Slashdot Mirror
Is The Net At Fault For Illegal Filesharing?
hbean writes: "Laywers for the file sharing programs Morpheus and Grokster are saying that if their client's programs are illegal for sharing copyrighted content, then so are the networks of ISPs that allow users to connect to each other -- check it out here. I wonder if these legal types are ever going to actually blame this on the actual people who are sharing ..."
Is it legal to be allowed to own a weapon ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
But it's so much easier to simply scapegoat an evil company.
And the highway system is responsible for all of those drunk driving deaths...
Sigh..
This made slashdot?
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
I wonder if these legal types are ever going to actually blame this on the actual people who are sharing ...
Doubtful - not much money to be had there...
I hope not. Getting only my ISP in trouble when I share files sounds like a good arrangement to me. Don't knock it, it works in our favor (most of us, anyway).
I'd rather be lucky than good.
This is really getting out of hand. Whoever said we should shoot all the lawyers... can't we? Please? It would be the happiest moment of my life!
These people need to get a grip.
"Next case"
"MPAA & RIAA vs. the Internet"
"Is the defendent ready?"
"011011001010111110010100110100...."
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
...ISP's (typically) use cable and phone lines. Sue the physical providers for making bandwidth available to the ISP in the form of copper lines to the house. Sue the people who developed TCP/IP and make it possible for computers to transmit information against the laws of the land. Sue the people who haven't sued all these people before, because their inaction caused such economic losses.
Really. It's a big world out there, and occasionally people have to own up to their own actions.
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
It's Canada's fault.
that gun makers are responsible for murders.
Sad part is, the US legal system seems to agree.
These same types of arguments have been used to attempt to sue gun manufacturers, auto manufacturers, and anyone else that makes a product an idiot can use to damage somebody elses revenue/property/life, etc, etc, etc. These companies shouldn't be held liable unless their product has NO legitimate use (which these obviously do).
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
> I wonder if these legal types are ever going to actually blame this on the actual people who are sharing
.. I'm not American. :)
.gif from Amazon of a cover of a "for Dummies" book, modified it, and gave it to my dad for Christmas.) I mean, things are screwed up right now, because the laws are made to claim damages from a centralized few victims with money, not to hold a public at large accountable for their behaviour.
/i/ wonder is when we'll start making laws that reflect the behaviour of society again, not laws that reflect the greed of an elite few.
Like the drug war! If you arrested everyone in the US who had committed a drug crime (including smalltime possession and use, the drug equiv of sharing a few Metallica files), you'd arrest an amount of people that equals the population of Texas, Arkensaw and Colorado. (Sorry if I misspelled any of those
If they went after the people sharing, half of the computer users in the US would be locked up. To say nothing of 'casual' copyright infringement (I used a
What
"Old man yells at systemd"
This is slightly off the topic of whether ISPs are to blame, but on the topic of Morpheus and their legal defenses:
Morpheus is down at the moment. When you try to connect, an error box pops up saying. "Your version of Morpheus is too old to connect to the network. Please download a new version at www.musiccity.com."
This is apparently a programming glitch caused overnight by developers -- there's no new version. It is interesting, however, because one of MusicCity's main defenses against being shut down was that they can't turn off the clients because they're fully distributed and aren't under central control.
This proves otherwise. I predict a court order will follow shortly and Morpheus will be gone.
The difference between the P2P clients and all the layers underneath that they're now pointing at, is that it's obvious that the primary purpose of the OS, ISPs, and internet is not illegal file sharing. I don't think it would be terribly hard to demonstrate that the primary purpose of Morpheus is to do just that.
Isn't it obvious that they're just using that as a counterexample? What the Grokster/Morpheus lawyers are saying is that OF COURSE the ISP's aren't at fault, and that they aren't doing anything the ISP's aren't. I've been arguing this from the very beginning.
Is the US Postal Service at fault when a letterbomb or anthraxed letter gets sent? What's the difference?
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
The sea and road networks should be declared illegal at once! Flying should be made illegal as well.
On the basis of what you may ask?
How do you think drugs get transported from one country to another? Teleport?
Hardly, drug trafficers use at least one of the aforementioned means of transport to move drugs from one country or part of country to another.
Now, before you mod me down saying that p2p file sharing is nowhere near as bad as trafficing drugs, let us not forget that the authorities see both activities as illegal.
if their client's programs are illegal for sharing copyrighted content, then so are the networks of ISPs that allow users to connect to each other
I think this is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum argument, where one side reduces the other side's argument to something patently ridiculous, to prove that it's wrong. With the general level of tech clue most judges seem to have nowadays (example: Marilyn Patel), people had better watch out, or the courts might actually end up outlawing (any useful form of) the Internet!
Just my $0.01
---Windows 2000/XP stable? safe? secure? 5 lines of simple C code say otherwise!
Well, they did (remember with Napster?) and all the people here who were insisting that the people involved in illegal sharing should be blamed started shrieking that the Gestapo was coming after innocent Napster users. Same thing when ISPs started booting abusers.
Anyway, IANAL, blah blah blah, but I still grasp the difference between an ISP or OS maker and a company whose core product is designed and marketed for facilitating copyright violation and whose customers are using it 99.9% for illegal sharing. I don't see a judge buying that line of reasoning.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Lawyers for Morpheus have filed a lawsuit against God for ceating people who use software that uses the Internet that transfers data which was created by people who then sold it to the RIAA who are suing the aforementioned lawyers (for Morpheus) for violating their trademarks by transferring music that they have copyrighted ...
If the net is responsible for file sharing and Al Gore invented the Internet. Shouldn't publishers sue Al Gore as the father of Piracy?
The people who use the software aren't easy targets. It's much easier to blame one person for a problem than it is a few hundred thousand.
Unfortunately, that means that the legitimate users of the software are getting screwed if the company does have to give in.
Also, why are there so many file sharing programs these days, anyway? Do they not realize what happened to Napster will probably happen to them as well?
Jeremy Baumgartner
Another end result could be the judge telling them to stop dicking around and go after the users, which will prove even more difficult.
Cause he invented the internet.. he should be on trial.
thelikesofwhich.com
of course they are responsible...
and so is microsoft for selling me the OS that made it possible
and gateway for my keyboard
digital for my monitor
that criminal who wrote the rfc for tcp/ip
intel for the CPU
the state of california for allowing some miscreant to supply me power to run my computer
microsoft again for the mouse
my boss for not watching me closely enough at work
and my wife is responsible because she helped me get up today on time for work, so I am now awake and can click on the file to share
whatever
The lawyers are not saying, "Blame these other parties too."
What they are saying is, "Blaming our clients for this is just as ridiculous as blamiong all these other parties would be."
Because there is substantial, non-infringing use of P2P file sharing, it is just as silly to sue the writer of the software as it would be to sue ISP's.
If you read the article, the EFF is involved in helping architect that defense. Everyone who reads Slashdot should know about the Electronic Frontier Foundation and what their role as "our lobbyist" is, just like everyone should read the article before posting a comment.
For those trying to get an informed opinion, here's the actual paragraph from the article:
:p
;)
"Lawyers for makers of the file-sharing applications Morpheus and Grokster say that, if their clients can be held responsible for illegal copies of music and motion pictures, then so too should companies such as Microsoft and AOL Time Warner, whose software and Internet connectivity are essential to building networks of file traders."
Notice any differences?
At any rate, this isn't an attempt to shut down the internet. It's a rhetorical question.. forcing people to ask questions about what is TRULY responsible for piracy. It's the age old gun cliche.. the gun isn't evil, it's the person holding it.
Bonus points to anyone who read the article, which by the pile of comments already posted, are few and far between.
Common carriers are not responsible for what is carried. Period.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Is copper. Sue the people who make copper wire...when they try to switch to aluminum, go after them too.
And what about the peple who make the PVC insulation...without it the whole thing wouldn't work.
Eventually the earth will open up and swallow all the lawyer types...I just hope I am alive to witness it.
Well folks, the real criminal here is that old bastard Alexander Graham Bell. If it weren't for that infernal contraption he created then none of this would be possible. I say we deport all of the lasting relatives to Cuba.
"where are we going, and why am I in a handbasket"
I wonder if these legal types are ever going to actually blame this on the actual people who are sharing ..."
No, because even those dunderheads realize that they will never be able to curtail the demand side for...FREE STUFF. Way better than drugs (no hangover!) is the addictive allure of FREE STUFF.
People will do just about anything to avoid paying for stuff. Just check out those breakroom donuts around noon...
Well, $*it Sherlock, then you'll have to blame mother nature for creating the oceans, a medium upon which pirates did their thing.
Sure, all the tools are there, and the medium is there, but ultimately, it's the person who uses them that make up the term "piracy".
That, and software being priced ridicuously high.
-Cyc
/.'s 10 Millionth
Yes, the Net can provide access for filesharing, but more directly involved are the people who write the file-sharing software (like Napster).
But of course, it ultimately rests on the file sharers themselves. The problem is that there are simply too many sharers to go after. Enforcement on that level is nearly impossible.
So the authorities go after sites and software developers in order to halt file sharing. but it's ridiculous to blame the Internet itself. Besides, there are too many legal uses of the Net to merit any action against it.
I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.
Big buisness and the gov dont give one rats ass to as what we think. Who pays the bills? Not us if we just pass the information/code from one machine to another. And this scares them. Little small things that we overlook keep building up into one giant monster that we cant stop. This has happened in other lots of other places over the years.
:)I feel my life getting smaller and smaller..fade to black..
Who knows maybe soon we will be running fiber from my house to my buds house just so that I can have a network where I dont have to be afraid.
I guess kindergarden got it wrong sharing is not good
If I were only smart enough to accomplish the things I dream about.. Or maybe too dumb to care.
Does this mean we can file a lawsuit against lawyers who allow themselves to be hired to conduct frivolous or harassing lawsuits for allowing themselves to be used to conduct frivolous or harassing lawsuits, instead of the people hiring the lawyers?
If people can sue gun makers for people being killed with their products...
Shouldn't I be able to sue Microsoft for making an Operating System that allows me to pirate software?
Shouldn't I be able to sue AOL for allowing me to access the Internet?
Yet another example of people unable to make the leap from meat-space to cyberspace.
(nt)
But then who would protect you? Your legislators?
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
I don't think they're playing 'pass the blame'. They are pointing out how stupid this whole mess is.
We can't blame highways for drunk drivers anymore than we can blame Morpheus,Napster, "insert your favorite P2P program here", for allowing "drunk" users for illegaly sharing files.
Sure this analogy is not really that good, Drunk driving is a much more serious issue than sharing files... but the premise behind it is the same.
"It's the people, stupid"....not the technology.
I think this is what Morpheus et al are saying.
my 2
Sean D.
"Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
Let's blame God, that'll be much easier.
This is not a particularly clever defense, and it won't mean anything. The problem the courts have with file-sharing services is that regardless of how you slice it, people use these services almost exclusively to pirate software and to share copyrighted music (whether or not you think this is legal is entirely up to you--the courts seem to think it isn't, or shouldn't be).
Ok, so they provide interconnectivity, just like ISPs. Yet somehow, almost all the pirating goes on on the P2P networks, instead of through the internet at large. This is because these services greatly facilitate the act of piracy. No matter how they try to weasel out of it, these services know what their service provides, and they're not fooling anyone.
visit the hwky website for a lyrical genius infusion.
When they can make a bigger impact on a greater number of people just by shutting down the services those individuals use. As soon as a service is used by a threatening number of people, it shows up and can be prosecuted back into obscurity again. The very thing that filesharing schemes need -- users -- dooms them to death when they become too popular.
Remember -- laws exist not to wipe out crime, but to make it less prevalent or less visible. After that, nobody cares anymore.
Someone seems to misunderstand the point of a reductio at absurdum demonstration. That's exactly the point the lawyers are making silly!
-- SIGFPE
What needs to be done here is a concerted legal and public relations attack on the MPAA and the RIAA, hell pull it under the guise of civil liberties, it has been found in US courts even Judges, Prosecutors (personally) and the Courts themselves are liable for Civil Damages, IF a civil liberty has been violated.
Wrap the MPAA and the RIAA up in this start distributing a client (allowning only downloads of your own music or non copyrighted material) and lie in wait, when the MPAA or RIAA sets out to bust your chops you got em, VERY got em.
The other is ad and canvassing campaigns, get local printers to volunteer services for print (for yes advertising) and start distributing leaflets and taking signatures.
If anyone has any CONSTRUCTIVE ideas on direct concepts of being targeted by the MPAA send them to my email address. There is a limit to their power, companies are easy to go after, but if they even in one case blatantly violate the civil rights of one citizen its much easier to demonize them as well as litigate against them.
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
Well, Morpheous, Napster, et al are all Windows based clients. Does that mean Microsoft is at fault for allowing their OS to run such subversive software? Hmmm....Bill vs. RIAA. I wonder who would win.
I remembered that Morpheus isn't the only client for the fasttrak(IIRC) network.
I downloaded Kazaa, opted out of all the spyware and was back to downloading.
So untill they prove that they can shut down the entire fasttrak network disabling one client at a time will get kind of tiresome.
Morpheus would then be your automobile, yes? So, do you sue Ford when someone's plastered and they mow down a family in their car? No, obviously not! You sue the individual.
.. Howwabout the guys who make your newsreader client? .. Microsoft Outlook's newsreader? .. Obviously not.
I'm with them on this. Sue the USERS. Go for it.
If you say don't go for the users - this gets messy.
Gunna sue giganews?
in this country is a good benchmark, then sure the net is to blame.
He is the one who invented the internet in the first place.
In order to avoid liability all developers have to do is create a file sharing program that it's developers or maintainer's cannot track files and users? This seems to be a flimsy defence at best. If this is the case however, then programs like Freenet will give the likes of MPAA, headaches.
Just you're average nitpicker.
as prisons are already over flowing arresting the millions of americans who use "illegal" drugs would be problematic as well as nearly impossible
not to mention morally wrong
and lets also not forget that drug legislation goes against the constitution and a variety of your rights
check my sig for more info
Better yet, it's like saying that FedEx, UPS, PayPal, eBay, and the USPS are just as responsible for me getting stiffed as the person actually stiffing me.
that Al Gore is ultimately responsible?
AOL/TW , Disney , Universal , Microsoft, EMI?
Maybe we should lay blame at the actions of the RIAA and MPAA for making media so inaccessable.
Personally the worst thing for me is CSS stopping me from skipping the copyright or any other stuff tagged as 'info'.
I think DECSS is a very good idea because it allows people to skip past copyright notices and advertisements on DVDs you own.
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
Since the 'original' Napster case, I've maintained that an application like Napster is fundamentally no different than an anonymous FTP server. Following that logic, and the logic presented above, FTP servers should all be illegal, as they can be used illegally. Some lawyers are simply thieves.
1) Toilet seats cause pregnancy.
2) Guns don't kill people...
3) You'll go blind if you do that.
4) Filesharing is illegal. Is it not illegal. If I want to share a 10 minute recording I made of my guts gurgling after eating a dozen eggs and a litre of olive oil, called "...And justice for all" it is not illegal.
Anything I own I can choose to share freely. Copying a copyrighted work and sharing it freely is illegal.
I wish they would get to the root of the problem, the music today that doesn't suck is way too expensive, or bundled with many other tracks that do suck. When another album like "Rumours" or "Dark side of the Moon" is released, I'll buy it, but I'm not paying again for albums that I've already bought 2 or 3 times (Vinyl, tape, CD).
Until they start producing decent music that I want to buy, the RIAA can fold it till it's all sharp corners and cram it up their ass.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
It's just like going after Napster because people use it for illegal activity. Now, even though only an idiot would argue that people weren't using Napster to circumvent copyright, it creates a problem because now it's no longer the act of piracy itself that is at issue, but the facilitation of piracy.
:)
Of course, one could say we should sue all the record labels because the move to digital format itself is what's making piracy so easy.
The thing is, by making it about facilitation, it becomes subjective. And that's a big problem, when the only people with the power to quantify an inherently subjective process are sitting in the pockets of massive corporations (or are (IMO) underpaid members of the EFF...). We see it as reductio ad absurdum, but we live and breathe this stuff. The lawyers and judges and politicians don't see that going after Napster because it allows copyright infringement is using the same logic as eliminating all oxygen because it's keeping the music pirates alive which in turn facilitates the piracy.
What it comes down to is this -- there's no way that they can get the pirates, so they've stopped trying. Instead, they're going for centralized areas that allow tools that could potentially aid piracy, or bringing up ludicrous acts like the DMCA so that you can't do whatever you want with something you just bought. It's like what you see with that story earlier today about trying to restrict what your computer can or cannot do. It's a constantly evolving process that, unchecked, will eventually end up with useless bits of metal and plastic in front of us that are programmed to do nothing but gradually empty our bank accounts while showing us pretty pictures.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Could you imagine that trial? The total amount of worldwide (hell, even just american...) filesharers? That would kill them... The media would have to report on the sheer number of people, not to mention the number of famous, politically active, law enforcement, and other high profile people that would be involved. Hell, I bet even RIAA and MPAA members would be involved. It would halt any further litigation.
Peace, Love, Games
All the /. posts about "so then highways are to blame for drunk driving, air for bullets, God for everything" etc. etc. are actually, ironically, making these guys' point. The original article makes it clear that the lawyers are trying to point out what happens when you take their opposition's argument to its logical conclusion. That is, it leads to ridiculous consequences.
/. should have a "Clearly didn't read article" downmod.)
Unless, of course, they just figure that if AOL/Time Warner becomes a co-defendent, they'll be able to rake in bigger fees than Morpheus etc. can afford.
(Sometimes I wonder if
Maybe I misread something in the article, but I get the impression the lawyers are not trying to blame anything on anyone.
This doesn't sound like an argument, it's a counterargument, they're trying to disprove the argument of the media companies by reduction to the absurd (excuse the mistranslated latin).
They're saying that if you're going to blame them, you might as well follow the logical fallacy to the extreme and blame the world that allows this to happen, including the media companies that are suing since they own ISPs. The plaintiffs don't get to choose up to which point their blame-the-tools logic applies.
Since that doesn't make sense, you have to face the facts that they are not responsible for the actions of individual users.
They're not perpetuating the insanity. They're demonstrating why it is insane.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
it's not like any of this is new
in the 1800s winchester was sued for the deaths of people shot by his rifles..
i'm sure there are existing legal precendents for these things, and while i'm not a lawyer i am the son of one and i know that the law tends to err on the side of tradition
so whatever the verdicts were in early cases would definitely be used to prove a point one way or the other here..
anyone care to do some research while i go take a shower? =)
I am an artist and an amature writer. I own a domain and pay for hosting service. I host my artwork, which I have made available for free download, on my website. I also host both my fiction and my non-fiction on the same website. I pay a certain amount every year for domain and hosting.
I also pay a certain amount per year for cable modem service. If I wasn't afraid of the privacy implications of running a file-trading service such as Morpheus, Kazaa, etc... I could host those files on my own cable modem connection rather than pay through the ass for domain and hosting.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
i think its a good point that should have been brought up earlier (especially in napsters case) since all kinds of programs like ftp and instant messaging progs allow you to share files (and mp3s) how can you claim damages because one program happens to only search for specific file types?
Ave Molech Setting
I wonder if these legal types are ever going to actually blame this on the actual people who are sharing ...
i think the problem with going after individual people who are sharing files is a twofold:
on one hand there are just plain too many of them and going after a few wont make a big difference, unless they turn it into a huge publicity issue and try to ruin said scapegoat's life
which brings us to the second issue... you end up turning said person into a martyr and get alot of bad publicity, from people who might otherwise be more sympathetic for your cause
either way going after small individuals is more trouble than it's worth.. they are the lesser evil
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
What exactly is the EFF's stategy here?
There's no arguing the logic. The internet is by definition an efficient way to exchange digital information, whether copyrighted or not. I remember my little brother making this same argument over Christmas dinner during the Napster saga.
But what are they hoping to accomplish by making this argument in court? Trying to increase the absurdity of their opponents case? Is it mainly for PR?
I don't think it will do much good in either case. Either people will say "Right on!" if they thought the Napster ruling was garbage, or they will say "Yep, the internet needs better controls, just like Napster".
My handle breaks slashcode, what does your handle do?
I'm puzzled why the Morpheus and Grokster have been pushed to these measures. Despite having to fight the 800-Gorrilla named the RIAA, this should not have been a difficult case. The Napster trial set a beautiful precedent that protects any pure peer-to-peer file sharing software (as opposed to Napster's model). Here's why - the old Sony VHS case (where Hollywood wanted to make VHS decks that could record illegal) was decided in Sony's favor, because
1)There was a legitimate use for their product.
2)There was no way for Sony stop people from using their product illegally once it was sold.
This second point is what the Napster case hinged on - the courts said that Napster didn't get protection under the Sony case specifically because they could control which files users could access. In making this decision, the courts implied that any file-sharing program where it is impossible to control users access to material (such as any peer-to-peer setup) would be protected by the Sony ruling.
-Adam
....a Beowulf cluster of lawyers!
Errr.... uh.... nevermind.
Sorry.
the REAL question we should be grappling with is, given the context, does it make sense that SHARING a string of zeros ands ones is ILLEGAL.
YMJV
The reason they do not go after the individuals is that it is simply even more futile to enforce then Jay Walking is. The problem is not getting a Judge to agree, but in finding a satisfactory remedy.
Also, the argument has the same validity as Gun Control lobbiests have (and I do agree with Gun Control). The Tool makes it really easy to commit a crime, and seems to have few other legitimate uses.
I do not beleive that File Sharing should be considered a crime. I also want to be able to make a living at my kick ass job making video games, so I am not against copyright either. The problem is how to give the copyright holders a fair market value without ignoring the current state of technology. The problem is non trivial, and I really do not have much in the way of valid answers for it.
END COMMUNICATION
Hmm...where do you draw the line between "Internet" and "other stuff?" Is the cable modem the end of it? The cabling between it and the broadband router? The NIC in my computer? And of course, we couldn't use the Internet without the hard drive, the motherboard, the processor...
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Well, if the ISPs are liable for providing the network that the sharing takes place over, and the file-sharing program vendors are also liable, then shouldn't the the record companies be liable themselves, for making it so expensive to BUY those songs? And the artists too, since they've made songs that tempt people into file-sharing?
WutzUnix?
Why is this even an on slashdot?
Morpheus/KaZaa is not responsible for copyright infringement. They make it easier to distribute audio, video, and applications (whether they be pirated or not), but if people really want something, they will get it.
4 years ago, before napster, i used IRC to get all my mp3s and such. Same for warez.
The ISPs arent responsible for infringement.
You dont sue the us postal service for allowing someone to mail something that might be illegal.
You dont sue sears for making a hammer if someone uses it to break into a house by smashing it into a window.
Piracy is a moral issue. Steve Jobs said it best.
I am looking for a good way to share resource among amny diffrent people in the museum. They want a centeral server for it but I said we might be able to get something along the line of P2P to work. So these programs are not just for trading programs and mp3 but can be used by large companies that have lots of info that only a few need access to. Mmmmmmm... P2P == Pay TO P
Dr. Suess: 'Gandalf, Gandalf! Take the ring! I am too small to carry this thing!' 'I can not, will not hold the One.
was going to submit this as an ask slashdot, but I said forget it.
When do I own a packet?
After I request it?
When the media it travels down is owned by me?
When it hits my computer and the TCP/IP stack does something with it?
When I sign my service agreement?
I guess RIAA thinks they always own the packet.
For about the last year I've been sharing my network with my neighbors, we all own our houses, and have given each other "right of way" to run cat5 stapled to the fence into each others houses. What started out as a simple 1 wire connection has grown to over 24 pairs of copper (i.e. 6 lines)
Each neighbor prepays 6 months in advanced, 10 dollars a month. With this money i've managed to get the bandwidth up to 1.5down and 512up. Their kids can download on napster all day long and it still wont lag my gaming connection. Not only do I share an internet connection with them, but my fileserver as well. We have a central repository for music, a phpnuke based site for updates on the network status.
Our equipment is pretty nice too, everyone has intel pro100 management cards. Our main nat server used to be a linkcyst router, but it has evolved into a k62-300 running bbiagent. (nifty little firewall on disk, bbiagent.net)
So the question of when do I own the packet comes up again.
We don't have a classC subnet, we're all using nat on the 192.168.x.x range. I thought that range was set aside as a non routable "private" network. Private as in mine, err I should say our co-op. It doesn't belong nor resemble our providers network in any way shape or form. We maintain it, upgrade it, support it, ect.
Take for example, the DSL I use now. It runs on POTS telephone service, which has not seen any signifigant change since Alexander Bell said "hello" 100 years ago. Basically whenever you make a phone call, the line between you and the person on the other end is a complete circuit. The best analogy I can make is this would be like taking a trip from LA to Chicago, with all the freeways empty except for your car during the duration of your trip. It's a complete waste of resources.
This is really turning into a long rant.
I just don't see RIAAs justification for eradicating Napster from my network.. If they want to control what kind of network I have at home, they can run the cable, and buy my hardware. Hunting down people that just want to share an internet connection is bullshit (pardon my french) and is just another way of deflecting from the REAL problem which is people are starting to wake up to the fact that what they have percieved for years as good music from the record industry is not the truth. I think it's about time people stopped accepting what the RIAA try and shleff off as good music and start demanding that they stop with the britney spears, backstreet boys and all the other crap they try and tell us is music, instead of taking it out on the customers that underwrite their business.
With this kind of reasoning, who ISN'T guilty? You could go after Dell, Gateway, etc. because after all, you need a computer in order to pirate software... And you need electricity to power your computer.. etc.
Why would any of these companies want to blame the user? Wouldn't be like biting the hand that reads the ads that feed you?
Moderating to further my personal world domination agenda... and to get chicks.
If the network is to blame, are they going to start legal action against the authors of ftp and ftpd?
Take away the tools, and people will still swap files. Napster, gnutella, Morphous, ftp, IRC, backpacks of CDRs, SneakerNet, it cant be stopped.
"Trying to prevent the copying of digital files is like trying to make water not wet." --B. Schnider.
(I used a .gif from Amazon of a cover of a "for Dummies" book, modified it, and gave it to my dad for Christmas.)
This is not actually illegal. Copyright law only applies to publication or distribution, and showing something to a family member is not considered either of these. You can remix any song with any other song you'd like or make a poster from your favorite movie in the privacy of your own home. It's when you make it public even in the smallest way that you get in trouble.
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
I propose a class action law suit against the Bar Association in the name of all the defendants in frivolous law suits.
I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
I wonder if these legal types are ever going to actually blame this on the actual people who are sharing ...
In related news, teaching little children to share was made illegal last week, after prolonged legal pressure from the RIAA.
Seriously, the reason orgs like the RIAA are freaking out about file sharing is *not* individual people sharing. It's the aggregate effect. Multiple people sharing online is a whole that is much greater than the sum of its parts. I can share MP3's with 5 of my friends over the Internet, but it won't be useful, since I can probably just go to their house and listen to them anyway.
The RIAA is used to bludgeoning people with laws, but there are no laws (AFAIK) dealing with behavior of random large aggregates of people (yes, there are laws dealing with corporations, etc., but corps don't have the diffused nature of the groups of people involved in Internet file sharing), so they're left tearing their hair out wondering what to do. In the past, the RIAA could clearly identify who they were going after, from the days of the sheet music "pirates" to song-writing plagiarists. Hence their current "blame the messenger" mentality, since at least they're able to *identify* who the messengers are without spying on people.
I disagree with the whole premise that individuals sharing files is wrong, I mean aren't we taught to share from the time we're little? (at least in the US). I think we're dealing with something entirely new with these large-scale anonymous file sharing applications. Most people on /. will say "duh," but really, look at the outside world. (Judges, etc.) Can you really say this point has made it into their heads yet?
---Windows 2000/XP stable? safe? secure? 5 lines of simple C code say otherwise!
If I buy a lead pipe at Home Depot & beat someone to death with it, is it the fault of Home Depot or the lead pipe? No. It's my fault. Fucking lawyers...
The case against God was dismissed (for now). They forgot he created music. Still this is pending the fact that there is no patent for music.
thelikesofwhich.com
Sue the power company.
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
Wrong Question:
There is no "The Net".
Thanks in advance,
Woot_spork
It's never been in dispute that you can be prosecuted as an individual for sharing files. What's under debate is whether you can be prosecuted for writing or using sharing software; the slant in the article says calling Morpheus a circumvention device is as accurate as calling the Internet itself a circumvention device. Since this notion is (hopefully) ridiculous, then the law must need adjustment.
God
That's right, the big guy upstairs has a hand in everything, and therefore should be held responsible. Free will, good/evil, intelligence, computers - they all came from God one way or another, isn't that the way it's supposed to work? And if churches are "Houses of God," doesn't that make them His assets, which could be confiscated to cover damages? It was God's will that people should share files, and therefore He is the guilty party - lock Him up and take away all His stuff.
Or maybe instead of bullying everyone who did anything that allowed someone to do something they didn't like, they could just go after the people who committed these "crimes." Right, that would force them to address the issue... Sorry for being realistic, I'll go hit myself over the head with a baseball bat until this makes sense...
I have the latest version 1.3.3 and have tried connecting from three diffrent locations. I have also chatted w/ some friends that are having the same problem.
What is the deal? Anyone else having this proplem?
Is this related to the post?
Furthermore, you may be supporting a terrorist
if you drink coffee; buy gasoline; buy tanzanite;
buy imported clothing; buy imported beer.......
blah...blah...blah.... more "reasoning" from the
Cheney-Rumsfeld administration.
I think it's his fault. If he didn't make the PC so easy to use and available to most of thw world, then no one (or most individuals) wouldn't have computers and therefore couldn't copy and share music. :-)
(StreamCast) could have either created a system that filtered the infringing activity while permitting non-infringing uses to continue," the movie studios and record companies had argued in their opposition to the EFF's motion for the summary judgment.
With prosecution arguments like this, I think EFF is on the right track (no pun intended), arguing that any network related device or software should be banned.
They are counter-attacking using the attacker's argument. In the real world, that's a winner situation. But since IANAL, I wonder what judges might interpret.
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
The air is actually doing its best to prevent that bullet from getting to its destination. Without the air, the bullet would get there much quicker and more efficiently, simply utilizing the space between the two points.
With your analogy, air might equal the spam that the files have to fight their way through to get to the end user's hard drive.
You still have the spyware installed on your computer! See here Spychecker Kazaa page. What even funnier is check out the privacy policy of Kazaa. :)
I wonder if these legal types are ever going to actually blame this on the actual people who are sharing ..."
They can't sue/prosicute everyone using the software, so they go after the central points.
If they stop the devolpers, the software dies.
If they stop the ISPs, the software can't be used.
Lastnight on the local news a story was done on online prostitutes. The husband of one of the prostitutes blamed the internet for his wife becoming an internet escort girl instead of blaming his wife. Sounds like the same argument. I couldn't believe that guy. I understand the EFF is obviously doing for a different reason but it still seems like a red herring.
Yes but every time I try to see it your way, I get a headache.
What does Kazaa and Morpheus do?
Allow you to do a search over various hosts until you find a host that has a file that you are looking for. Once you found that host you connect to that host and download something from them.
What does google and yahoo do?
Allow you to do a search ( from their listing... hmmmm like napster? ) until you find a host that has a file that you are looking for. Once you found that host you connect to that host and download something from them.
What's the difference?
Guns don't kill people...
Bullets don't kill people...
Gunpower doesn't kill people...
A combination of Chemistry and Physics kills people!
The moral of the story is that there will always be a lawyer to argue that you are not at fault for something.
The goal of these lawyers seems to be protect Kazaa/Napster-type networks, not destroy them. I suspect that the blame is being shifted to the ISPs instead of the users for a reason of twofold:
First, because they want to shift the blame from the p2p client software makers.
Second, so as to place the blame on an unprosecutable entity. While individuals can be prosecuted one by one, it's not financially viable or realistic - there'd be an unheard number of cases. However, if companies were to be brought to court, there would be a lot of pushing and shoving, and a lot of other such nonsense. It would be a much more evenly matched conflict, as opposed to the corporate lord picking on the civilian cerfs. If this were the case, it's unlikely the MPAA would take action. (I don't imagine that Time Warner will be making moves against AOL at any point soon, do you?)
All of this copyright garbage is a bunch of nonsense - they make enough money on each CD or DVD sold to pay for the production of 4+ such items, possibly including the price of production. It is simply a grab for more money (read: power and control). I wonder what it would take to form a nonprofit organization to combat such claims as the MPAA,RIAA, etc. in a more broad front, where people can donate money to support their rights of freedom? If people, Americans, can't even fight oppression of freedom with their money, where will you support it?
It would be interesting to see a film or music studio open up that was supportive of artist rights, and the right of people to do freely with what they purchase freely. I think it likely that such a music studio would have a lot of bands change labels, for philosophical reasons alone. Everyone knows that artists (of any type) are more likely to be motivated by philosophical reasons than other folks (for example, Britney Spears or Metallica).
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Everyone knows that drug dealers all use beepers, to stay in contact with their customers. Beepers definately play a major role in the illegal drug trade. So we should outlaw beepers, or hold beeper companies liable for all crimes enabled by beepers.
This just in....
Apparently the RIAA, has pulled a patent out of it's ass for music, a press release states that they will be back charging royalties/license fees since the beginning of time.
They're at fault for speeding. And hit-and-run fatalities.
If they are just providing transport (IP connectivity), then I can't see the cable companies being responsible.
However, newsgroups are becoming increasingly popular for file exchange (everything from e-books to mp3 to full length movies). In this scenario:
- if the cable company is providing a news server,
- and they are distributing the newsgroups in question to their subscribers (a decision they have to actively make),
- and they are charging (know any that don't
:-)
then I think that the cable company accepts the responsibility and any liability. It's not your responsibility to insure that the movie the cable company puts on channel X is legitimate. Why would it be your responsibility to insure that the movie, e-book, mp3 in newsgroup X (provided by your cable company) is legitimate?Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
Blame everyone but the people downloading the stuff. Look, I'm not passing judgement, just saying that the people dling are causing the problems.
My $.02
...and start a class-action lawsuit against Al Gore, since HE is the one who got us in this mess alltogether by creating the damned Internet!
That'll teach them left-wing liberals!
I doubt their arguement will succeed. Thery're essentially saying because someonel else did something that could be illegal, and you didn't go after them, then you shouldn't be able to go after them.
To use the gun anaolgy here, it's like someone who is caught running guns from Va to NYC: "We'll, the store in Va sold them to us, and Colt made them, but you didn't arrest them. We should be set free as well."
Why do I think there arguement is absurd?
1. You don't have to go after everyone who may have done soemthing illegal, especially in civil cases - the person suing gets to pick and chose. The "he did it too" defense didn't work in kindergarden, and probably won't work here as well.
2. Just as a newstand generally isn't resposnible for some copyright violation in a magazine it carries, and the phone company and phone manufacturer isn't liable for your call giving an illegal stock tip, companies that make software that has legitimate uses aren't going to be liable for illegal activities. Peer2Peer has a lot of legitimate uses, which should be enough to protect the developers. That makes me wonder if there isn't soemthing where the developers said "Let's build something to get around the MPAA/RIAA and what they did to Napster" and tehy're worried. I think they may feel there case is weak and decided to spread some FUD in hopes of avoiding a negative judgement.
I think they are grasping at whatever straws are available to try to salvage their case. The judge's ruling should be interetsing to read.
IANAL
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Of course, many of you out there are making logical comparisons... Here's one of my favorite:
Obviously, I must be concidered a serial rapist... I mean, I have the necessary equipment and everything. We'd better lock me up in the public good.
Not to mention that all you ladies out there must be prostitutes. You all posess the technology...
*Sigh*
Jason
He's totally creeping out the Great One, eh...
In some places it's actually required. E.g., everyone knows about the Swiss, but a friend once commented on the paradox of Canada requiring private aircraft carry long guns (at least when flying over British Columbia and the Yukon - wild territories where a gun is essential survival gear if you go down) while simultaneously refusing to let Americans carry their guns across the border. What's an American pilot flying to Alaska supposed to do?
Guns are also pretty much required once you get into the American or Australian outback. Some people live in areas with large and occasionally vicious animals (e.g., grizzlies), and police hours away at the best of times.
As for the impact of guns on violence - guns don't help big guys like me kill people. I can still defend myself with my fists, or with my hunting knife, or with a knife from my kitchen.
But guns allow my 70 yo mother to have a chance against an attacker. The "equalizer" was called that for a reason.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
According to BMG the old folk-tune, "Noah, that silly man", from 5000 B.C. would etimate to $3.2 Billion shekels in royality fees.
thelikesofwhich.com
Time to break out the analogy warfare
Its about as illegal to operate an ISP in the light of P2P sharing as it is to operate a highway in the light of drug dealers trying to get away from cops.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Have it your way, I'm suing every artists and their managers and their record label, that has it's files shared online, willingly or not, for not protecting their property the right way, thus devaluating the price of my CDs that I can't resale because everybody made cheap copies and nobody wants them anymore.
:)
Hey.. that doesn't sound as stupid as I thought... any pro bono lawyers? MAKE MONEY FAST!
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
watch out... you'll get busted for being overly sane!
Maybe i should become a lawyer, This type of question was the first thing i asked myself when the whole napster thing came out.
Here are a few of the similaries i came up with....
Copiers - Can be used to copy content on mass scales, but arent outlawed
VCRs- Also can be used to copy stuff, and are for the most part used for 'techincally illegal' purposed, but also arent outlawed
Video Cameras - Possible to copy content, but again not outlawed
Still cameras - Not very conventient, but also a means of copying intelectual material
Tape Recorders - Also can be used to copy content, but again no regulations
Pen and paper - Very inconvenient but still possible to copy with, but of course, not outlawed
And some other examples....
You can traffic trugs on the highway, should they be outlawed as well?
Gloves can be used to assist in stealing things without being caught. Should they be outlawed?
Knives can kill someone almost as easily as guns can. Should they to be forbidden?
You can never outlaw everything capable of commiting crimes. And i dont see how the courts have ANY legal backing at all to shut down services such as Napster and Kazaa etc.... They dont force people to commit crimes, they dont assist people in commiting crimes, they make a service available that is very open and leave it up to the users to use it responsibaly. Maybe the RIAA should sue wal mart for displaying their music in a way that makes it *possible* to steal.
"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
"You have used this software to download so much pr0n that you are actually the first person to wear out a piece of software. Please download a fresh copy."
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
No. Of course not. You and I don't have enough money to make it worth the time it would take for ``these legal types'' to pursue us. ISPs, OTOH, actually have money. If not cash in the bank, at least property that could be seized and sold to pay the legal penalties.
\begin{pessimism}
Remember. The legal system sees problems with the existing body of laws when they determine that there's some activity that isn't currently covered by the legal system and which, if it were covered, could result in two parties sueing each other and resulting in legal fees for a large number of lawyers.
\end{pessimism}
...is that eventhogh the goverment doesnt like us the fact that it is very easy for me to get copyrighted data that even if i use the software to only downlode the data that i already bought becouse i cant find my origenal cd then im not breaking the law at all. only because they arent capebal of getting only the bad peopel that i have to suffer and im not doing anything rong.
Q: Is the road (thus, the government) responsible for my parking and speeding tickets ? Without those roads, I would never have had the chance to speed, thus I would not have been fined.
... ahem! no, not really. Shit happens buddy. Better luck next life.
A: No. What I do with the road is of my business and responsibility.
Q:Is the phone company liable if I receive death threats from an irate caller ? What if he/she follows through and subsequently tries to physically assault me ? What if I get killed ?
A: Oh my god, you could be killed. Sue everything!
Q: Is Sony the one to be sued if my Discman is old and damaged, refusing to play any CD with a minor scratch or kink, thus discouraging me from buying newer CDs and reducing some fat industry executives' royalty payments ?
A: Absolutely. You're destroying the american economy. Sue Sony, sue the store that sold you the Discman, sue your neighbor because he wouldn't lend you HIS Discman, then once you've sued everyone clean and fattened your wallet, the RIAA will sue YOU just because they can.
Translation: The article points it out quite clearly and honestly that this is yet another stupid frivolous lawsuit that has buckets of legal precedents against it, thus it shouldn't even last 5 minutes in the courtroom. We'll just have to see how effective the legal system really is, or finally admit to ourselves that law is merely a purchased commodity.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I realize this isn't in the spirit of capitalisim of which I'm a strong supporter of, but why don't the people and yes, I mean you, me and our mothers, just do away with the RIAA and MPAA?
/.
Think about it, it used to be artistry was done for the love of art. If you got paid for it, it's because someone else's love of your art. Plays, concerts, paintings ( images ). If the artists and the public agreed to remove the greedy middleman, then the problem would be resolved. Easier said than done, I know.
So let people distribute all media types free and clear? It exposes people to more art, all types of art. Through the p2p file sharing I've been exposed to many types of art I wouldn't have been previously exposed to. Some I liked, some I didn't. If I liked it enough, I become a fan and may wish to pay for it. Whether it be to attend a musical concert, go see/buy a movie, or wish to attend an art museum to see good art in real life.
The sooner all people accept the fact that the sooner all information in any form is free and available to the public, the sooner everyone wins. ( Except for of course the RIAA & MPAA. )
-TheRowk
Yes, I've given up on ever scoring above a 0 on
You can change without improving, but you can't improve without changing. -Quote stolen from I don't remember who
my god, just let the piracy tools die. who cares, they mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.
if they keep reassigning blame like they are doing right now, guess what is next. networks that do not offer any possibility for security, since they will have to make sure no "piracy" can be done on them. after that? secure computers and hardware that prevent you from doing anything the MPAA doesn't want.
they are playing right into the MPAA's hands, as this is exactly what they want.
He did invent the internet after all.
Interview with a Search Engine
If they went after the people sharing, half of the computer users in the US would be locked up.
Maybe that's what they should be doing to drug users too... You can't go wrong with fines and community service...
-OR-
3rd party Copyright bounty hunters could just take people to civil or small claims court. You might think twice about sharing copyrighted material on Morpheous if there was some guy waiting to get a $5000 judgement against you and split it with the copyright holder.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
President Bush has said that those that harbor and support terrorists are terrorists themselves and should be stopped. ISP's the harbor and support theives should be stopped as well?
I know there's quite a difference between terrorism and theives that 'steal copyrighted music', but it makes for a good argument.
Ack! I wanted to get first post, but I was too busy completing my collection of Star Trek: TNG episodes from Morpheus. Now what were we talking about again? Oh yeah, those bastard ISPs and their illegal ways!? They should all be sued! I can't be responsible for what I download! ;)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Oh bother.
Is it legal to be allowed to own a weapon ?
... the first three in historically documented mass murders, the last in countless individual "crimes of passion."
I know this is rhetorical, and I am underscoring the point you wish to make:
Do you own a car? A boat? An airplane? A kitchen knife?
All of these have been used as weapons
Banning weapons means banning everything, up to and including manditory amputation of everyone's arms and legs and, if headbutting is included, decapitating everyone in the world altogether. Banning tools, or even single purpose weapons, is pointless as a means of reigning in violence. Just as it is pointless and counterproductive to start banning technology as a means of reigning in copyright violation.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
If I use a hammer to break someone's face, then it's obviously the fault of the hammer...
How many people have been convicted using the offending software?
In order to be a den of thieves, you must have thief. If I own a dance club and you bust 2 people a week for breaking the law (selling drugs) in my restroom. Well at that point yes as a business/service I am failing at maintaining proper control. Simply stating that people sell drugs in my bathroom and "everyone" is doing it should not get me in any trouble. If these services are full of people committing crimes start nailing them and then shut the service down. How can a service/company possibly defend themselves if no crimes have BEEN PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW!
This defense seems lame but it is even more lame to think of being brought on charges with NO FELONIES on the books. If 99% of the people use this service illegally this should be easy to accomplish. Then and only then can you attack the business. If we allow companies to be shut down without prior reason we will live in a much different society.
if i shoot someone, is the gun maker responsible? if i stab someone, is the company who made the knife at fault?
if i hit somebody with my car, can they sue the D.O.T. for creating the roadway that i was using?
in any other crime, it comes down to intent, not the vehicle/method of committing it. the only reason the software/net are even mentioned here is because it's damn near impossible to prosecute everyone who intends to swap music/files illegally.
what they don't realize is that this is the revolutionary reaction to an oppressive system that has, for too long, served the system as opposed to the users. as the cost to manufacture and distribute music has plummeted, the cost to buy a CD has gone up?!
i'd like to think that if CD's gradually decreased in price since their introduction, and a music CD only set you back $4.99 right now, song-swapping services would have never been born. there would have been no intent to deceive the system, because the system would be fair.
the music industry opened pandora's box, and now they can't close it, and they're pissed.
www.pixelectric.com
The kind of "thought" in the legal world is frightening. Its similar to the ideas motivating the Canadian government to introduce bills that seek to make ISPs reponsible for criminal activities on their network, such as the distribution of child pornography.
This seems to be another bit of fallout from the societal trend to blame the circumstances "making criminals" rather than making the criminals responsible for their own choices.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
"I just lawyered the fsck outta you!"
This sig is worse than my last.
I guess I'll sue the internet too.
I blame it for my huge porn collection, my endless wasted hours playing Rocket Arena or the MMORPG flavor of the week.
I blame it for letting those pesky Chinese seek a voice in the international community despite the heavy handedness of their government. I mean how dare they speak up about their government in a free speech medium!
Hell, I blame AL GORE for inventing it!
Mr. Gore, if you're reading this, I'm sure we can reach an amicable settlement. Please have your checkbook ready.
(Note for those who cannot detect irony, sarcasm, humor or anything else without getting offended: The remark about the Chinese is actually NOT meant to insult the general populace. Thank you, drive through.)
(Note about the note: It seems these days you can't say anything without a disclaimer for the people who take everything literally these days. Blah.)
The Lawyers have to go after the ISP's.
They are the only ones involved that
actually may have some money.
SOMEONE has to pay for their BMW's !
I expected the article to end with the EFF lawyers saying "We're not going to sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America! Gentelemen!" And walking out of court humming the Star Spangled Banner...
Is The Net At Fault For Illegal Filesharing?
In a word: YES!
The internet is "disruptive technology". Previously publishers added economic value to the stream of commerce that flows from authors and artists to consumers. Suddenly, nearly all creative works can be represented in a digital form (usually with higher quality to boot), reproduced at virtually no cost, and distributed at virtually no cost.
The entire business model of most publishers is now non-value added waste. The market knows it, the people know it, and the publishers even know it.
Unfortunately, our form of government is not geared to be responsive to the public or the market. Free markets and the public demand the elimination of waste, but our form of government is optimized to achieve a different goal: to create a regulatory paradigm where Congress grants regulatory favors to those who are able to contribute the funds needed to assure the reelection of the people in the system.
Our legislators have gone through a vigorous natural selection process that ensures they truly believe it is important to ignore the wishes of the people, indeed even the rights of the people, so as to perpetuate the unnatural power base of a cartel created not by competition, but by regulation even after the very service that it provides can be accomplished on demand by any 10 year old with no out of pocket expense.
The internet was designed precisely to acheive what it does acheive: a radically better way to distribute files. People should see this for what it is and also dispel any feelings of guilt they have for using it to its fullest capabilities to destroy those industries that survive only by misuse of government to protect revenue streams based on turning waste into value based on corrupt regulation.
In fact, EVEN IF a few poor starving millionare artists have to suffer unfairly to achieve it, I recommend that people feel no guilt about sharing files instead of feeding the cartels. It is far better to kill a little skin burning off the leach than to allow it to feed off of you unchecked.
Broadband has been shown to be primarily used for copyright infringement. Yes, that's right (and supported by evidence), most broadband users pirate one or more of music, movies, applications, pr0n or other copyright infringements. So is morpheus, though neither has any inherent design to specifically do so. It just allows the users the optimum in flexibility - the users can do and share(almost) what they want. That the users want to pirate, should not be grounds to shut it down.
If you want a legal service, just bloat it with everything else or sufficently cripple it until you can until file sharing isn't the biggest thing anymore. I haven't seen anyone try taking down irc because of fserve's, have you? Does it make any sense? Nope.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
and enforced a 24 hour curfew because all those evil people walked the streets passing things to each other or speaking to each other.
The point is the net is just infrastructure like roads. We don't ban the roads or put searches on every junction to stop the unctonrolled disribution of things.
There are two different points in your "banning weapons" statement, and I think you are grouping them together improperly.
Banning contact weapons is silly. Just about anything can be made into a contact weapon, starting with the pencil I'm not writing this with, to the laptop I am writing this with, to the car I drove this morning.
But contact weapons usually include an element of personal danger on the user. If you get close enough to hit me with a laptop, I can hit you back.
Ranged weapons are a different matter. (Generally, guns and bows.) Yes, they are the great equalizer. God made men, Sam Colt made them all equal, and all that stuff. But there's a disconnect there. If only one party involved in a vigorous disagreement has a ranged weapon, you pretty much know the winner. This is part of why police (as a group, there are a lot of individual exceptions) want to be the only people allowed to have guns... it makes the police a lot safer. Unfortunately, in our imperfect society where criminals ignore the law and have guns too, it makes unarmed law-abiding citizens less safe. Ranged weapons are equalizers only in cases where all parties have them. This is part of why shall-issue concealed-carry laws are so nice.
But it isn't really correct, personally, to group contact weapons and ranged weapons together, from a practical standpoint. From a U.S. Constitutional standpoint, sure.
But "as a means of reigning in violence" contact weapons and ranged weapons are different matters.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
In a confrontation with Orrin Hatch, one of the authors of the DMCA, Hillary Rosen of the RIAA said it was illegal to copy your own CD for the car, or your wife, or backup. Mr. Hatch corrected her. She was not amused. These clowns want pay per view on EVERYTHING; they have even attacked libraries.
Infuriate left and right
Sure these diferent software can be used to pirate software, music, etc. but files sharing can be done other ways. Are they going to go after them too? FTP has always been the more constant way to get illegal software why don't that go after them too? Are they going to sue the companies like CuteFTP or open source ones like DeadFTP? Just because a program or service allows file sharing does not fault the creators of the software.
Ok, pure speculation on my side, but anyway...
:)
How about that they will prove (remember, big guys with big buck are there) that Net IS responsible for some piracy and as follow the revenue drop from big 5 (or 6, don't remember). What is obvious next step? Next step is some sort of TAX on net usage/lines/routers/net related stuff to cover these losses. Just the way like CD taxed and for the same reasons!
It is getting freedomer and freedomer every day
To suggest that morpheus is 'designed and marketed for facilitating copyright violation' is both erroneous and mis-leading: I suggest that you read the EULA that you clicked-through (validity of EULA is irrelevant, as it merely exposes the intents of the developers in this case) and feed your variables some valid data.
I'm grateful for this product because I can share my home-made music that people wouldn't get to hear otherwise.
Think about this, think hard about this.
/. makes the following statement:
Think about society, cultures, businesses, governments, networking and people...
Think about interactions.
This comment here on
Who knows maybe soon we will be running fiber from my house to my buds house just so that I can have a network where I dont have to be afraid.
Of all things, this is the ONE thing that has business and governments, worldwide, scared the most. Why?
There are a number of reasons - but the main reason lies in the networking, and the effects of that networking. All of a sudden, participants in the network are informed quickly, and can react to challenges much more quickly than "normal" networks (such as ordinary society) can, simply because the interconnections are greater and faster. Another reason is that such an online networked society has the capability of becoming a
self-governing body - a virtual anarchal nation, of sorts. One that exists, but the pieces reside in meatspace nations - so who does the meatspace nations "attack" to remove this threat? The meatspace citizens? Each other?
With these P2P applications, we are seeing the beginnings of this - they don't know who to attack, yet. They are probably getting antsy over people setting up "freenets" using optical and wireless (as well as some wired) links. Because they know as these get larger, they will interconnect. The fear is that this new "internet" will resist corporate intrusion - and become a globe spanning truely "Free"-net. Free in speech, that is.
Of course, the next level scares them most: People will always barter, trade, sell, etc - but on this new net it won't likely be corporate to person, but rather person to person, P2P - we already see it happening on these P2P networks - I have something, trade you this for that. Info for other Info. But what happens when the info becomes the real currency?
Because really - dollars don't exist. There isn't a gold standard. Money is bits. The flow of the bits over current networks "creates" wealth - almost magically. We all "suspend reality" for a moment and pretend that those pieces of paper and shiny bits of metal are worth something - when in actuality they aren't worth jack. What happens when a networked society decides information, pure and raw, will be their new vehicle of wealth? Where a bit of info can get you real stuff (it is almost like this today with debit cards and credit cards - bits move over EFTs representing cash - and things arrive at your door)?
Because once this can happen over large user-created, P2P encrypted free-nets - governments and businesses become marginalized, and the People have a chance to become Free.
Of course, I might be talking out my ass, what do I know...?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I think it's brilliant.
They're pointing out to the judge that both systems (the internet and the Morpheus system running on the net) allow anonymous, back & forth sharing of files with absolutely no control over IP at any point in the transactions. This point along with the fact that it's the action in using such a tool that's illegal (not the tool itself) are both arguments that, despite reversals in the DeCSS & Napster cases, still have not received proper attention from the court or responses from the plaintiffs. If people can use VCRs to copy TV shows or CD-R drives to copy CDs and it's OK, why can't I download music I already own from Morpheus? I've done it dozens of times -- it's easier than ripping it from CD if I only want to listen to a song or two from something I own. Not even Morpheus is aware of the extent or lack thereof of a legal use for their product. As long as one exists and appears to be being exercised though, they should be allowed to remain in business.
WHY would Morpheus/Gnutella/Grokster/etc or Napster be illegal? The companies do nothing to promote violations of the law other than provide a forum in which you can share data. The net does the same thing -- people provide HTML & other sorts of files & people download them. People do all sorts of illegal things on the net -- scam others, put up child porno, etc, and they should be pursued. We shouldn't shut down the net -- of course not. If I did any of those things I'd be breaking the law, just as I would be if I pirated music over the net. Yet with the net it's me that's performing an illegal act and on Morpheus it's the program's (and the company's) fault. Why the difference? If one is illegal then the other must be, right? Maybe my argument's simplistic, I don't know. But I think they have a point.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
My take on the whole thing is that big industry, the music industry to be specific, has created their own problems. There are plenty of mp3's that I'd gladly pay for, however the record labels don't give me a way to buy just the music I want and not what the record label wants me to have. When I pay $16.99 for a CD and I only like one song on the CD, I feel I've gotten ripped off. Since these folks don't see it my way and don't make it easy to pay them, screw 'em!
Without the electric grid these computers and networks wouldn't be able to do anything, so it's the power companies' fault. Without plastics, metals and iron oxides to make storage media, those files couldn't be stored anywhere, so it's the fault of mining and petrochemical companies. Without air to carry the soundwaves and photons to transmit energy the music would be inaudible and the images would be invisible, so it's the fault of the Universe. Nah, to lawyers, the fault clearly belongs to whoever has the deepest pockets.
The argument is the same for a person who was a key for a place the aren't supposed to. It's all about intent. The problem is the anti-piracy advocates are going after the people that make the keys. Their argument is the software facilitates a slim jim (or lock pick) and why would anyone have one without intent [to commit a crime]? Of course the answer is, arrest all the lock smiths and tow truck drivers out there that help you when you lock your keys in your car. Does [Napster] facilitate piracy? Why yes. Does [Napster] promote piracy? Why no. People who have the intent had this intent before they had the tool. Same goes for TiVo blah blah blah or anyone with a cassette recorder or VCR.
Any protection can be broken. Any media can be duplicated. Is the cracker or copier doing anything illegal? Only when they distribute - that is - violate the copyright - that is deprives the holder of potential income.
Because I can buy a crowbar, does that prevent someone from selling me a house?
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
I'd have to say that the counterpoint to this is that the only reason why laws aren't made this way is because they aren't enforceable. And how do you enforce them? Tracking implants. Pervasive, compulsive DRM. Big Brother.
So, in short, don't worry, it's in the making now.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
all are causing drunk driving deaths.
...for building airliners that can be used as suicide bombers.
Thanks. finally someone gets it. I thought it
was pretty clear from the title but even the
poster didn't seem to understand
IMHO, it's the people who want to make money on P2P which contributes to illegal filesharing. These are the people who open easy to get web sites, start AD Banner supported bloatware.
I've seen the underground, but when I saw Napster I was shocked. Let's be frank, some serious Bad Things were going on in the open. Supposedly they made no money, but I don't know.
Basically I hate napster because it offers push button controls to get music that you might/maybe/should pay for. Hey, we've all done it! But the Net isn't to blame. Before 1992 I got music from the library that I taped. I broke the law... but it was a small law then.
The 'net has made illegal filesharing able because there is an effort by more than a few people to make it easier. There is numerous efforts, but the 'net didn't cause the frenzy that we are in.
P2P caused it. It's not the internet's fault. It's people, and it's an explosion in file swapping technologies. Digital copies are nice too!
But there is an option to use these technologies in a good way, just as the internet in general. The internet didn't create pr0n, it is just another way to get it. I like the couch and VCR myself.
Computers can't replace everything, but I'm getting off the point.
Get your Unix fortune now!
The reason they want to go after the Gnutella supernodes and the ISPs is that supernodes and ISPs are few in number compared to the masses of users who may-or-may-not be breaking the law until someone spends a couple of hours investigating and documenting each case. The man hours required to enforce a $15 CD sale is orders of magnitude costlier than the money they stand to gain by prosecuting individual Gnutella swappers.
They don't even care if they lose sales in the mean time (because people do tend to buy the CD if they collect every song on MP3) squelching the promotional effect of peer-to-peer sharing. What they care about is whether the courts will eventually declare the music public domain.
You see, copyrights are civil law, not criminal law as corporations wish it were. When the courts decide you have slacked in your effort to protect your own copyright they can declare the copyright lost, and what used to be copyrighted becomes public domain. Not even a restrictive EULA can supercede that declaration, so they have to do something in order to keep building the case they they did everything they could to enforce their copyrights. So, we will continue to see them fritter away millions of dollars ineffectually persecuting anyone they can drag into court. All the future possible money they could make is at stake, and it adds up.
If you don't like it, then pool your money, buy the song catalogs (the copyrights for a set of recordings) and release them to the public domain. How much did Micahel Jackson buy the Beatles' catalog for? They are trying to spend the least money possible to exhaust their legal alternatives. How much are they paying their lawyers? Maybe we should start making offers?
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
I've been saying thos for a while now, but the the net user community needs to have a more active (read: effective) lobby in washington. We rely on the EFF, but they are primarily a civil liberties organiation, with slightly more creadibility than the ACLU but far less money.
There are two issues here. First, civil liberties organiations often fall into the trap of using the slippery slope argument to defend their positions, which forced them to take on fases that fall far outside the main stream in order to defend their basic argument. This tends to erode their creadibility within mainstream society.
Second, they are a cibil liberties organization and not all issues of interest to the technically savvy portion of the population are civil liberties issues, so a more wide ranging and inclusive lobbying organiation needs to be established.
This new organization needs to model itself after the NRA. Say what you will about the NRA, but you must recognize that they are expert in the area of fund raising and political power brokering. These are the two areas that define an effective lobbying organization. You many not agree with them but you must recognize expertise when you see it, so when you learn, always learn from the best.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Lets kill all those people who share illegal files with legal guns created by people who keep saying that it isnt the fault of the gun creator that people get shot! its the fault of the creator of gunpowder ofcourse...
Its not about who to blame, but more about how can we all figure a way so that everyone is happy with it, and nor can we do that cause that would be perfect and thats not possible.
The problems here tends to be capitalism, they guys with the money, want to get money of the people who wouldnt give them any money anyways if they really had to buy the stuff. Everything should be free, what would happen if we would be charged for sunlight ? blame the boogie man ?
Blablabla...
Sincere question -- what is the advantage of doing it that way?
A couple of years ago, the Napster apologists insisted that, sure, a few users were sharing illegally but the real point of Napster was distributing the work of unsigned musicians. The fact that when the RIAA had all their songs blocks, Napster evaporated knocked over that explanation (that, by the way, is my empirical cite, Mr. Accredited Peer-Reviewed) but it never made any sense to me anyway.
You can distribute your music by FTP linked to a web page. It's free if you're not moving lots of files, and cheap (~$100/year) otherwise, and far faster and more reliable than any of the P2Ps. It gives you information on who is hitting your site and offers information to downloaders that they'd never see over Gnutella. And listeners who have never heard of you are infinitely more likely to find you -- I never got how someone is supposed to find something on a file sharing network that they've never heard of.
Again, it's a sincere question, even if you did call me an idiot. Why?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Unfortunately, it is not only the legal system, but much of American society. For example, we don't blame the parents for kids being messed up, we blame the TV shows and video games instead. Why didn't the parents tell them not to watch those shows or play those games? We always try to blame a big company or something ethereal, not the people. Maybe it's easier that way because it doesn't hurt our feelings if a big company is mad at us.
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
Maybe they will make file attachments to mail illegal so I will have to drop cd roms in the post...
morturii
I wonder if these people have ever heard of BBSes.
File sharing was a "problem" long before the 'Net was around.
-growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional
The lawyers aren't about to sue their children.
slashdot doesn't seem to have a problem with this.
there is no difference in what the Mpaa/Riaa are doing to morpheus/kazaa.
One license restriction over another.
Prosocute Millions and Millions of people who just don't care.
You're smoking some /really/ bad crack there, my friend. You'd be about a hundred orders of magnitude better off in the Australian bush carrying the gun's weight in water than carrying the gun.
/not/ killing it is much more likely to get /you/ killed than improve your situation . . .
There might be some possible argument for carrying a long gun in the American wilds, but even then you're probably better off just being careful to avoid things like bears - shooting one and
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
al gore is in serious trouble!
It's right there in the first sentence. What the lawyers for Morpheus are saying is IF what they do is to be considered illegal, then the activities of ISPs must be considered illegal too.
It is, however, pretty clear that the lawyers in question do not consider that what they do is illegal, and are merely suggesting that if stupid laws are going to be enacted, that they be consistent across the board. This is a strategy to highlight how foolish and unworkable the laws are in the first place, and to place whatever blame exists on the users who misuse the software.
As with manufacturers of photocopiers, video recorder and CD burners, they simply provide a facility that can be taken by users and used for good or ill.
SofaMan -- Occasionally Battling Evil With His Mighty Powers Of Indolence.
Lawsuits will be flying like crazy.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Morpeus is NOT down! After I read this, I fired up the program, and while the webpages that usually pop up at the start weren't present, and the program took *forever* to connect, Morpheus is most certianly NOT down. If they've been locked out of fasttrack, then Morpheus has carried on its older version of fasttrack. The protocall still works, just not with other fasttrack apps. The network is samll (300 some users and only 260 gigs), but it does exsit. Its connections also seem to be rather shaky, as it's cut out a few times since I started typing this post, but it is capable of searching and downloading. The morpheus network truly does carry on without intervention. Don't belevive those who tell you differently.
Love,
Jay and Silent Bob
OK. I am usually not this mean about things, but this whole MPAA/DCMA crap is driving me nuts! Everyone: Visit http://www.mpaa.org/
/usr/games/fortune
Of course they will never come for the ones who are sharing, those people have very little money as compared to the others. CYNICISM ALERT!
i believe this is covered under the Fair Use Exception of the initial copyright laws, 17 USC 106, 106a, which allow personal use, parody, etc. (US only)
Not that interesting, but in case anyone cares.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Anybody remember their DMCA homework? Saying "the ISPs must also be held liable" is a specious argument; they could have been held so five years ago, but the DMCA specifically stated that ISPs are never liable in a case where a user infringes on somebody's copyright unless the copyright holder has reported the specific infringement.
This is, by the way, why your ISP dumps you so easily when it gets those reports. So long as it does, it's behind an invulnerable legal wall. The moment it puts its butt on the line, it has to defend itself against costly lawsuits.
That's kindof the point isn't it?
IF this tool (morpheus, napster, etc.) is to be blamed for piracy, then it must necessarily follow that ALL THESE OTHER TOOLS (http, ftp, tcp/ip, the various IEEE ethernet standards, hard drives, the copy/paste commands, etc.) are also guilty.
Any sane person would see that you can't blame the latter set of technologies, so therefore if the above reasoning is correct, then it would seem to follow that the first set is also not guilty.
Thus, the sane course to take would be to not prosecute the p2p filesharing tools, but to (perhaps) prosecute actual criminal misues of these tools.
Or perhaps begin to see that the laws are ridiculous and in dire need of updating.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Set up a shared folder with a bunch of MP3's on a Microsoft OS system on an TCP/IP network and then show how another Microsoft OS system can copy them all down to their own system over a dialup or cable connection on the net, no different than the way Morpheus does it. I don't understand how something that is BUILT-IN to most OS's isn't liable just as much as these Napster/Morpheus/Etc programs who just make it EASIER to search through masses of files rather than blindly navigating folders. Hell, why don't they show how people use FTP and then ask the courts to put a cease and desist order on any Microsoft, Unix, BeOS, and any other OS that can share files by default? The fact that the method of searching should NOT be what is illegal, but rather the method of TRANSFER, which all these OS's have *OUT OF THE BOX*. Am I missing something there? Microsoft is not the "messenger", as they have the SAME FUNCTIONALITY BUILT INTO THEIR OS AND SERVERS. The *only* difference is the way you search out for specific software, and this is where the RIAA and MPAA *need* to be told by courts NOT to bring any cases to them unless it is an END USER.
Profanity is shunned here.
Hey.. that doesn't sound as stupid as I thought... any pro bono lawyers?
Never say "pro bono" in the context of copyright. I know it's officially short for "pro bono publico," or "for the public good," meaning that an attorney volunteers her time, but the word "Bono" brings to mind a certain Copyright Term Extension Act. There are other terms that denote working for free as in beer without connoting perpetual control of Mickey Mouse. (Read More...)
Will I retire or break 10K?
>"I wonder if these legal types are ever going to actually blame this on the actual people who are sharing ..."
Hmmm... everyone knows it's the end-user at fault, but it's an ineffective strategy for the RIAA to run around shutting down millions of users... It's kinda like trying to win at an endless game of whack-a-mole (http://www.jebikes.com/java/WhackAMole/).
The only effective strategy for copyright holders is to take a few runs at the P2P distribution nodes... This will work for a time, but eventually legally untouchable networks will spring up (e.g. some distributed Gnutella-like derivative) and the record companies will be forced to devise a copy-protection standard that better protects their profits. Worst case scenario, users will be forced to make analog copies of their favorite music... and audiophiles, (and some of us who like CD booklets) will still go out and buy the albums just as we do now. And the soap opera will continue...
So all of you can stop freaking out... the RIAA is not evil, nor are lawyers, nor is MP3, P2P, Communism or Capitalism. Things have a tendency to follow a natural order of progression -- evil empires and ineffective ideas will eventually fail due to constant upheavals that reflect the ingenuity of nature.
Slap my pee-pee for contributiing to this off-topic thread, but...
I guess we can only hope that at the end of the trial the judges will find that life itself is in contempt of court, and duly confiscate it from all those involved before going off to enjoy a pleasant evening's ultra, er, round of golf...
'nuff said
mmmmmm.....open sauce
If the users aren't committing any crime what is there to blame them for? This whole thing goes under the premise that filesharing is a crime. I don't make any money sharing my files. For non commercial use I should be able to share whatever I want. It's not like I stop buying CDs, or going to concerts, or buying T-shirts and posters. Bands still get money from me.
I love being able to think about any song, any time, anywhere and within 10 minutes be able to download and listen to it! Maybe the record companies should give the songs away for free but develop value-added services. There are tons of things that people will pay for. They should work on finding these services instead of blowing billions of dollars on an army of lawyers.
Using this same concept why don't we simply hold Nikon & Cannon and other camera makers responsible for child pornography. For with out the camera makers the photos could not exist.. of course child porn sites that use MS front Page or any other program to create the pages that display them should be liable to.. say good bye to notepad.exe as well soon..... hehe we might get litigated back to a technology level that would make the amish look advanced. would'nt that be somthing?
If one follows the enabling chain of hardware, software, systems, and materials that allow people to share files, it becomes quite clear that oxygen and sunlight are the primary enablers of this undesirable and in some cases illegal activity.
Therefore and herewith, I shall ceaselessly fight to bill my clients until the last oxygen atom is eradicated from the atmosphere and the last photon is blocked from the surface of the earth.
Hugh G. Herkin
Schfinkter, Johnson, and Quimby
Attorneys At Law
Many of those powerful tranquilizers that have been made schedule I also have medicinal value to them. GHB (Gamma-hydroxy-butanol), which was a victim of the US governments drug deamonizing, and drug user deamonizing campaign of the late 90's has show to be valuable for treating sleep disorders (where the patient falls asleep uncontrollably - at irregular periods). I believe it was actually shown to be the most effective of all of them. This drug also benefits the user in that it is a safe way to treat social anxiety disorder, and the user has to take a VERY high dose inorder to overdose. When this drug is abused, it produces sociability, a relaxed state, and the abuser suffers no hangover effects. For abuse harm levels, it is far less harmful than alcohol is. The majority of the users/abusers of this substance were NOT date rapistist, they took it for their own reasons, and harmed relatively no one. Most/all of the deaths attributed to this substance included combinations of other depressants including alcohol. It is also naturally produced, found in the human body, and also found in many meats that are sold. We don't see the human body or the meat market being made illegal.
So, yes, I question the outlawing of "date-rape" drugs, which were primarily invented to serve some politicians political career. I see people on this site often question legislation related to technology, but few people look into legislation (and public propaganda) not related to technology that also affects people. Yours truly, Rofgile
This is as stupid as punishing those responsible for roads/etc infrastructure because of drug smuggling.
Man watching 6 MSCE's around a sun box, looks alot like the opening scene's of 2001:space odyssey...
The US government for funding DARPA and the implementation of the net...
Gates, Jobs, and IBM for making the computer an easily publically owned technology, which previously was only affordable by the corporations (AKA the "good" guys)...
MIT, UCLA, UCB, and every other university for developing, sharing and promoting new computer technologies which allowed the internet to exist in the first place...
Babbage for inventing the first true computer...
Ada Byron for creating the original mathmetical basis for all modern programming...
Nicolai Tesla, Westinghouse, Edison, Benjamin Franklin, and James Watt for discovering, modifying, and implementing electric power networks, which in turn allowed computers to move from the abacus to the laptop...
Oh, and Gronk Bubbababub, the caveman who discovered fire, that guy's DEFINATELY to blame...
Your corporate sponsers have realized that all these CRIMINALS have led to the losses of the RIAA and MPAA, and won't even let death be an excuse not to prosecute... And with your help, we can coerce our senators to approve of human cloning, so we can bring these lawbreakers back from the grave to face justice...
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
However, the main reason why they are trying to control communication is that they haven't got a business model that work. What they should do, is figure out new business models that work instead of trying to pull us all back to the dark ages.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
This is probably just a matter of opion if anything .. but it seems that it's the artists to blame.
Think of it ... the less something is worth, the less someone is willing to pay for it ...
What's the most downloadwed stuff on the net? PORN! Well, my "opinion" is that it is on the bottom rung of the art chain. I don't think too much bandwidth is clogged up by mozart or bethoven. The next rung up would be N*crap and all those other boy bands, not much higher on the artistry food chain, butr almost as downloaded as porn .. Maybe I'm seeing things here, but it seems to me that there is a pattern. A lot of music and movies that I like doesn't even seem to be widely available over any P2P I share over (cough KaZaA.... cough)
SO if we aren't going to blame the user for downloading illegal media, then perhaps we should be blaming so called "artists" for putting out music and video that isn't worth paying for.
And one day God will sue human kind to publish the source code of genome designed "derivative work".
He will lose this case against Microfart^H^H^H^Hsoft
If they block ports, protocols whatever its just a matter och days or weeks. Just run sharing over VPN or any other encrypted protocol. They cant block legit data so this seems lika a stupid idea. Lower the price on CDs and get over it!
HTTP/1.1 400
Banning tools, or even single purpose weapons, is pointless as a means of reigning in violence.
If someone is intent on violence they are unlikely to be worried about if they are using a legal or illegal weapon to perform it anyway.
Indeed its not unknown for banning certain types of weapons to make them easier for criminals to obtain...
Ranged weapons are a different matter. (Generally, guns and bows.)
:)
They are very old technology, there's plenty of people who could build them from scratch, including such things as machine guns.
Yes, they are the great equalizer. God made men, Sam Colt made them all equal, and all that stuff. But there's a disconnect there. If only one party involved in a vigorous disagreement has a ranged weapon, you pretty much know the winner. This is part of why police (as a group, there are a lot of individual exceptions) want to be the only people allowed to have guns... it makes the police a lot safer. Unfortunately, in our imperfect society where criminals ignore the law and have guns too.
If criminals obeyed the law they wouldn't be criminals or a need for police in the first place
Slashdot needs 'collapse this thread' option. As soon somebody mention gun control laws, or nazis, or [insert your flammable topic here] the discussions go right out of the window.
(Ah the sweet smell of usenet flamewars...)
Go around.
free the mallocs!
Transmission Control protocol / Intellectual Property ?
free the mallocs!
StreamCast Networks' Morpheus--a file-swapping service that many have said would be impossible for courts to shut down--shut out most of its users Tuesday, citing "technical problems."
According this article posted on news.com
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-845792.html
This is not good. Now the RIAA knows that they have the ability to shut down the network, this little problem may lead to the downfall of the Morpheus P2P Network.
Kazaa & Grokster, are still working.
- BRiAN
Unfortunately, in our imperfect society where criminals ignore the law and have guns too, it makes unarmed law-abiding citizens less safe.
The logical conclusion would be that since we can never prevent criminals from having guns, then all people should have them.
The Link and the interesting part --
A skeptical Hatch then turned to the Recording Industry Association of America president, Hilary Rosen, a surprise addition to the roster of witnesses. Wedging herself into a space next to MP3.com head Michael Robertson, whom the RIAA recently helped to sue, Rosen found herself subjected to the kind of puzzled questions about fair use -- a notorious legal morass -- that millions of music owners have been asking themselves for the last few months.
''Can I make a copy of a CD that I buy and put it into a car?'' asked Hatch. When Rosen hemmed and
hawed, Hatch muttered, ''The answer is yes.''
''Is it fair use to give the copy to my wife for her car?'' Hatch continued. ''Is it fair use for me to rip a CD? Is it fair use if (a computer network) decides for efficiency reasons that one copy is sufficient to serve for storage, instead
of keeping 200 separate copies, is that fair use?''
''None of these is fair use,'' Rosen eventually replied. She argued that musicians' willingness to ''tolerate'' people making copies was an instance of ''no good deed goes unpunished.''
Infuriate left and right
Just to let you know I posted a link and partial extract.
Infuriate left and right
they are saying "you shouldn't download these files illegaly"
so we say "uhm okay, can we do it legally ?"
they're saying "no fucking way, we want absolute control over your listening"
we say "fuck you then"
which is perfectly acceptable
Does this mean that since we can never prevent some contries from having nuclear weapons, all countries should be allowed to purchase them?
It is a common rhetorical technique of expanding on your opponent's logic until you reach an absurd conclusion.
As here:
If Grokster is to blame merely because it enables illegal filesharing, than the internet, the computer manufacturers, the backbone providers, the telephone pole manufacturers, the wire and cable manufacturers, the telephone linemen, etc. are equally enabling. So under this theory they should all be held as equally liable or not at all.
This is the EFF, [www.eff.org] Obviously they are not seriously suggesting that the Internet is illegal. Geez, you don't know who the EFF is or what they fight for?
It's not supposed to be taken seriously. It's meant to show how stupid the RIAA and MPAA's arguments are. It's a common rhetorical tactic which lawyers and other people with more than five brain cells use every day.
Sure. Isn't that how MAD worked? It kept us out of nuclear war for ~30 years.