Slashdot Mirror
EFF To Defend Music Swapping Service MusicCity
MattW writes "Yahoo is carrying the CNET story that EFF has come to the defense of MusicCity, which produces peer-to-peer software, but does not run central servers as Napster did. EFF has a whitepaper on the Sony Betamax case, and it discusses the implications of various court decisions during the Napster case and their effect on it as a precedent. A MusicCity lawyer, who was responsible for the successful defense of the Rio, is quoted, astutely observing: 'This case shows more clearly (than Napster) that what the plaintiffs are most concerned about is control of technology. This is all about whether they can leverage copyrights into control over software development.' And that's truly what the RIAA's interest in Napster was about: not money, but control."
Everyone knows it's legally wrong, but most people do not believe it is ethically wrong (as proven by the sheer usage volume of services like Napster and MusicCity). Record companies commit original sins by denying musicians fair compensation, price gouging, and denying consumers fair use rights. In committing these wrongs they are forfeiting their ethical rights.
I don't think it is clear that "most people" think it is ethically acceptable; most people, even in the United States, have never even been to sites like Napster and MusicCity.
Further, justifying what "most people" may or may not believe to be ethically bankrupt or justified by claiming that record companies are unethical is just silly. Record companies are not "denying musicians fair compensation"; the musicians voluntarily agreed to the compensation they are getting when they signed a contract. If they didn't like the terms of the contract, they weren't required to sign it. Ergo, no denial of compensation. Record companies are also not "price gouging"; you aren't obligated to pay for any album in the first place, so you can't claim that you were obligated to pay too much. If you think an album is too expensive, don't buy it. Ergo, not price gouging. And no record company is denying you your "fair use rights"; since those are protected by law to the extent that they exist, you can sue them if they are denying you those rights. Ergo, no "denial of rights". That they may be trying to have the definition of fair use modified is not relevant to the point you made; you have the same rights to try and convince your legislator to advocate changes in the laws relating to fair use that they do. And you can vote, while the corporation can only lobby; that gives you the real power, not them.
Look, I don't like the direction that fair use rights and DRM are going any more than you do, but don't try to turn it into a "righteous individual vs. evil corporation" argument; you'll loose, and we'll all look like idiots in the process. Fair use can best be protected by making logical arguments that accept the reality of the situation (i.e. most people use/used Napster to avoid paying for music they liked, that is, to break the law), and pointing out that the huge societal benefits that come from fair use greatly outweigh the few negatives, and that those negatives can in fact be addressed in ways that don't need to reduce the strength of fair use provisions.
You refuse the government to censor the download of MP3 yet you want them to censor Windows.
You hit it right on the head... That's what this whole DOJ vs. MS case was about... Linux users trying to ban commercial technology and censor Windows.
Don't you know that Open Source adovocates want to BAN commercial software so programmers can't feed thier families. Lord, Think of the hungry crying babies! All because Open Source advocates want to BAN AND CENSOR commercial technology (IE, Windows and anything NOT Linux)
Nobody's trying to censor Windows or even ban it. We're just trying to level the playing field by not allowing them to do things like force PC manufacturers to ship Windows with every desktop without modification.
We think competition did great things for the PC hardware industry, because the playing field was a lot more level than most other industries.
Did you think we're just a bunch of liberal hardliners willing to jeopardize the economy for some ideological standards?
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Perhaps DAT-Heads has become a bushel that needs to be thrown out. It's obvious that you're only defending DAT-heads because of your interest in getting more illgotten music. How sad...