Slashdot Mirror
Napster Finally Gets a Break
jark writes "Wired News is reporting that 9th District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled that the five major record labels must prove they own thousands of music copyrights as well as prove those copyrights were not used to monopolize and stifle the distribution of digital music. " Definitely a twist
in this ongoing saga.
I mean, Mr. Fanning has a stake in this, and there's the Fair Use question, but Napster is DEAD. Supplanted. No longer important.
Writers imply. Readers infer.
Patel, who called both sides "dirty," said that Napster's misguided attempts to build a business using illegally obtained music paled in comparison to what could be massive misuse and heavy-handed tactics by the recording industry.
Please tell me that the future of digital music on the Internet is not being decided by someone who is arbitrating the decision based on which side is more morally repugnant.
What about applying old standards? Interpreting existing law to a new medium?
Patel has not impressed me with her keen wit and insight. Sorry.
Loneliness is a power that we possess to give or take away forever
Napster is dead. Put a fork in it, it's done.
But what of Gnutella/BearShare/LimeWire? What of KaZaa (sp?) or mp3.com?
The pont is, if Patel finds that the 5 music companies have stifled legitimate competition, then other legitimate competition may return.
Sure, Napster is dead, but once a precedent is set, nothing's to stop someone else from setting up a clone service. Clearly, the demand is still out there.
But this would go as well for any other music sharing service. So, it's not really a failure in that regard. Also, it's a loss for RIAA, which is enough to make me raise my voice in song. Let'em try to take that away.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I am suprised that the blank media 'tax' already paid for the music being copied on Napster argument has not been raised.
Fight Spammers!
"prove those copyrights were not used to monopolize and stifle the distribution of digital music"
I had problems understanding this phrase until I got to the second to last paragraph in the article:
"Napster lawyers have alleged the record industry withheld their copyrights from digital music services until three of the major labels could launch MusicNet. Once that service was launched, just days after Napster was shut down, company could only obtain wildly restrictive licenses to sell music. "
So THAT's what this is all about... The record industry isn't against digital music, they're against anyone besides themselves making use of it. If they had their way, I know of at least a few radio stations that would be shut down. Where does it end? Am I going to have to change to the Sony-owned radio channel to hear the latest music???
Why would the judge do this? Quite simply, the judge wanted the plaintiff to win, and wanted to keep the defendant from being able to appeal the decision. And if the judge sustained every single one of the defendant's objections, the defendant had no grounds for an appeal.
That is what appears to be happening here. Judge Patel, a jurist who has most decidedly taken the side of the plaintiffs in the Napster case, wants to make her decision airtight. There's no way that Napster will be able to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court if she allows the defendants to explore every possible line of defense before they lose the case. It's about giving them a fair trial and letting them prove they are not liable - and when they are unable to prove they aren't liable (they really are liable under the DMCA, like it or not), she will return the verdict that puts them out of business forever.
Not that Napster is an issue anymore, anyway. They have been supplanted by several services that are more resistant to legal and network attacks and do not attempt to extort a monthly fee out of their users for access to materials that they have a basic right to download anyway.
/fug
Throw off the shackles of copyright law.
In most cases, the copyright to a song is held by the person who wrote it, not by the record company. But, except for a couple of jerkwads like Metallica and Dr. Dre, no musicians have filed copyright complaints against file sharing services.
the article brings up some interesting points. although napster is currently pretty much dead in the water, it seems that the company may get some sort of compensation do to the anti-competative practices of the record lables.
"MusicNet did not suddenly appear full blown from the head of a fictitious entity. The evidence suggests that plaintiffs formed a joint venture to distribute digital music and simultaneously refused to enter into individual licenses with competitors, effectively requiring competitors to use MusicNet as their source for digital licensing."
granted, i am not a lawyer, but it would seem that napster would have some recourse if monopolistic/anit-competative practices could be proved, and napster may have a solid future (or others) in the pay-per-play area of online music...
-ryan
Getting a break? With napsters great new features like .nap files, limited downloads, charging for the service, no guarantee that you can find the music you want, *and* they tell me they're cooler than other so called "free" services .. how can they lose??
This is good news, but it is too late for Napster. The damage has been done to it, its effectiveness as a file sharing program has been taken away, and the users have moved on to other services such as Morhpeus, Kazaa, and Limewire. Fortunately, this next generation of file sharing programs is more decentralized, so even if the RIAA lobbies against them and sues them, there will be little they can do to stop them. Plus, Limewire and the Gnutella protocol are open source, so anyone could just take them and make changes in order to make them legal again if difficulties came up.
Once information is out there, there is no going back, and no removing that information. The public is thirsty for these file sharing programs and knowledge of them will prevent the companies from stopping them forever, and when they do stop them new ones will come out. Eventually, even their corporate lobbying will be in vain, and buying politicians won't do anything to stop the flow of information.
Napster is dead. Put a fork in it, it's done.
But it's breaking the ice for the other sharing technologies. We still need to show our support without giving into their tracking and monitoring,
. . . for all intents and purposes, it does little harm for Judge Patel to render a sop in the form of a favorable decision towards Napster so it maybe isn't as obvious that she's a bought and paid-for, corrupt, corporate tool.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
"In contrast, (the record labels') allegedly inequitable conduct is currently ongoing and the extent of the prospective harm is massive. If Napster is correct, plaintiffs are attempting the near monopolization of the digital distribution market. The resulting injury affects both Napster and the public interest."
At least Judge Patel sees that the RIAA is not actually acting in the interests of their artists, but in the interest of their wallets.
It's like claiming:
Netscape is DEAD. Supplanted. No longer important.
Be is DEAD. Supplanted. No longer important.
OS/2 is DEAD. Supplanted. No longer important.
Who cares about the Microsoft trial?
GPL Deconstructed
More interesting than proving that they own the songs (they may not own all of them, but they certainly owned some that were traded), was this quote:
"[The] plaintiffs are attempting the near monopolization of the digital distribution market. The resulting injury affects both Napster and the public interest."
I hadn't thought about it in terms of monopolizing means of digital distribution.
Anything you can do, I can do meta.
If the RIAA was planted in any other country we in the US would refer to them as a cartel.
Agreed. Napster may be dead, but this does not give the RIAA the right to maintain a monopoly that allows them to tell comsumers how they can listen to music. Let the other companies explore offering ligitimate practices.
Str8Dog
using System.Darkside; public
Napster is dead. Put a fork in it, it's done.
... if the court finds the record labels don't actually own the copyrights , could not Napster then sue for damages as their entire business was effectively shut down, based on this premise?
However
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Possible criminal acts of the music industry are relevant as they are important to the continuation of the culture.
I noted a comment above that this is unimportant, because napster is dead, etc. Sort of like saying that murder is unimportant because the victim is dead and you can't bring the victim back.
Wrong. Unless you _like_ a world run by crooks, or are something of a crook or a criminal yourself.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
"The crux of Napster's copyright ownership argument revolves around a strange clause in copyright law called "works-for-hire," which essentially determines who owns the songs and albums. Any work of art -- in this case, music -- commissioned or created by an employee of a company becomes the property of that business. For example, reporters who work for newspapers don't own their stories."
Although not 100% legally accurate, the point is that the ownership of copyright for something you don't create is basically a function of contract law - i.e., the recording contract. Most companies who pay for the creation of IP (record companies, software companies, etc.) attempt to argue and contract themselves into a "work for hire" status - which means, essentially that they (the company) are the author in the eyes of the law.
However, work for hire, as the article states, is a doctrine that is controlled by statutory tests - simply saying something is a work for hire (even if the artist agrees to that in a contract) doesn't make it so.
So what if it isn't a work for hire? Traditionally contracts have a back up assignment of rights. The problem is when such an assignment does not cover rights that, for example, don't exist at the time the contract was written. Imagine a contract written in the 70's - it obviously isn't going to assign rights to digital distribution to the record company.
This comes into play in other industries - the publishing industry has recently had this problem with old author contracts where the author assigned all rights to publish a work "in book form" (standard language in older publishing agreements). Courts have found that electronic book rights still belong to the authors (or their estates).
Of course, the lawyers now use a simple addition to the assignment along the lines of "in all media whether now know or hereafter developed" to show that the assignment is everything now and in the future.
It doesn't matter if the judge rules in Napster's favor, since Napster is trying to do exactly what the labels are doing with MusicNet and PressPlay anyways. Who cares if Napster lives or dies if we'll just end up with another sucky music subscription service.
What I'm worried about is the decision earlier this week about the fees webcasters will pay for streaming online music (See earlier article). The fees ended up being much higher than the webcasters wanted (and much lower than the RIAA wanted). What this means for us is that all the decent online radio services, like Live365, will go out of business because they won't be able to afford the licensing fees, which will be on top of the already high bandwidth fees. So, we'll get stuck with the large music companies owning the digital music space, just like they do the current retail CD business.
The difference is that napster never tried to get licences before launching, Myplay spent their whole life in negotiations with record companies but rotted away.
Shame - they were the best group of peopel I ever worked with.
The Recording Industry setttled, to avoid having to do this very thing....that was brought up by the attorneys for MP3.com. This will mostly be the same scenario here as well. The case is somewhat moot anyway. BMG owns the majority equity stake in Napster as I understand it, so it would be in both parties interests to settle. Except for the fact that the DOJ is looking into anti-trust allegations of the RIAA and members. (collusion). Once the Recording Artists Coalition filed an amicus brief on behalf of Napster (and the RAC doesn't like Napster), I think that Judge Patel woke up. The artist who the RIAA claims to represent say the RIAA doesn't and can't because they don't own the copyrights.
Not really. Napster would still be violating copyright laws. It would just be the artists who would have to follow up. Napster wouldn't be rewarded just because the labels are scum.
If the statement made is true, and the artists still own the rights to the materials; then couldn't Napster make distribution agreements with the artists themselves? We have all heard how little money the artists make from the labels for distribution of their materials, and that they have to tour to pay the bills; but if they negotiate their own distribution with the digital content providers, then they would get whatever their contract stipulates. That would be a win for the artists, the consumers, and the content providers...
Wherever you go, there I am...
Napster may have lost the battle for its own life, but they won the war in how they forwarded a simple idea that has largely become accepted by the masses:
In other words, if it's digital, it's free and swappable, whether legal or not. And nothing can stop this phenomenon. Nothing.
The pussy is outta the bag.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
...too bad it had to happen like this though...
Lets get a few things straight:
#1.) Most moderately talented and experienced 'hobby musicians' (like the guys who play at small local bars/clubs/restaurants), with some practice, can play any popular (cover) song live just as well as the original musician(s), occasionally better.
#2.) It is not hard to write good original music.
#3.) Professional quality home recording is a reality and is not cost prohibitive for the vast majority of the US population.
#4.) There is no shortage whatsoever of good to excellent musicians and singers.
#5.) The vast majority of musicians perform for little or no pay simply because they enjoy doing it.
Let me summarize in one statement: Music should be a pasttime, not a career!.
So.. why do we need record labels and celebrity performers, again?
I'm reading between the lines here, but this development in the Napster case seems to parallel something that recently occurred with online internet rebroadcasts of radio programs. These rebroadcasts were temporarily suspended because, for the most part, the contracts between the on-air talent did not allow for rebroadcasting (these contracts were written prior to streaming audio was developed). Essentially, the work of radio on-air talent was being rebroadcast without them getting paid for it.
This RIAA mess seems to be this: Not all artists have assigned their copyrights to the record labels. Some of these assignments may rather be in the form of licenses which do not extend to internet rebroadcasting rights. This, even if RIAA members may have the right to publish music, they may not necessarily have the right to rebroadcast that music on the internet. If they do not have that right, then Napster is not interfering with that right.
Of course this does not get rid of the whole case. There is certainly much music out there of which the copyrights are owned entirely by RIAA members, and the RIAA lawsuit would still be valid with respect to this music.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
For those saying the artists own the copyright...it isn't that easy. The artists would like to, and should, own the copyright, but the record labels say they own the copyright (well, I'm sure there are some artists that manage to keep their rights).
Here is how it basically works: The artist is loaned money to cut an album. Artist's song goes to number 4 on the charts. Before artist sees a dime of the money, all the money "borrowed" for recording and marketing costs must be paid back. The label that picked up the artist now claims copyright to that recording (in most cases). And get this, the reason they say it is their recording and not the artists', is because they say they put up the money. When in reality, the artists have to pay back the money that the recording company LOANED them!
I work for someone that just wrote a somewhat popular country song. He said the record company owns the copyright for the recording of that song. The band that recorded it -- Perfect Stranger -- can perform the song live, record the concert and sell copies of that recording, go to another studio and re-record the song...but the copyright to the song that is being played on the radio does not belong to them.
Jay
Ron Paul
This can't be! The system cannot work! ARGH!
Does this mean that judges can make decisions that aren't only meant to protect the establishment?
Nooo! My world is shattered...
What next? Honest politicians? Is this the twilight zone???
You can't take the sky from me...
Maybe Steve Jobs gave her an iPod for Christmas?
...got bought by universal after universal successfully sued the crap out of it with the other labels. Then they jacked the prices to regular low end CD prices. I consider mp3.com tainted now. I have not purchased any more CD's since universal's aquasition of it.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Judge Patel, a jurist who has most decidedly taken the side of the plaintiffs in the Napster case, wants to make her decision airtight. There's no way that Napster will be able to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court if she allows the defendants to explore every possible line of defense before they lose the case.
I will join the long line of scholars, lawyers, and laymen who rightfully criticized the Napster opinions, not for their politics, but for their inartful application of an incompetently-drafted law. Judge Patel's previous opinions have been nothing for her (or, more likely, her law clerks) to be proud of.
That being said, hearing such conspiracy-theories that a life-appointed judge is somehow "in the pocket" as opposed to just plain incompetent advanced by some, including those who claim to be law students, is nothing short of irresponsible.
Not to mention incorrect. As some, including Mr. Fair Use Guy, have wrongly suggested, Patel seeks to insulate her opinions from Supreme Court appeal.
One who claims to be a law student should know that Patel's decisions are appealed first to the Ninth Circuit, and then to the Supreme Court. And while the three-ring-circus-like Ninth Circuit is wholly unpredictable, capable of disputing ruling such as whether the sky is blue, the Supreme Court would not touch the over-litigated quagmire that is Napster with a ten-foot whatever - it not federalism, there's no circuit split, and there's not a damn interesting issue to be found in ten billion pages of pleadings.
It will be a cold day in hell before the Supreme Court agrees to hear any of the Napster decisions. Jerry Falwell will smoke crack before the Court hears Napster. John Katz will write a useful article before the Court hears Napster. Microsoft will release WinXP on a GPL, disco will return, and someone will actually mod up one of my postings before the Supreme Court hears Napster.
The Ninth Circuit is the end of line - and Patel can't do a damn thing to stop the Ninth Circuit from reviewing her - as they've proven themselves willing to review damn near everything. So ditch the conspiracy-theory crap, and recognize bad law when you see it.
I commend unto you Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
It may be cold, but at least it's clear.
Napster and it's legal team screwed us. Any lawyer will tell you "bad law suits (or bad responses to them) make bad laws" The idiots at Napster and their greedy lawyers fought their case in the worst way possible with their bogus claims of "fair use", etc.
The court decisions handed down in the Napster case were their own fault, and now eveyone trying to run a file sharing server is beaten up by the RIAA with the Napster decision.
If you've been defending Napster, then you've wasted your efforts defending somone who has screwed YOU!!!
"Well, we'll need proof you won't stifle the distribution of digital music." "Of course! Will these sacks of money suffice?" $$$
as I was scrolling through the thread, someone was talking about artists that have sued the RIAA about copyright issues. one of the artists named was Dr Dre. for those who arent familiar with his work, before his "chronic 2001" album was released last year, he put up mp3's of *ALL* the songs on his website and offered them free-of-charge. granted, he was probably hoping that people would d/l the tracks then go out and buy the cd when it was released, and as far as I know, people did *BUY* the cd.
the history of the world
I am not sure where you get your "facts" or your arrogant attitude, but the Napster case is most decidedly destined for the Supreme Court, not the Ninth Circuit as you have claimed. It is already in an appelate court; what would be gained by sending it to a court at the same level?
I wholehartedly agree with you that the DMCA is bad law, but the fact remains that there is little the courts can do about Napster's end of the case. In MPAA v. 2600, we had the First Amendment working for us; in this case there is no establishment clause issue and constitutional arguments will get us nowhere.
Throw off the shackles of copyright law.
Her job is to decide the case. If what napster was doing was illigal, if what they were doing was agains the spirit of the law they should go down.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
"Music" CDRs, the ones you need if you want to record on a music spesific CD-burner have a tax, but regular CDs you get for your computer don't (unless you live in canada).
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
it is important for 2 reasons.
1, it gives napster ground to sue for damages, much like Be. This is a nearly identical misuse of a monopoly like in the micrsoft antitrust case.
RIAA has been far more heinous then microsoft 'tho, they have been raping both consumers and the artists they claim to represent.
2, this could actually move to give the rights to music back to the artists, opening market doors and oppurtunities to all the little guys.
maybe we'll find some real services opening up that offer real music instead of the backstreet boy wannabes we have shoved down our throats on every public channel. maybe this will unhinge RIAA and halt their attempts to squash streaming audio sites (shoutcast radio stations), etc.
but then what's the chance that could happen in the land of the dollar.
my $0.02
- tensions in our lives that are attacking our minds, unite themselves together to make our consciousness blind - op'ivy
This is a HUGE blow to the music industry's case. The implication of Judge Patel asking them to produce copyright information is that, if they can't do it, the ENTIRE MUSIC INDUSTRY would be forever changed. Right now, music companies strap artists into super-restrictive contracts where anything the artist makes instantly becomes property of the label. This means that, perhaps, the power of ownership could fall back into the hands of the rightful owners - the artists. The RIAA knows this, and now they have to defend themselves. Ahh, sweet irony...
The other serious side effect of this is that the judge realizes that, like the article said, the music industry is moving into a monopoly of online digital music. We all know that the Napster law suit was raised not because the music industry doesn't want online transmission of music, but because they were late to the game and Napster beat them to the punch (and to the money). Judge Patel is calling their bluff and is saying that you can't shut down Napster just to steal their business.
This is a HUGE turning point to this case, and don't be surprised if the issue of copyright holding in music as a whole is revisited because of this line of inquiry.
taco
"Corrupting our youth one mind at a time"
So let's see, you're claiming fair use by posting a load of keys for shareware apps?
Tell ya what, why don't you just go out and run through CompUSA, grabbing stuff off the shelves, and throwing it into the street shouting "It's FREE! It's FREE!"
YOU do not have the right to do what you are attempting to do. Only the person who owns that software has the right to decide what they're going to charge for it. If you disagree, don't buy it. Don't be a stupid asshole instead.
Oh, and by the way, I hope you and your family are condemned to work at an IHOP on the 2am shift for the rest of your lives.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Your user page says that you "believe that both rampant civil disobedience and heavy lobbying will be necessary to reform our fascist copyright laws. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
Just as long as those of use who oppose you are allowed to do the same kind of civil disobediance. Like smashing eggs on your house, putting shrimp in your air conditioning, graffiti on your walls, that kind of thing.
It's not nice when it turns personal, is it?
Coming soon - pyrogyra
In particular, the Supreme Court said that a copyright holder does not have the right to ban a technology with a significant legitimate use, just because the technology may also have other, infringing uses. Timeshifting is legal Fair Use (that is, a copyright gives a studio no right to ban timeshifting); therefore, VCRs have at least one legitimate use and cannot be banned.
You're confusing several things:1. The notices written on the tape by the record company or studio. These notices tend to be quite restrictive, and often forbid things that the vendor does not have a right to forbid. (A good example of this would be a notice forbidding you to lend a tape to a friend, where no copying is involved.)
2. What is or is not allowed by actual copyright laws. Copying a prerecorded videotape for a friend would probably violate the law (although it is hard to say for certain). In the case of an audio tape copied on analog gear or on SCMS-crippled consumer digital audio gear, the AHRA would make any infringement non-actionable. That is to say, the record company theoretically could not sue you for it. The record companies, of course, argue that this anti-lawsuit protection does NOT extend to computer CD burners (which may legally record audio without the burden of SCMS).
3. What is or is not allowed by the DMCA. The DMCA prohibits "bypassing technological protection" even when you have a legal Fair-Use right to copy the "protected" material.
4. The chances that someone will catch you and prosecute you.
prove those copyrights were not used to monopolize and stifle the distribution of digital music
I appear to be missing something. Isn't a copyright by definition a monopoly on the work?
A non-monopolistic copyright sounds a bit oxymoronish to me.
what if the labels do NOT own the music copyrights? does this mean my/your/our favorite artist could re-release an older work using a different label? would it not be wise for a label to be created soley for this purpose, and sell cd's/tapes to the public for a tiny fee (less than $5), only online, and with the corresponding artist getting a huge percentage? hell, i would not even care if the cd was shipped Netflix style, without a case.
Why? It's not exactly relevant, Mr. 1st Year Law Student who will never pass the bar.
A Washington address. Suspicious, but I'll let it drop.
What's suspicious about it?
Shipped 8 complete consumer applications with over 30 SKUs". So what was your contribution to the industry, again? You wrote 8 useless programs, which end users will not be able to modify, and sold them at a tremendous markup. If the programs were really all that great, why didn't you release the source code so everyone could see them? What do you have to be proud of?
Tremendous markup? What a crock of shit. You don't know what you're talking about. Profit on those titles? Around $2 a piece.
Why don't I release the source code? Because, numbnutz, it's not mine to release. Also, I don't get off on giving away my work for free. I gather you are going to work pro-bono on ALL of your cases then?
Oh, I'm sorry, I'm talking to a supposed 'law student' who will obviously be charging a hefty fee for his 'services'. If he ever passes the bar.
Visual Basic, VB (virus building) Script, C# experience. Wow, that will get you real far in life - knowing a few non-portable, proprietary languages. Twit.
Well, unfortunately, skills go out of vogue. So you don't put the ones that you don't use regularly on the resume (for example, Pascal, Fortran and IBM370 assembly language). For readers just tuning in, here's the actual list:
C, C++, Java, Visual Basic, VBScript, JavaScript, C#, Z80 (and related CPUs) Assembly, other Assembly language
I note that you don't mention Java as being proprietary (it is). You don't mention C, C++ or assembly language (which are more useful). You don't mention Javascript. How odd. Might it be that you're in training to be one of those lawyers who twists the facts to make their argument sound better, and then, after doing so says "No further questions"?
Is this what they teach you at law school? How to lie eloquently? You're an ass.
A "Brainbench" certification. Whatever that hell that is, it's probably useless.
Three actually, and I only put the ones that I considered important out of the 6 or 7 I've done. What's the matter? Jealous that I can take those and you don't have the brainpower to do so?
Work experience at Microsoft, on
Big fat hairy deal. I've also got work experience at several other companies. You see, there's this thing, it's called "Money". It lets you do things like "EAT" and "PAY RENT".
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot -- you're going to be working for free when you get out of "law school", aren't you?
You see, Mr. Cooke, the difference between you and me is that I am working for a better world. I want to see more openness, more sharing, and more flexibility. Information wants to be free. You, on the other hand, embrace a pay-as-you-go model of selling software that is quickly becoming obsolete with the continued success of the open source movement. Your only goal is material gain; someday you will realize the sheer emptiness of your life, but by that point it will probably be too late.
Information does NOT want to be free. Knowledge wants to be free. Learning and education want to be free. But software isn't information per se.
But hey, you can put all the sugar-coated candy wrappings around it that you like -- when it comes down to it, you're proposing a utopian solution to a society that doesn't work AT ALL like that. Ultimate end result? Stagnation and resource starvation because there won't be anyone who can make money on new work, so no one will do the work because they'll be too busy working at K-Mart to code.
I embrace the pay-for-software model (not pay-as-you-go -- that's a subscription model, which I disagree with). Why? Because I happen to think that time which you will never get back in your life is precious. If I work on something, I reserve the right to be paid for that work. I also reserve the right to not give away that work for free, not be forced or coerced or extorted into giving away that work for free, and to charge whatever I deem appropriate for that work. Similarly, everyone else has the right to pay whatever they deem appropriate -- or not at all.
It'd only be obsolete if most free software wasn't a pile of dung. A functional pile of dung, but an unpolished, unrefined pile of dung.
What's your goal? (I again refer the reader to the fact that Fair Use Guy is supposedly studying law... not exactly a field known for its lack of money-grubbing) How do you know that my only goal is material gain? Do you honestly think that someone having the source code to Netscape is going to advance the state of the art of computer science? Will it make humanity any less hungry? Any less disease ridden? No, I don't think so. Frankly, if people want to use my work, they can pay for it. And I'm not going to change my mind on that.
The thing is, Mr. Fair Use Guy, that you do not have the right to give away
- other people's intellectual property
whether you think so or not. It is against the law. Not just the DMCA you're so opposed to, but the whole history of copyright.I reserve the right to give away keys I've made from impressions of YOUR door lock, with full address information so that anyone who wants to wander in and steal your property can do so. Why not? After all, it's exactly the same thing that you're doing.
Fortunately, most people are decent, and will pay what people ask for the software they use.
Our side is winning, Mr. Cooke. Ten years from now, I will have something to show for my efforts, and all you will have is an unemploment check.
No, sorry, don't think it will happen. Although hopefully all of the lawyers and pseudo-wannabe 1st year student lawyers will be dead by then.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Well, if the courts decide that a) the RIAA a monopoly in terms of music distribution; and b) it leverages that power anti-competitively, in this case branching into online music distribution, and killing off potential competitors by a combination of denying licensing at reasonable terms plus suing those who proceed anyway...
...then the RIAA might have a problem. Weren't some Congresscritters talking about compulsory licensing during the hearings?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Thus we have GNU/Linux, the OS written largely as a pastime, which is going against monopoly commercial OSes head-on.
Both music and programming can and should be done professionally, and as hobbies. Both should also be Free. When Spielberg needs a movie score written, he hires musicians. Cygnus hires programmers, does consulting work, and releases the tools GPL.
--Just the place for a snark!
What the judge has ordered will be exluded in the appeal that the record industry will ceratinky pursue. It's a burdon of proof situation. Napster is innocent until the court can prove that they are guilty. You can't prove a negative.
w00t!
We really need your help
http://www.gofundme.com/help-sherry
MP3.com is owned by Vivendi Universal. It's so commercialized now... The truly independent artists are stuck at the bottom of the charts, getting no exposre, and therefore no ratings. MP3.com is in no danger.
A solution to the problem with music today
Why isn't VCRs or tape recorders illegal?
Get a clue, dude (and learn how to conjugate while you're at it). Patel's original ruling spells out in intricate detail why Napster is guilty of contributory copyright infringement, and why VCR manufacturers are not. It is a crystal-clear common-sense distinction.
Bling bling!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Do you ever wonder why Sierra picked you as one of the developers who wasn't worth keeping?
Not particularly; not that it's any of your business, but my division was shut down to a skeleton crew.
I can tell you what the problem is: you're just a jerk, and you have no respect for other people
Says the guy who has no respect for other peoples property and hard work? You keep posting these keys. That's not the behavior of someone who has any kind of respect for other people. That's the behavior of a punk-ass kid who wants to cause a little trouble, and is hiding behind a 'crusade' to give himself rationalization for his actions and an excuse to his own conscience for what he's doing.
I'll bet it just boggles your mind that you can buy a copy of Red Hat Linux for $50, and give a copy to your friend without paying for it - legally. You live in a world of EULAs, complicated per-seat licensing arrangements, and silly ever-changing rules that govern what people can and cannot do with their own damn property.
I was writing free software before it became the latest vogue thing to do to rile against society.
Clue for you -- and here's the big problem that you need to get through your oh so thick skull:
It's not YOUR property. The media is what you bought. You did not buy the property. You can buy the property for several million dollars, or you can buy the media and the right to use it according to the license agreement for much less.
Even Lawrence Lessig copyrights his articles. Don't you see something rather... odd about that for someone who is trying to get rid of copyright? For someone who lauds free software?
Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but things are changing, and I'm a big part of the tide that will wash you and your fellow greedmongers away. Take a tip from me: change now, or become extinct.
Oh, and what would you suppose I do? Get a degree in biochemistry and move into genetics instead?
Just exactly how does this society you're predicting work? Who does the software engineering in it? And how do *they* make a living? Because I assure you, it will collapse.
So, my advice to you is to do some reading and open your mind. Read The Cathedral and the Bazaar; think about it a bit. Pick a project on Sourceforge [sourceforge.net] that looks interesting and contribute. Give back to the community.
I give back to the community by answering technical questions on technical forums. You seem to assume I'm part of your 'community' (whatever that is...). No, I'm not. It's not my community to give anything back to.
I ask you again; which community are you talking about? If you're talking about computer science, I'm sorry, but a piece of genealogy software, or a game isn't going to give back anything. It'll teach some newbies how to do the same thing, or others can come along and live as parasites on the back of the hard work done by others, but it won't actually give anything *back* to the community.
Besides, the last time I tried giving anything to the Linux community, I got 400 people telling me that no, there were no problems with the Linux UI. None whatsoever. Which is why a friend of mine has a terminal window with a scrollbar on the left hand side, and every other window has one on the right. No rhyme, reason or logic.
And, for the record, I've read The Cathedral and the Bazaar. I've also read the GNU Manifesto, where Stallman spells out how he wants all software engineers (you know, people who spend their lives learning a highly technical art & science, and spend all of their waking hours working on projects) to be retail clerks. I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in that scheme of things. You go right ahead and do it if you want to, but I don't have to.
And frankly, with the quality of most open source projects, I have nothing to worry about. I will always be able to invent a better mousetrap, and people will pay for that.
By the way, this community you speak of... are you going to be giving your law services for free to them? Why don't you post your OWN name and stand behind your words?
Oh I forgot; you're a coward 'anarchist' who claims to be a 1st year law student, who can spout philosophy and angst all he likes, but won't actually back it up with any kind of substance. Like, perhaps, the chance of getting punished for his behavior.
It's very easy to jump up and down and make faces when there's no consequences. But if you believed in your actions, then you'd stand behind them.
Go on, give us your name. Your email address. Your home address. And in the unlikely event you pass the bar, I'm sure we can all contact you so that you can give back to your 'community' by doing all of your work pro-bono.
I see you keep ignoring that. You are expecting to get paid to be a lawyer, yes?
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Napster "didn't rule out the possibility that the two sides would work out a settlement that allows the company to launch its legal service. "
They're perfectly willing to settle with the recording industry, which means they're perfectly willing to fuck the artists.
To solve the problems associated with the net is simple. But it requires a major change in thinking, and would require an act of congress to pull off.
What are the problems with the net?
1. Bandwidth costs too much. The more popular your site is, the more it costs you to run. But being more popular doesn't mean you're making more money.
2. Copyrighted materials are easily distributed... but money is not easily collected for their use.
The solution is to make a drastic change to how the net works:
Instead of the provider of data paying for the price of the data being shipped across the net, the RECIPIENT pays the cost.
With this simple change users would bear the cost of the bandwidth they use. However for each individual user, this price would be small. One gigabyte of bandiwdth right now is between $2-$5. For most people their cost would be around $1-$2 a month extra on their ISP bill.
If this were implemented the following things would happen:
1. If you run a popular site, you would make money. The more popular your site the more money you make. Popular sites would be guaranteed existence forever. No more would a site you love be shut down because the site had become TOO popular but was not making money from ads or marchandise.
2. ISP's would pay YOU if you run a popular webpage, and would compete for users who run popular webpages... driving down the percentage they take from the content provider.
3. No more spyware. Spyware is generally created because it's how they finance free software. But with this system if you make free software and offer it for download, you still make money from it! No need to put in evil spyware which makes very little money anyhow.
4. An apparent downside is that there would be little incentive for companies to make their webpages smaller and more compact. However, there is a limit to what users will be willing to tolerate from a site, and sites which take less time to load and offer the same content will be more popular.
5. Free software would flourish.
6. Musicians who make songs available on their website would make money from said songs. Music trading services could compensate artists whose music is downloaded from them.
Some downsides would be:
1. Many artists would not want their content distributed on sites where they aren't receiving a royalty. The easiest and most fair way to deal with this without having to send money out to every artists if you host a site which distributes art is hyperlinking directly to an artist's images with thumbnails. Then the person providing the thumbnails gets some money and the artist gets the majority of the money from an image being distributed. Of course such distribution is going to happen regardless... but that's going on anyhow.
2. It might be more difficult to have anonymous speech. Anyonymous file sharing systems would have to be utilized to cover the trails of anonymous speech, because a direct money trail would be too easy to follow.
3. Copyright owners would be more likely to sue and be able to claim damages. Post a short clip of your favorite show, or a fan art or fan fiction, and you could be in some serious trouble. Fair use laws would need to be changed.
Still, the benefits far outweigh the bad issues.
Actually, I do believe that they can sue for recompense at that point. (Of course, I'm not a lawyer...) It's my understanding that it doesn't matter that Napster is guilty of contributory infringement- if RIAA can't produce what Patel is asking for, the party that brought them to court over it isn't the one that has the right to do so.
Depending on whether RIAA knew that they didn't have the right to pursue this, RIAA could be guilty of barritry (The pursuit of a non-existant case- they didn't have a case, the individual artists did. That won't go well for them...) or at the minimum, misuse of process since they used the courts to shut Napster down (without negotiation for some sort of deal) only to have the labels open their own service up at the same time they opened up a similar service that was solely under the control of the self-same labels. Both violations can incur the right for seeking damages on the party so affected- Napster may well be able to sue for damages.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Nicely done. Hook, line, sinker, and copy of Angling Times.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Yes, copyrights and patents are narrow monoplies, granted by the government. But just because you're given a monopoly over redistribution of, say, Stayin' Alive, by the Beegees, it doesn't mean you're allowed to use that to gain a monopoly over all the music in the world.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
This has started because the Artists filed a friend of the court brief requesting that Judge Patel not issue a ruling that re-inforces the record companies claim that recordings are "works-for-hire". The record companies are trying to establish back door precedents by claiming the work-for-hire relationship in unrelated court cases.
In theory, this wouldn't be a big deal, because the label would just have to go back to the artists and get a signature authorizing the court action and they would get it, because I don't think there are very many artists out there (unsigned or not) who think Napster is acting in thier best interest. The catch is that by doing that, the labels would be admitting they don't have a work-for-hire arrangement with the artists.
That's why this means a settlement is immanent.
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
They can sue at any time they want. The issue of course is whether they win. I think the barratry argument is weak at best. I doubt the RIAA belived going into this that the labels didn't hold the copyrights. Either way I don't see this as a case "solely to harass."
There is no misuse of process since it has already been determined that Napster allowed copyright infringement and that was held up on appeal. There may be anti-trust issues at hand but that is up to the Justice Department to pursue.