praticular person, rather a big evial corrperation, is not considred a bad thing by many people. I mean I don't know. . when ever you really think about one of these thing you find that your doomed to info anarchy or a totalitarian state, which we know neither will happen.
Affter wollowing in the defet that I did not do that
1) I would want to work with the file sharing services, perhaps set up something similar to what freenet clones have set up in relation to fairtunes, but naturaly charge more and force p2p people to use the standard or be legaly procecuted to the full extent of the law. you could make the sound files have some sort of propriatary encryption and include some videos with the file as to dellay the cracking of the file. . for a few weeks and it would be considered premium content, the content where you would make most of your money, then
also charge a failry high monthly fee for a all you can eat, advertise it as the best P2p network because it would be if it had the most users, . . and then just pay a percentage of the monthly subscription to the to copyright holders based on transactions, and swallow your pride in the sence that it is uncontrolable that certain files are going to be cirulating, the second you try to remove a file from the system is the second people stat jumping ship then you have no control and no control over your consumers would be horrible.
furthermore your service will not be popular if it does not provide the unlimiated access to every possible file that other service provide. By making thouse other services harder to maintain (making them illegal) and making sure your service has a good set of content
ofcousre even then
The money I use to buy CD's goes towards suing my ass. Don't have a gun to shoot me with? Here, borrow mine.
The RIAA has been working with Los Angeles-based network security solutions firm Vidius to study how peer-to-peer networks operate. The RIAA states in the memo that more information about how the FastTrack code utilizes supernodes, high-bandwidth computers that connect multiple "peers," is needed.
"Our claims would likely be strengthened by learning more about the designation of supernodes and the content of communications within the system. However, the encryption of this communication precludes further learning absent cooperation from one of these companies or court ordered discovery," the memo states.
I just find this beautifully ironic. Does anyone else?
Encryption is wonderful and illegal to crack - when it's the RIAA's encryption. It's a frustrating nuisance when it's employed by those evil hacker thieves. And apparently it's illegal to study the RIAA's code, but it's not circumvention to study FastTrack's. Please explain how THAT makes any sense at all.
Encryption's a bitch, guys, ain't it? How do you like THEM apples, eh? EH? =)
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
. This guy did it. [helsinki.fi] He said, "you don't have to pay for a high quality operating system", and made it happen, changing the face of the software industry.
Then make your own Goddamned music and listen to it. Linus decided to write his own OS not pirate Windows and Solaris so what the fuck is your point?
Why posit any of these when just plain stupid will do?
There's also the possibility that it's a troll, but how would we be able to tell, since the post is so fucking stupid that it could just be someone who's an idiot?
Nick
Passwd
Name: Anonymous Coward [ Create Account ]
Subject:
Comment
(Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs! Don't forget the http://!)
Plain Old Text HTML Formatted Extrans (html tags to text) Code
Allowed HTML:
Important Stuff:
Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal
"I once fucked a cow's ass at a rodeo.
It was nice.
Her ass was leathery.
My cock was like suede.
The cow went:
"Moo!"
And I got a boner.
Jesus Christ.
I fucked a cow's ass at a rodeo."
Cow boys are so cool...
The other day I went out through network neighborhood and copied down an MP3 file from someone else's computer...looks like Microsoft is next for inventing the "network neighborhood" - a means of sharing files...
Heck, following Microsoft, the RIAA will become so bold as to sue the federal government for inventing the TCP/IP protocol.... a means of sharing files...
Al Gore, admitting to being the Internet architect, will end up bankrupt when they get through with him.