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 ..."
that gun makers are responsible for murders.
Sad part is, the US legal system seems to agree.
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.
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.
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!
Well, a family successfully sued K-Mart for $1.5 million blaming them for someone who commited suicide with gun bought from their store (link) just shows that you can sue for anything. There is a family suing rescue workers after they lost their baby in a forest since they found it after it was too late to save him...
Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
I thought the kmart thing was because the attendent was drunk or the guy buying the gun was obviously drunk and shouldn't have been sold a gun.
--"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
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
What percentage of Google searches result in copyright infringement? Has Google ever been warned about infringement, and what have they done about it? What would change if there were no Google?
What percentage of Morpheus searches result in copyright infringement? Has Morpheus ever been warned... and what have they done about it? What would change if there were no Morpheus/FastTrack?
The answers are quite different. So, then, is the legal treatment that they deserve.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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.
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
Yep. Dig this ad run by the Libertarian Party parodying the ridiculous recent ads equating drug use with terrorism. It ran full page in the Washington Post & USA Today (!) today. Right to the point.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001