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.
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...
"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.
that gun makers are responsible for murders.
Sad part is, the US legal system seems to agree.
> 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.
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 ...
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?
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
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.
But then who would protect you? Your legislators?
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
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........
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.
He is the one who invented the internet in the first place.
Obviously Morpheus is hoping that the French judge will give the RIAA a bad score.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
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.
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.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
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...
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!
Didn't someone harass the author of the PAN newsreader for copyright infringement? Tried to get him to remove the decode function?
Method of processing duck feet
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
....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.
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.
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. :)
*cough*.... While this may have started *quick* piracy, there are multitudinous volumes of vinyl to mp3 out there. Play, capture, encode.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
(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)
God, root, what is difference?
So, "sue ID root" is the same as blaming God? O_0
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
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!
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...
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.
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
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.
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
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. :)
No shit. The Biz got together and decided they could rape the consumer even more if they found a way to distribute music on $.05 discs. "With CD burners costing thousands, no one will ever be able to pirate music, except by taping it, and tapes are of lower audio quality. No one will ever settle for that!"
They have nothing to blame but the current lack of creative quality of modern music, and the death of vinyl. I steal as much music as I can.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
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.
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.
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
Interview with a Search Engine
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
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.
You are wrong...the landmark betamax case for VCR's set a precident. When the Betamax case went to court VCR's where used almost exclusively for pirating material....and the courts reasoned that even though VCR's were used 93% of the time for illegal activity they had the potential for significant legitmate use in the future if the technology was allowed to exist.
If you had read the article....the judge in the Napster case didn't take an issue with Napster's file sharing technology and the use of the Betamax defense....the judge did not conclude that Napster had to be shutdown because its technology was used primarily for illegal activity....the judge in the Napster case saw that Napster controlled a centralized server that held a master list of servers and that napster could concievable use that centralized server to filter content on the network it controlled... and this filtering could be added as a layer over the existing technology....so anyone who used napster technology as is would be able to create the same filtering measures over the existing technology....and even then that can become very murky...if I started using slashdot or any site that used slash to post information about warez sites into comments I posted...would slashdot have to police the comments?
The point is...almost exclusive use of a technology for illegal activity is contrary to he ruling made in the Sony-Betamax case...a technology must only have the "potential" for significant non-infringing use....and any "content neutral" network can be used in legit ways...file shares in MSwindows being a very primative network minus some useful search capabilies...
Napster ran into a problem because the technology they used/created put them in a position of content control...napsters servers knew about the information on each users share. If napster had sold the exact same technology to a company to
be used in say an internal company network to facilite datafiles from user to user napster technology would again be perfectly legal. In that case the company running the internal server would be liable for copy right infringment..not napster for the technology that napster sold.
For decentralized file sharing systems where a master server holds no data...all you can do is hold the person offering the data liable....you can't go after the person creating the technology for not putting in safeguards on copyright infringement....it comes down to if you have control over who is using the technology you created...so napster was really a lawsuit over napsters network policy and not over the technlogy created by napster....
So for P2P which doesn't utilize a central server at all...then who do you sue....the real problems comes when you use a central server just a little bit of handshaking....then in a sense you become an ISP like a broadband ISP...and as an ISP you have some responsibily to police the people connecting to your services...and if they are found to be offering up warez on ftp or http or whatever protocal...through your service then sometimes you have a legal responsiblity to remove that user from your service or be held liable as an ISP for that users infringement.
These cases are really unclear becuase these p2p technology providers aren't just building the tech..they are also acting as ISPs who employ the technology...and it seems like they employ it almost exclusively...or atleast napster did. Napster didn't sell its client/server software to anybody to use i don't think. Which makes all this very murky. It's not the technology thats at issue its really an issue of who as control over the information on the networks..and if someone has control do they have to police the network.
-jef
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.)
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
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
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.
>3rd party Copyright bounty hunters
Oh yeah. Make an industry out of persecuting copyright infringment. Then we'll have to make sure people keep breaking the law (or just keep tightening the law) to keep the industry viable, JUST like the war on drugs.
Sigh.
"Old man yells at systemd"
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.
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
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...
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.
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!
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?
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?
Yah, but in this case the 'car' comes stock and advertised with spiked bumpers and an anti-personal radar designed for tracking down old ladies in wheelchairs.
/could/ be used for, say, an obstical course only and hitting those little orange traffic cones, but you know what? That isn't what the primary user base is using it for OR what it is being popularized as being for.
Well yah shoot it
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
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
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...)
Many of those powerful tranquilizers that have been made schedule I also have medicinal value to them.
But once they become labeled as "criminal" that in itself inhibits doctors and pharmacists from researching the medical value of the drug.
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
Hardly the only potentially useful drug to have been effectivly lost to medical science for political reasons
Most/all of the deaths attributed to this substance included combinations of other depressants including alcohol.
Also drugs from black market suppliers can easily be contaminated or of unknown dosage level. There are far more dangerous drugs, in terms of actual toxicity available over the counter, e.g. paracetamol.
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.
Even though the "argument" is much the same "It can be used for bad things, so it should be banned..."
Blaming it on the users (i.e. "human nature") is about as meaningless as blaming plane crashes on gravity. Or blaming crime on criminals, rather than saying "gee, maybe we need some police".
Or evaluate if it makes sense for something to be a "crime" in the first place. Otherwise your "police" end up simply as an organisational "Money pit"...
Hey, I'm just enumerating the options... I just thought that letting out bounty hunters would be the closest thing to the status quo than other alternatives like making file sharing illegal or the DMCA, which removes all fair use.
What would you do with this copyright situation?
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
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
The problem is, we need to be /paid/ to 'bounty hunt each other', which leads me to believe there is NOTHING wrong.
.. ), not the other way around. We really need to get around this mentality that people should bend to the economy. Really, the economy should bend to the behaviour of the people. If they are copying content illegally to an extend that damages the viability of the business, that tells me that record companies should stop spending so much money on their projects, to help bring down the cost of sales.
Think about it. You simply can't hold a nation hostage for breaking laws designed to protect a small minority of content producers and distributors. The economy's purpose is to serve the behavior of society (ie, its true purpose is supposedly to allow us to gain the resources required to do the things that make us happy, from surviving to sky diving
Record execs always take the 'people will take it for free, if they can'. That is hogwash. We all know it. History has borne that people have no problem volounteering payment for something if they feel its worth it. If they are stealing it in such droves as to destroy the viability of the industry, then there is something wrong with how the industry is conducting is business, not something wrong with technology facilitating the supposed 'unmitigated greed' of the consumer.
I've always laughed at the notion of boycotts as a form of protest. The protest is in seeking out the product at lower cost. Yes, as long as the choices are too expensive, or not high quality, or something along those lines, and free, people will take the free, because there is no middle ground to offer a fair price. Once we stop legislating technology laws to regulate social behaviour, and start respecting that our behaviour is a reflection of the value we place on things, we will find the proper balances in these types of over-grown industries.
To sum up: What would it take for a large industry like the music industry to recognize (at great cost) that they are perhaps over estimating the viability of the scale and manners in which they go about their business? When will we say, "Hey, people just dont seem to buy into that?" Do we need to legislate ourselves to death, and then watch profits drop off the face of the earth? I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be justified in drawing the same conclusions pre-legislation. Bounty hunters would be a bandaid on a pattern of social behavior that pretty much prooves that the consumer is being held ransom for the basic human need to listen to music.
"Old man yells at systemd"
That exception only covers publication, like all copyright law. There is no law covering non-publication, unless, obviously, there is another illegal element, like child porn.
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)