Slashdot Mirror


Congress to Ashcroft: Go After Song Swappers

saikou writes "Yahoo has published a news about proposal of 19 lawmakers to prosecute P2P systems' users. Allthough Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, said that FBI should not go for casual users but but instead to go after operators of "network "nodes", there is not enough info in the story to see if this "should" will change to "must in addition to", if or when trying to arrest major node operators fails to curtain song swapping online. Of course, questions of what to do about foreign users and foreign music are omitted. RIAA claps its hands. I guess we should expect network congestion because of users, downloading everything in their sight to beat this initiative."

599 comments

  1. crap... by DippoNazdor · · Score: 0

    SON OF A... i just got back on kazaa! why must you take this away from me. at least the texan is a smart guy...

    --
    If we give our two cents, but it's a penny for our thoughts, do we get change back?
    1. Re:crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because it IS illegal. Lending a CD to a friend is fair use (an important right that should be protected), "sharing" copyrighted material with one million "friends" is not.

    2. Re:crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well why is this a top priority? Why not spend the resources on this fake war on terror? oh wait...

    3. Re:crap... by drsoran · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because it IS illegal. Lending a CD to a friend is fair use (an important right that should be protected), "sharing" copyrighted material with one million "friends" is not.

      Why not? As long as you're not expecting compensation for the songs then there is no difference. This is something the Supreme Court needs to decide on. At what number does "sharing" of copyrighted material become illegal? 5 friends? 10? 100? 1000? What if you laborously record audio tapes of the CDs for each of your 100 friends and send them out via mail at great cost to you? Does that make it legitimate fair use?

      Congress is really showing its true corporate colors these days. It's time for a non-violent overthrow of our leadership come the next elections to sweep on these people that are consistently violating our freedom in exchange for satisfying their corporate masters. Personally my opinion is that in the digital age copyright needs to be seriously rethought of as a government granted monopoly on distribution of data. Perhaps it's time to shrink the number of years you retain exclusive copyright on a work to 5 years. Remember people, there's no inherent god-given right to own "intellectual property". It's an idea created by the governments to help urge artists to develop new works that would eventually be available in the public domain. These days with the way it works these works will never become public domain (Mickey Mouse for example) and will live forever under their corporate ownership. Something has changed horribly since the original ideas of copyright were penned by our Founding Fathers.

      Just my 2 cents which are of course flamebait, a troll, overrated, and stupid. Bite me.

    4. Re:crap... by deanj · · Score: 1

      Big difference: Lending a CD to someone that just listens to it and gives it back (or hell, even keeps it) keeps only one paid for CD in circulation. As soon as you "share" it, it creates a new, unpaid for copy. And to answer your question about at what number does "sharing" become illegal? One.

    5. Re:crap... by whirred · · Score: 1

      Your gross ignorance of how "fair use" works is appalling. I think the RIAA is crap, I think this will fail, in fact I think their entire business will fail if they don't do something about the fact that they no longer control the means of production or distribution.

      HOWEVER - what fair use basically means is that a CD is meant to be thought of like a book. If I loan you a book I own, you are borrowing it and I am no longer in posession of it. You can eventually return it (at which point you don't have it anymore) or buy your own copy, or buy my copy from me. All of these options constitute legal, fair use.

      Let's say under this scenario, the author sells 1,000,000 copies. Now, let's move on to scenario #2.

      I possess a machine that produces an exact replica of the book. Rather than loaning you my copy, I simply make you one. You don't need to buy one. You're so happy with it that I decide to make a million copies, and distribute them on a first come first serve basis.

      Let's say under this scenario, the author sells 500,000 copies.

      The software/music/movie leeches on the P2P sites will insist that the author is more likely to sell 10,000,000 copies, because so many more people are aware of his work.

      The RIAA/MPAA will insist that the author will sell 0 copies, because anyone who wants it will just get it for free.

      BOTH SIDES ARE WRONG. So get over it.

    6. Re:crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not both? Just because terrorism is worse doesn't mean all other crimes there is should be ignored.

      Just because the US is hunting bin laden doesn't mean someone should be able to beat you up without punishment.

    7. Re:crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as you're not expecting compensation for the songs then there is no difference

      Of course not : you're expecting that other people will share THEIR songs with you...
    8. Re:crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever floats your boat. Slavery was legal 150 years ago as well, but it doesn't mean it was morally right. Copyright today exists so Britney Spears-alikes can grab another $100 million for the record industry through overpriced CDs. Fuck them. Capitalism sucks.

    9. Re:crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >at least the texan is a smart guy...

      he does hollywood's bidding and you determined that he is smart how?
      that sounds like a normal republican texan calling another smart for not having thought through what he is saying. After all this is one of the same guys (and bush) who have pushed through one of the worst death penalties in the US(maybe in the world) and still has one of the highest crime rates in the US.

    10. Re:crap... by zbowling · · Score: 1

      Bull... Were you getting your facts from... ReallyFakeStats.com ?

      Next time research before you make a claim like that.

      Just to make things clear: Texas does not have one of the highest crime rates (even the Fox hit TV show "Cops" got bored and left after only 2 weeks of shooting in Dallas and 2 weeks in Houston and 1 in El Paso and they can get 4 shows in one night in Las Vegas); that Texan has no relation to Bush except for the fact that he is a republican (and any the malaricy that comes from that like endorsments he has to claim under that) and opposing the death pentialy has nothing to with the topic at hand....

      Here is my quote for you:
      -
      Its better to remain silent and to be though of as just dumb, then to open your mouth and remove all dought.
      -

      --
      No.
    11. Re:crap... by Mr.+Balrog · · Score: 1

      You ignorant fool! Move to a Communist state and rid us of of your ignorance!

    12. Re:crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      google is your friend
      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO- 8859-1&q =crime+rate+texas
      http://www.cjcj.org/texas/texas pr.html
      http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/deadmantalkin g/texas.h tm
      http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.ht m

      I find it interesting that so many americans( I am one) will speak up without thinking or simply finding out the facts first. I am assuming that your last statement was meant as a case of :
      do as I say, not as I do
      as it is obvious that you fit the bill

    13. Re:crap... by drewpt · · Score: 0

      I love it.. That was great.

      The moron uses a TV's departure from their state as a statistic for the crime rate.

      Maybe they left Texas because they were in fear for their lives?

    14. Re:crap... by homer_ca · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. The AHRA of 1992 made non-commercial home copies legal. You pay a statutory royalty on blank audio media, tapes and CD-Rs (data CD-Rs are not covered by the AHRA; giving away data CD-R copies is illegal but fair-use copies are still legal). In return you're allowed to make copies of music you borrow from friends and you can make copies of your own music to give to friends. There is a gray area of who can be considered a circle of friends of a single household, but the number is definitely more than "one".

    15. Re:crap... by Moriardy · · Score: 2

      actually capitalism kicks ass. Just look at it from the point of view "Fuck or be Fucked" The music industry has fucked everyone for long enough, now it's everyone elses turn to flip 'em over and give it back to them.

      --
      Kelly Harmsworth www.saskaviation.com
    16. Re:crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hey, by trying to imply ignorance on your part, he removed all "dought" as to his...

      Texas. The state that brought us Dumbya.

      (Posted AC because this is offtopic. And probably flamebait too.)

    17. Re:crap... by zbowling · · Score: 1

      You can really lick me where i pee... I work in a broadcasting studio for fox which explains that tv part. I wouldn't rely on facts to much on the internet, due to the nature of the internet. I feel very safe in Texas. People are afraid to commit crimes here, because of our harsh penitlies. It doesn't take much for us to put you away. We know better and we hold ourselves to a higher respect.

      --
      No.
  2. When does it stop? by lordkuri · · Score: 0

    So how long until P2P is declared a "terrorist activity" ?

    I mean seriously! doesn't the government have better things to do with it's time that this shit???

    like maybe go after Enron, Worldcom, etc...?

    1. Re:When does it stop? by Represser · · Score: 1

      When we all decide to MP3 the white house.

      --
      -- Ilya
    2. Re:When does it stop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're never going to go after Ken Lay. He's the President's best fucking friend.

    3. Re:When does it stop? by thuresson · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm happy that MP3 sharing is a non-issue in Europe. And why should it, when most users download american music and american record companies lose money? For now, Swedish law give me the right to share music with my friends and I don't see that changing very soon.

    4. Re:When does it stop? by woogieoogieboogie · · Score: 1

      ...american record companies lose money? This, http://www.bertelsmann.com/index.cfm?oldBrowser=0 is not an American company. For a theft to have occurred or for a loss to have been suffered, the downloader would have had to consider buying the music before he downloaded it. For example, I would never Buy a Britney Spears CD. Since I would never buy it, whether I download it or not has absolutely NO impact on the recording company or the artist. This is the whole point many are missing. Just because someone gains does not ALWAYS mean another has lost. That is also the problem with intellectual property as opposed to physical property. The only difference between me downloading the song and listening to it at my choice of time and listening to it on the radio or those 24 channels of digital direct tv music is choice. Either way, I listen to it and it costs me nothing. It is quite clear that the issue is not theft, but rather CONTROL. In the end, the RIAA and the Artist still own the music and the physical CD's

      --
      ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
    5. Re:When does it stop? by LeftOfCentre · · Score: 1

      To the best of my knowledge, file sharing on a large scale has not been tried in Swedish courts -- and the law is rather vague about it. It may well be considered illegal.

    6. Re:When does it stop? by drewpt · · Score: 1

      Who downloads something and doesn't listen to what they download?

      I would guess your answer would be someone who wants to distribute the music.

      Eventually that downloaded copy of a song gets into the hand of someone who DOES want to listen to it.

      The argument of, "I just want to download it but I don't want to listen to it" is weak.

      They just want to be compensated for their work. BTW, you mention listening to a song on the radio or cable... Well, the radio/music stations PAY to play the music. That is why you get to listen for free.

    7. Re:When does it stop? by phishst1k · · Score: 1

      That wasn't his point, the point was that he would never buy the album, whether he downloads the song or not, he would never buy the album so the record company is not losing anything by it.

      --
      Sex is not the answer. Sex is the question. Yes is the answer.
    8. Re:When does it stop? by Rakarra · · Score: 2
      Well, I'm happy that MP3 sharing is a non-issue in Europe. And why should it, when most users download american music and american record companies lose money? For now, Swedish law give me the right to share music with my friends and I don't see that changing very soon.

      Yes, that's what Europeans said about the DMCA as well.

  3. How about gnutella? by Devil's+BSD · · Score: 2

    Since they're going after nodes, they will have to arrest everyone using gnutella because each user functions as a node too. Time to build new jails, I guess...

    --
    I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
    1. Re:How about gnutella? by M3wThr33 · · Score: 1

      Remember, these are P2P programs, not just music P2P or media P2P, so I guess Battle.net is going down too. ANYTHING with nodes is going down. Oh no! Time for p2p "camps". Seriously this sucks.
      *checks OpenSecrets.org*
      Ashcroft's biggest contributor is RENT-A-Car? Although that doesn't add up to the 8.9 million he has on hand... because those pirates certainly take away from that...

    2. Re:How about gnutella? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone who lets copyrighted material be stored on their computers are actually commining a crime.

      So it's your responsibility to make sure your computer isn't used for criminal purposes. If gnutella sends copyrighted material to your computer without your knowledge you can't use that software without commiting a crime.

    3. Re:How about gnutella? by Soruk · · Score: 1

      Everyone who lets copyrighted material be stored on their computers are actually commining a crime.

      OK. When you install Windows from your legally-purchased Windows CDROM, that is storing copyrighted material on your computer. Putting aside the fact Windows is an abomination, is installing Windows from a legally purchased and licensed CD a crime?

      --
      -- Soruk
    4. Re:How about gnutella? by netsharc · · Score: 1

      Heh even Linux is copyrighted material. :) There's always a footnote that says "Linux is a copyright of Linus Torvalds" (can't remember if the penguin logo is too)..

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    5. Re:How about gnutella? by Olinator · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      Blockpoth the quoster:
      [...]is installing Windows from a legally purchased and licensed CD a crime?
      <cheapshot>
      A crime against humanity, maybe...
      </cheapshot>
      Ole, who knows that the shortest distance between 2 puns is a straightline
    6. Re:How about gnutella? by roybadami · · Score: 1

      OK. When you install Windows from your legally-purchased Windows CDROM, that is storing copyrighted material on your computer. Putting aside the fact Windows is an abomination, is installing Windows from a legally purchased and licensed CD a crime?

      No, because Microsoft grants you a license to copy the CDROM under limited circumstances (eg installing it on ONE computer). That's why your copy of Windows comes with a license agreement.

    7. Re:How about gnutella? by Soruk · · Score: 1

      I know that. I was merely raising a point on the person who I quoted....

      --
      -- Soruk
    8. Re:How about gnutella? by Fat+Casper · · Score: 2
      A staffer for Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, who signed the letter, said that lawmakers did not want FBI ( news - web sites) agents to arrest casual users but instead go after operators of network "nodes" that handle much of the traffic.

      Time to build new jails, I guess...

      Yeah, now we've got the War On Piracy to fund. What I don't understand is how operators of network "nodes" that handle much of the traffic can be considered criminals. I always thought they were considered common carriers. My ISP operates the node that handles all of my traffic. I'd hate to see my ISP shut down over this. Other than forcing us back into the dark ages of dial up, how does this stop swapping?

      --
      I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
    9. Re:How about gnutella? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, right--let's see them put 50 million people in jail. Besides, this is not "Congress" as a whole but several bought and paid for by Hollywood/RIAA legislators.

  4. Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Missiouri voters decided he was less fit for public office than a dead man. What more can I say?

    1. Re:Ashcroft by 56 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ashcroft is the single most disturbing person in the US government. Hey, it's just karma.

    2. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to trademark the phrase, "I voted for Mel Carnahan" then sell it to that company that makes all those bumper stickers.

    3. Re:Ashcroft by donutello · · Score: 2

      I think that speaks about the people in Missouri more than it does for Ashcroft - Especially since he was leading in the polls before the other guy died.

      Democracy and the right to vote are privileges. Some people don't deserve those privileges and should have them revoked.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    4. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Polls rarely count for anything especially when they are horribly constructed . As to the ppl, they decided that either a dead person could do more, or perhaps, a dead person could do less damage. Off hand, watching Bush's and Ashcroft's dealing with our rights, MS settlement, and not persuing Enron's ken lay, while trying to absolutly nail Martha Stewart, I would say they were correct.

    5. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Democracy and the right to vote are privileges. Some people don't deserve those privileges and should have them revoked.

      Mr. Ashcroft! Is that you? Let the eagle soar...!

    6. Re:Ashcroft by woogieoogieboogie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Democracy and the right to vote are privileges. Some people don't deserve those privileges and should have them revoked. This is exactly what is wrong witht he world. Governing people is not a right, it is a privelage bestowed on certain people by the people to promote the betterment of society. So ask yourself, why do YOU NEED to be governed? Are you incapable of taking care of yourself? Democracy cannot work with large populations because ultimately the policies follow the money. The onlyu way to restore true democracy in America is to eliminate lobbyists and political contributions. In addition, policy MUST be set by public opinion which MUST not be swayed by a media which works in the interest of the lobbyists. In it'sa current form in the US: Democracy + Capitalism = Corporate Dictatorship.

      --
      ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
    7. Re:Ashcroft by efaust93 · · Score: 0

      With all of the ability and power of the internet, why doesn't someone start a grass roots campaign to oust all of these politicians. They are only responding to the big money the RIAA cartel gives them. If people would unite and start a grass roots campaign to get the word out that these people are in the pocket of the big money cartel and let everyone know to "just say no" to thsee politicians. Then you will see who is afraid to put their name on legislation.

      --
      e. Faust
    8. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think GB is pretty f**ing frightening too.

    9. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the record (living just outside of K.C., MO) it was announced pretty quickly that people would actually be voting for the opponent's (Carnahan) wife, not the dead man himself. Virtually everyone that voted short of the small number of people that voted during the post-accident confusion were aware of this fact. This is not to say that there wasn't some bizarre late day sympathy vote for him, but it was reported that the polls leaned heavily towards Ashcroft after the accident because "who else are they going to pick?". Also for the record I didn't vote for Ashcroft. He drives me nuts.

    10. Re:Ashcroft by swaic · · Score: 1

      Hahahaha... That's not a troll. That's funny as shit.

    11. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He, hee-e-e-e. We've heard that before. "This nation does not deserve its government - therefore the government must switch its nation"

      People like you deserve pitty...

    12. Re:Ashcroft by donutello · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Democracy cannot work with large populations because ultimately the policies follow the money.

      That's a ridiculous theory. With an intelligent, educated populace, the politics will never follow the money - rather they will be issue based and the government will be the voice of the people.

      However, when the population does not have a proper grasp of the issues involved and is easily swayed by advertising - (that's all campaign contributions are good for, btw they can't be used directly in any way) - that's when I say the populace is incapable of participating in a democracy.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    13. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You actually can say a lot more, like giving more info and background on that election. But you don't, now do you? You tried and give some zinger synoposis that shows you can't spare the time or realize proper facts to bolster your sorry argument.

      Ashcroft was in a dead heat with his opponent (Missouri senate race; then state governor was his opponent, if i recall). He was slightly ahead in the polls a couple of weeks before election day, but the numbers were within the given error margin of that poll. This race was well covered on CNN, as it was tightly contested and a race to watch for its political implications.

      His opponent then tragically and unfortunately DIED in a plane crash. iow, the election contained a swing amount of sympathy votes for the governor. Anyone with a thread of human understanding can fathom the pscyhology of some of the voters and eventual election outcome.

      You would use a dead man's memory just to attack a man politically? You reek.

      Despite being a Republican, I dislike Ashcroft a hell of lot, esp. given his broad and dispassionate (but pretending to be passionate in his goals) use of his office. Frankly, everytime I see him in the news, he ends up saying or doing somethign that pisses me off. His political goals do not support small government, a government BY the people, and a strict constructionist interpretation of the law or government's role.

      If you dislike the man, attack his politics and character, not simply unfortunate situations.

    14. Re:Ashcroft by zCyl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      With an intelligent, educated populace, the politics will never follow the money

      I agree completely. I think the federal government should mandate at least one year of Rhetoric classes for every high school student. If we can develop an entire generation of adults who understand how they are being swayed and have been taught the skills for critical analysis of media and information, then politicians will have to focus on issues. Money can't buy issues like it can buy the swaying of people's emotions.

    15. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may wish to use google.
      They were dead heat with slight advantage given to Carnahan who was term-limiting out. Apparently, Ashcroft cooked his own goose with the release of the pix of Carnahan from 39 years earlier in a minstral show.
      Off Hand, with the animosity that these 2 had for each other and the dirtyness of Ashcroft even to this day, I would guess that Carnahan would be happy to have this memory help stop Ashcroft from bringing more fasicm to USA.

    16. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is your friend. They were in a dead heat with Carnahan starting to pull ahead just before he died. Ashcroft's dirty tricks hurt him.

    17. Re:Ashcroft by baldnik · · Score: 0

      I'm glad someone thought so.

    18. Re:Ashcroft by argel · · Score: 2
      That's a ridiculous theory. With an intelligent, educated populace, the politics will never follow the money - rather they will be issue based and the government will be the voice of the people.

      It is easy to say that with an intelligent, educated populace democracy will work. But that is just a theory that has little empirical evidence to back it up. The evidence suggests that in practice there will always be an uninformed, more gullible segment of the populace. Additionally, the larger the populace the more competing interests to impair the functioning of the democracy. The real theory seems to be that the more people you have in a democracy the harder it is to make it work. Of course this is rather academic since we live in a republic anyway.

      --

      -- Argel
    19. Re:Ashcroft by bay43270 · · Score: 2

      I admit it. I'm from Missouri, and I voted for Carnahan. Had I known Ashcroft would have been appointed Attourney General, I would have voted for him for Senate... at least there he would do less harm.

  5. Ashcroft - The 4th Tenor by jeepthang · · Score: 2, Funny

    He'll probably only take action for fear that his hit single "Let the Eagle Sore" will be pirated.

    God help us all...

    --
    -------------------------------
    High-Res Beer Bottle Collection
  6. Let's outlaw the HTTP protocol! by Verizon+Guy · · Score: 2, Funny
    "There is no doubt, mass copying off the Internet is illegal and deserves to be a high priority for the Department of Justice," said RIAA Chairman Hilary Rosen in a statement.


    Read more about these illegal, filthy actions and more in RFC 2616.
    --

    Aw, fuck it. Let's go bowling. - The Big Lebowski

    1. Re:Let's outlaw the HTTP protocol! by tftp · · Score: 2
      "mass copying off the Internet is illegal and deserves to be a high priority for the Department of Justice"

      And I thought all these months that they are actually all busy catching Osama and the anthrax guy... But apparently 100,000,000 teens d/loading Britney are much more dangerous.

    2. Re:Let's outlaw the HTTP protocol! by pHDNgell · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I'm more afraid of Britney Spears than Osama bin Laden at this point (speaking as a parent).

      --
      -- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
    3. Re:Let's outlaw the HTTP protocol! by Stonehand · · Score: 2

      Learn more about interpreting quotes out of context here on Slashdot...

      You know full well what's the context of the discussion -- the networks "like Kazaa and Morpheus and the users who swap digital songs, video clips and other files without permission from artists or their record labels".

      So, it would seem that either --

      1. You read the article, but you're choosing to ignore the context in order to make that quote look bad. Result: you end up looking silly, since most of the readers here are probably sufficiently intelligent to figure out what was meant, and can see past your inane attempt at deceit.

      2. You didn't read the article, chose interpret that statement in the broadest way possible, and look like a Chicken Little.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    4. Re:Let's outlaw the HTTP protocol! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't understand why people are mad about this. This is the right thing to do. Instead of going after the technology itself they are going after the users who are actually commiting crimes.

      Anything wrong with that?

    5. Re:Let's outlaw the HTTP protocol! by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      Well, it all depends on whether or not you actually believe what they are doing should be considered criminal. I, for one, think it is wrong to outlaw that kind of activity, and that they're only doing it because they owe the people who stand to lose money from this copying. Do a google search for "janis ian internet debacle" and read what she has to say. Do you actually believe that trading music is *wrong*?

    6. Re:Let's outlaw the HTTP protocol! by Warped-Reality · · Score: 1

      it seems the slashdot trend leans towards "The government did something?!? it must be evil!! who cares WHAT they did! they're filthy capitalist pigs!"

      I seriously wonder how many of them actually even read what the gov't DID, let alone whatever articles are attached to the story

      I hardly define downloading music that you HAVEN'T PAYED FOR as "Fair Use"... it doesn't matter how much of hte $ from the record goes to the artist, if you don't like it enough to pay for it, then don't listen to it.
      -watches karma go down the tubes-

      --
      This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
    7. Re:Let's outlaw the HTTP protocol! by LordLucless · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't give a toss about wether downloading songs for free is morally right or wrong. What I care about is the fact that the RIAA is trying to solve the problem through buying legislation.

      There should be a dichotomy of power - corporations have financial power, the people have legislative power through a government that represents them. When the government starts representing the corporation instead of the people, who represents the people?

      I say again, I don't care about them legislating against downloading songs, what I care about is that it is a symptom of a disturbing trend.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    8. Re:Let's outlaw the HTTP protocol! by donutello · · Score: 2

      Corporations don't have a vote. Only the people do. Corporations can donate as much money as they want to candidates to use to influence people but they can't actually vote.

      The people have full and complete power here. It's only that some people are idiots but that's always been a problem with democracy.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    9. Re:Let's outlaw the HTTP protocol! by Verizon+Guy · · Score: 1

      Hey numbnuts, cool it, it was a lame attempt at humor using a bad quote out of context. Don't get your panties in a bunch... sheesh!

      Do you take everything so seriously?

      --

      Aw, fuck it. Let's go bowling. - The Big Lebowski

    10. Re:Let's outlaw the HTTP protocol! by k-0s · · Score: 1

      "I can't understand why people are mad about this. This is the right thing to do. Instead of going after the technology itself they are going after the users who are actually commiting crimes.

      Anything wrong with that?"

      Let me get this straight. We should arrest users of a technology/tool because the use of this technology/tool has no historical record of being either legal or illegal?

      Fair enough...

      Well in that case we should arrest Bush, Cheney and Ken Lay INSTEAD OF Arthur Andersen. Because in the end those 3 were only users of a technology/tool (accounting irregularities with "fuzzy math" by way of Arthur Andersen) which hasn't been proven illegal but sure as hell doesn't look legal either.

      So until we arrest Bush and his "friends" for robbing people of millions and even billions of dollars, which were their retirements and childrens college funds, then I can't say I approve of the government arresting some 13 year-old for downloading a $2.00 Britney Spears song. The hypocracy of this administration knows no bounds.

      Don't even get me started on the RIAA.

    11. Re:Let's outlaw the HTTP protocol! by k-0s · · Score: 1

      It's strange because you are both right. The people do have a final say but that say is limited to 2 or 4 year intervals. We effectively loose our say for any 2 year period between elections. We only can hope our representatives work in our best interest between those elections. They usually do not, however, and that is where the corporations come in. During those two year intervals the corporations are stuffing massive amounts of money into the law makers pockets to get passed what THEY want. Case in point, the accounting scandfals of late. The bills introduced to stop these practices were trimmed down to protect corporations or in some cases axed totally. The people WANTED reform, the corporations did not. The corporations basically won and the only thing we can do about it is take it out on our local congressional candiates. That doesn't solve much as the accounting problems will persist.

    12. Re:Let's outlaw the HTTP protocol! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who paid for you?

    13. Re:Let's outlaw the HTTP protocol! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean -- back to normal. About time too, Osama was taking too much attention away from Ashcroft's real work, making sure American children grow up to be good christians and stay away from the real world.
      About the anthrax guy: don't expect to ever hear about his arrest. The powers that be don't want embarrassing exposure of the US government's bio-weapons programme. Embarrassing not because it is a covert programme violating international treaty. No sir. But because people would inevitably start making comparisons with a certain Middle East state that stands also accused of doing precisely that. Embarrassing, that.
      As Count Oxenstierna, the warlord behind the Swedish imperialist adventure in central Europe known as the 30 year war, remarked: "You do not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed".

    14. Re:Let's outlaw the HTTP protocol! by theRiallatar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As has been pointed out before, all of the accounting fudges took place on Clinton's watch, and are now just coming to light. Blaming Bush for the crap laws Clinton signed during his eight years of service is only wrong. Sure, Bush may be a corporate bastard, but that's not at the point of where these big businesses got the incentive to adjust the books.

    15. Re:Let's outlaw the HTTP protocol! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The RIAA already has all of the legislation they need. What they are trying to do here is get moved up on the Justice Departments priority list. That way they don't have to spend their own money investigating and suing.

    16. Re:Let's outlaw the HTTP protocol! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a joke retard.

    17. Re:Let's outlaw the HTTP protocol! by k-0s · · Score: 1

      Yes and big business did it in Bush #1 and Reagan before him and Carter before him. Yet none of those presidents were CEO's of companies before they were president and took sweetheart loans and stabbed shareholders in the back. Big business has been doing this for years, you're right, but our presidents have not.

    18. Re:Let's outlaw the HTTP protocol! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what is your choice ? Candidate 1 financed 4 milions by some corporation to represent them or candidate 2 financed 3 million by the same corporation to also represent them. They don't care who you chose to elect in the end, the result is the same.

      And for the candiate, they can lose without problem 1 of the 100 000 000 voters but not 1 or the 10 top donators.

    19. Re:Let's outlaw the HTTP protocol! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, surely it deserves to be a higher priority than rooting out al Queada scum who may be biding their time waiting for a signal to carry out the next 9/11.

      Surely it deserves to be a higher priority than tracking down and taking out child kidnappers and child pornographers.

      Definitely a higher priority than investigating the misuse of copyright to undermine the very Constitutional goals for which the public lets Congress grant copyright in the first place.

      [i]What is she smoking?[/i]

  7. Yeah! by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 1

    I think it's fair to go after the leechers, and not the technology. Thieves that have no respect for the hard work of others deserve to get caught and fined.

    I'd much prefer this than to jeopardize the entire P2P technology.

    --

    eTrade SUCKS
    1. Re:Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you seriously dense enough to think that us law = world law and that us law is capible of even touching out-of-country networks which anyone can log onto

    2. Re:Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Are you seriously dense enough to think that us law = world law and that us law is capible of even touching out-of-country networks which anyone can log onto

      Can you say "Daisy Cutter"? We can touch you. Believe me, we can touch you!

    3. Re:Yeah! by LiquidPC · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Singing a song and/or playing an instrument is most definately NOT hard work. It's certainly not so much work that its worth the millions that the artists/record labels make off of it. Not that I don't think the artists shouldn't be paid, but the amount of cash they make severely overweighs the amount of work they put into it. Yet, they STILL complain about losing money, its just absurd.

    4. Re:Yeah! by antirename · · Score: 2

      Do you work for the RIAA? Do you know anyone in a small-time band? Do you sympathize with that band member, if so? Are you sure that you're talking about the money that the artist makes, and not the money that the recording industry rakes in? There is no way that you can answer either "yes" or "no", if your post is really what you think.

    5. Re:Yeah! by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      Ah, so you subscribe to the labour theory of valuation, under which a good or service is valued primarily at the labour spent at it? Which, of course, ignores scarcity, demand, resources required, competence...

      Keep in mind that the cash that they do make has /all/ been handed over voluntarily by the masses -- nobody, to my knowledge, has ever been kidnapped by the record companies and forced to buy music. I doubt that anybody should have the right to tell the masses that they /can't/ buy that music because those awful musicians are *gasp* making too much money.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    6. Re:Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Singing a song and/or playing an instrument is most definately NOT hard work. "

      Not that it has anything to do with this but... Why isn't everyone doing that then? It is a matter of supply and demand in the end so if the half of the globes population could write good songs it wouldn't cost anything (or nearly zero).

      Why don't you quit your current job and compose songs and get rich instead?

      Well, what something is worth is a negotionation between the seller and buyer.

      The seller can always choose not to sell it to you and you as a buyer can always choose not to buy. You are a buyer doesn't have a given given right to get anything you point your finger on.

      Just because you think a CD is to expensive doesn't give you some god-given right to be a freeloader. If you think it's to expensive, fine, DONT USE IT!

      The fact that I think Ferraries are to expensive for me doesn't mean I have some right to break into their factory and take one either way.

    7. Re:Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whooaaa... talk like that consitutes a troll around these places. do you know what site this is? 90% of the people that visit this site are leechers and thieves (though that don't consider themselves it)

    8. Re:Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you are wrong.... most of us are not "leeches". We are the ones sharing the majority of the files. We aren't leeching... we are giving back to the community! And, secondly what I am doing is not stealing and I am not a thief. The original copy of the file still remains. I never actually removed it or stole it. I just made a perfect copy. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it ass burglar!

    9. Re:Yeah! by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      The fact that I think Ferraries are to expensive for me doesn't mean I have some right to break into their factory and take one either way.

      No, but I'd support your right to look at an existing Ferrari and build your own. The factory would still have their Ferrari, I'd have a Ferrari, and the factory didn't lose any money because there was no way I was going to buy one if I couldn't do it myself. :)

    10. Re:Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like once again it is time for the obligatory reference to Steve Albini's The Problem with Music.

      The classic clue stick for the whiny, how hard is it to be in a band types.

    11. Re:Yeah! by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 1

      Either you're not thinking sraight or someone's been brainwashing you.

      One of the great hallmarks of capitalism is success by MERIT. If you're able to produce something of value and interest to others, you will succeed. It's not how hard you work, it's how smart and how productive.

      What you are proposing is called COMMUNISM. Go read up on Karl Marx. Under it, everyone is equal. It doesn't matter how hard you work, you are JUST like any other shmoe working their days.

      Communism doesn't breed one spec of innovation. Why should I create, produce, or work harder than the next guy when I don't get any extra incentives out of it?

      --

      eTrade SUCKS
    12. Re:Yeah! by frost22 · · Score: 2

      Keep in mind that the cash that they do make has /all/ been handed over voluntarily by the masses -- nobody, to my knowledge, has ever been kidnapped by the record companies and forced to buy music
      Voluntarily ? You want song X ? you have to pay their monopoly price. What choice do I have ?

      5 Companies essentially conrol the whole market.
      This is anything but a free market.
      --
      ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
    13. Re:Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communism doesn't breed one spec of innovation. Why should I create, produce, or work harder than the next guy when I don't get any extra incentives out of it?

      Because you want to. When you see something and you think "Wow, that's cool. I wonder if I can do this or that with it." That is innovation. It matters little that your idea is a grand scheme or a pleasant tiny idea. Did you get paid for it? Probably not. All it takes is one idea. Implementing it is the hard part. Getting someone else to believe you is another. My point is innovation comes to whoever thinks about something. You propose that Innovation, and by inference, Inspiration, comes only from someone who will receive money for it. Also, you probably believe that no one would go about and try to implement it without getting some monetary gratification. Well, you would be wrong on that account too. I'll try to bring this a little back on-topic; scientist, engineers, musicians and artists will create without caring about the money. Sure they will dream of it, but they will still create because they want to, for love as it were.

      Now if you are going to refer back to innovation as being the first person to do something and make it common among the public, then that is practically luck. Why? Because first you have to have the idea, then you have to get it out to the masses and then be recognized as the first person who did it. So basically you have to be at the right place at the right time with the right idea. That's hard to do. Do you think Albert Einstein came up with his ideas because he believed that he was going to get paid for them?

      It doesn't matter what economic system you use. People will create and innovate purely because they want to and because they have the means to do it. Capitalism and Communism can both inspire and constrict innovative thought.

      And as my last words; people on this forum come up with new ideas every minute of everyday. Do they get paid to come up with those ideas? Just my two bits.

      -V.

    14. Re:Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and 10% are consumer whores.

    15. Re:Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see:

      1) Osama BinLaden is still on the loose

      2) They still have yet to arrest ANYONE over the Anthrax mailings

      And yet, somehow, these morons think that pursuing P2P fileswappers is a fucking PRIORITY?!

      Face it Americans, your government works for the corporations.

      Wake me up when Aschcroft reels in the Anthrax mailer. (Or maybe the religiously-insane buffoon thinks the band "Anthrax" is related to the terrorists?)

    16. Re:Yeah! by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      The choice is not to buy Song X at all.

      You're not /compelled/ to do so. If you don't have Song X, life will still go on quite reasonably. I suspect that practically everybody has unfulfilled wants, and most of them manage to get by without going mucker...

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    17. Re:Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Singing a song and/or playing an instrument is most definately NOT hard work"

      you are obviously clueless!

  8. a proposal by rlwhite · · Score: 1

    Since some definitions of P2P networks are broad enough to include the web, I suggest they begin by targeting major nodes here, here, and here. Rumor is they're the worst offenders. Shut them down and maybe everything will be fine again.

  9. What do you tell a woman with two black eyes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing, you told hte bitch twice already.

  10. uh oh by tempestdata · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Well so much for free speech. .... "You're hurting big business.. hence this activity is illegal"


    I think the rush to download everything in sight will be proportional to the rush to NOT be one of the major nodes. I mean, who wants to be arrested? That means it will get harder and harder for the average user to download his/her stuff, which is exactly what the RIAA wants. They know they can't stop the determined ones (I mean there is always usenet and IRC) but if they stop the masses it will be enough.


    If they dont intend to go after individual users and I dont think they will (Napster had what? 20 million + world wide users? They cant arrest millions). How will they deal with regular users connecting to nodes based in other countries? Will they make it illegal for ISPs to allow access to certain ports?


    and does this only affect P2p software? What about websites and ftp sites?

    --
    - Tempestdata
    1. Re:uh oh by SlugLord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      free speech? How exactly is downloading some guy's song, which he sells and you have not bought?

      Oh yeah, that's right! "starving artists!" I hear artists learn some secret technique so they don't need money anymore.

    2. Re:uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know you really do have a good point. Personally if they go after the masses doing this shit I could care less. I was downloading MP3s on IRC years ago before any of this started going mainstream and it was great. A return to this pre-napster period would be quite nice, especially if it means the RIAA/MPAA fucknuts getting off this god damn DRM trip.

    3. Re:uh oh by Moridineas · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      Well so much for free speech

      FOOL ALERT!!!! Free Speech doesn't give you the right to steal someone's work. Free Speech doesn't give you the right to listen to anyone's music whenever you want to. How about some common sense please!!

    4. Re:uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to sucking RIAA/MPAA cock, you worthless, ugly idiot.

    5. Re:uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free Speech does not give me that right. But... having an Internet connection does. All music, software and movies are free now. They always will be. Get over it. 90% of the population will still continue to buy their movies and music because they are too stupid to use their computers. The rest of us will enjoy free shit. I haven't bought a CD or piece of software since I got online in 1993. So fuck you and the horse you rode in on! It's all free now......

    6. Re:uh oh by tempestdata · · Score: 1

      please read my reply to the other reply. I am not saying that its right to steal music. But them going after the p2p networks is really pretty much taking control over a medium of communication.

      --
      - Tempestdata
    7. Re:uh oh by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "I think the rush to download everything in sight will be proportional to the rush to NOT be one of the major nodes."
      Its also time to start considering alternative modes of communication. Consider college LAN parties. Consider the bandwidth of a VW bus full of MP3 CDs. Latency *sucks* but oh the throughput once it arrives! This might also put Freenet on the map.
    8. Re:uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      They cant arrest millions
      Of course they can! There are around 500,000 people currently in jail in America alone for drug "offences". Add on to that the number of arrests not leading to convictions, and the number of people who've been to jail and served their sentence, and you'll see that "they" can quite happily arrest millions if "they" want to.
    9. Re:uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the artists really miss that whole red cent they get from each of those $18 CDs.

    10. Re:uh oh by Batou · · Score: 1

      Napster had what? 20 million + world wide users? They cant arrest millions

      Ever heard of the "War on Drugs?" Anyone care to venture a guess how many people are serving prison terms for violations of these (very similarly draconian and equally unenforceable) laws? Washington has it's head up its ass, and this Ashcroft moron especially so.

      I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm moving to Canada when the first book burnings start.

      "Land of the Free" my ass.

      --
      "Oh my God! The dead have risen! And they're voting Republican!" - Bart Simpson
    11. Re:uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought everybody on those systems was a node. Aren't you required to have a certain minimum amount of music in an upload directory in order to participate?

    12. Re:uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They know they can't stop the determined ones (I mean there is always usenet and IRC) but if they stop the masses...

      This leads to the idea of a client as easy to use as any P2P client that downloads fragments of things posted to usenet. For example, a given song could be posted as N binhex'd usenet posts, perhaps encrypted and/or with disparate headers that make them hard to associate, and the info is inserted into some kind of free directory. Falsely inserted info is modded down by users who form various trusted subnets.

    13. Re:uh oh by SlugLord · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I suppose my reply came off a little harshly. I don't really think shutting down these p2p networks (which ARE used almost exclusively for piracy) would necessarily constitute limitation of free speech, but it would be rather stupid and shortsighted, much like banning guns and airplaines as you said.

  11. Hello Freenet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Enter MP3. Enter Napster. Napster uses a centralized server, so the RIAA makes a case that they are enabling and thereby abetting copyright infringement. Enter Gnutella. Gnutella is decentralized, but it requires a physical IP address to search from, and hence users' files and their IP adress are both exposed.


    In case you haven't heard, Freenet is yet another P2P file-sharing app, but for one important difference. The files are distributed across numerous nodes (the more popular the file, the more nodes). No one knows what sort of data they're sharing, and no one knows who's searching for which file. But enter a search key and a number of hosts will send you their portion of the file. Viola!


    Let's see the RIAA try to take this one on: there's no central server to sue out of existence, and there's no way to track the users of the system, so they can't sue the larger users. Unless DRM technology becomes the legally-required standard, this sort of solution will render the RIAA's legal strategy useless.

    However, freenet is still in development, so buyer beware.

    1. Re:Hello Freenet! by delta407 · · Score: 2
      No one knows what sort of data they're sharing ... and there's no way to track the users of the system

      You could always send queries with a "hops to live" of zero, meaning the destination node is the only node that will answer the request. If you get an error, then it's not stored on that node. If you start getting data back, then it's obviously stored on that node, and you can sue them -- even if they didn't request it. (Which is one thing Freenet does insure; data is moved around without the user's intervention.) Said node is storing it and helping to distribute it, which is cause enough to slam somebody in jail for fifty years... right?

      But enter a search key and a number of hosts will send you their portion of the file.

      Wrong. Freenet doesn't work that way. One host returns data per key, but you can aggregate requests if one file is split up into multiple keys.

      However, freenet is still in development, so buyer beware.

      Freenet has been having, erm, problems. (As usual.) Somebody comes up with a fix for some obscure but heinous bug, checks it into CVS, and then once most of the network upgrades the performance is worse than before the fix or routing enhancement or what have you. Can't blame the developers, but Freenet isn't anywhere near up to par compared to even the old-school Gnutella clients.
    2. Re:Hello Freenet! by _Knots · · Score: 1

      > You could always send queries with a "hops to live" of zero

      Yes, you *could*, but there's a setting in later versions of FreeNet that assigns a probability of forwarding TTL=0 (or is it a probability of decrement... I forget) queries such that you could never be *sure* that it was that node that had the file.

      --Knots;

      --
      Anarchy$ dd if=/dev/random of=~/.signature bs=120 count=1
    3. Re:Hello Freenet! by flonker · · Score: 2

      Yes, you *could*, but there's a setting in later versions of FreeNet that assigns a probability of forwarding TTL=0 (or is it a probability of decrement... I forget) queries such that you could never be *sure* that it was that node that had the file.

      The way to work around that is with statistics. Send 300 identical TTL 0 queries, and if 150/300 of them return something, there is a strong probability that a node one hop away is hosting said material.

      The fix to that is to compute the chance of forwarding based on a cryptographic hash of the query and of a local key. In essence, you get nonpredictable deterministic behaviour.

      (Note: I don't know what Freenet has done about this.)

    4. Re:Hello Freenet! by _Knots · · Score: 1

      I think you have some terms confused.

      "nonpredictable deterministic" is slightly oxymoronish. I think you just meant "nondeterministic."

      And cryptographic hashes are all well and good, but in this situation they won't buy you anything since they'd be the same as a noncryptographic hash (no key material is exchanged with the other node).

      But yes, using statistics you could potentially determine what a node has, I think, unless FreeNet's yet again upped the ante.

      However, you can't legally attack the owner or operator of the node because 1) running FreeNet isn't illegal, and 2) the node owner can always claim perfect ignorance of what's on their node. It is all kept encrypted in local stores for exactly that reason.

      --Knots;

      --
      Anarchy$ dd if=/dev/random of=~/.signature bs=120 count=1
    5. Re:Hello Freenet! by flonker · · Score: 2
      I may have misused the terms "nonpredictable deterministic", but I don't think so. I meant that without the key, it appears random, hence nonpredictable. But deterministic because given the same input, you get the same results.

      Also, I suggested a cryptographicly secure hash, because you don't want people to be able to guess whether you're forwarding the data or not.

      Hence, if you get thirty queries for the same file, you would either forward all thirty, or you would forward none of them, and statistics alone wouldn't be enough to disclose the location of a file. Traffic analysis or the attacker controlling all the nodes you communicate are the attacks I see.

      Also, take the following attacks:
      • Assuming that you hash the query to a bit, without a key, then use that bit to determine if you forward the query or not. The attacker simply performs the same hash, and knows whether the query was forwarded. Security broken.
      • Assuming you have a 128 bit key, and you hash the query and the 128 bit key to a bit using an insecure hash, such as XORing every bit together. You reduced the security of that 128 bit key down to 1 bit. The attacker simply needs to know whether one query was forwarded, and then the attacker can precalculate whether any query would be forwarded. Security broken, (but with quite a bit more difficulty).
      • Assuming you have a 128 bit key, and you hash the query and the 128 bit key together to a bit using a cryptographically secure hash. I can't see any attacks against this system. Without the key, it would appear completely random whether or not the query is forwarded.


      Of couse, more cryptographically secure bits would be needed if you want to set the chance of something being forwarded to something other than 50%. Modulo arithmetic would serve nicely here.

      ...the node owner can always claim perfect ignorance of what's on their node. It is all kept encrypted in local stores for exactly that reason.

      Ah, but with the P2P hacking bill, the (RI|MP)AA could hack into your system if they suspect you of "sharing" their copyrighted material. Statistical evidence that their copyrighted material is on your Freenet node would be proof enough for them.
    6. Re:Hello Freenet! by cluelessinportland · · Score: 1

      Technically, RICO laws could be used against all users of Freenet and the users could all be hit with criminal conspiracy charges if the Justice Dep't. argued that the users that weren't downloading music were knowingly engaged in activity which would help cover-up the crimes of others. They could just point at Freenet and say the entire enterprise is is a criminal conspiracy.

  12. Thar Be Network Congestion Ahead, Mateys! by DarkZero · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess we should expect network congestion because of users, downloading everything in their sight to beat this initiative.

    Let loose the sails, mateys! Aye, we be setting course fer WinMX fer one last pillaging, arr...

  13. Re:How about some non mpaa/riaa/dmca/conspiracy ne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well fuckhead when they stop attacking us maybe we'll shut up. Who's side are you on anyway?

  14. Target Kazaa by Anenga · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I freely invite the RIAA to cannonball their blood sucking lawyers over to the FastTrack Network's Kazaa.

    Time to get rid of that Spyware infested, Computer-taking-over, garbage. Then I'll celebrate as I watch the users pour onto Gnutella - an open, free, decentralized environment.

    The free (as in "Centralized") ride is over folks'.

    1. Re:Target Kazaa by 1000StonedMonkeys · · Score: 1

      And watch gnutella crumble as the network exceeds 500 0 nodes...

      Seriously though, gnutella's great, but there are still many scaling issues that need to be taken care of before it's ready to handle the millions of users on the fasttrack network.

    2. Re:Target Kazaa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But, uhh, fasttrack works and gnutella doesn't...and the spyware is easy to get shot of, and it doesn't really take over your computer unless the tcp/ip stack isn't really up to it (which can be helped along the way by putting an openbsd firewall in the way in 'scrub' mode)...

    3. Re:Target Kazaa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Time to get rid of that Spyware infested, Computer-taking-over, garbage.

      Dude just uninstall your KaZaA, run Ad-aware, and install KaZaA Lite No more ads or spyware!

    4. Re:Target Kazaa by Anenga · · Score: 1

      I agree to some of that, Gnutella isn't ready in alot of ways, but it's improving constantly. When Morpheus switched, it hurt the network because it didn't have any Ultrapeer-election system (The buggy Gnucleus Clone, that Morpheus used as it's client), and allowed any node to become an Ultrapeer, even if they are a 56k user, on Windows 98.

      If KazaA users switched to Shareaza, I think Gnutella would hold up quite fine. On the other hand, however, if they all poured into Morpheus, the network would get hurt.

      KazaA works better than Gnutella because in alot of ways, it's Centralized. If you nuked the Kazaa HQ, it would die. If you nuked any part of Gnutella, it would still function as if nothing had happened. That's the difference. And that's why the FastTrack, or any centralized P2P Protocol, will not survive. Or at least, not with the RIAA on the same planet.

    5. Re:Target Kazaa by Mr.+Balrog · · Score: 1

      If Gnutella doesn't work then how am I dling files from it all of the time?

    6. Re:Target Kazaa by Sorthum · · Score: 1

      Or at least, not with the RIAA on the same planet.

      Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Pinky?

      Hang on, I've gotta call NASA...

  15. Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Newer+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't we have terrorists roaming around? Haven't half of people's retirement funds vaporized thanks to big business' gluttony? ...and Congress wants Ashcroft to bust FILE SHARERS???!! Somethings wrong here... REALLY WRONG HERE!!!

    1. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's also mention internal national security issues such as leaky agents, child pornography rings, garden variety rapists, murders, and drug dealers. The RIAA and MPAA can write off their losses (if any, really) on their balance sheets, but I doubt the people affected by the above criminals can write off their losses.

    2. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by lordkuri · · Score: 0

      man.... what the fuck..... I said basically the SAME FUCKING THING 3 posts into this damn topic, and this guy gets +4 Insightful ?????????

      I know....

      MAYBE it's ALL the FUNKY capitalization

    3. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by BitHive · · Score: 1

      Shhh. Everything is fine. Go back to sleep, America. Your government is in control.

    4. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by mfago · · Score: 1

      You've forgotten the ENTIRE viewpoint of these people (eg Ashcroft et al):

      Hacking == Terrorism

      Don't forget: Hack into a computer and it's life in prison. Killing someone can get you less time!

      WTF are these people smoking? 'cause _it_ sure can't be legal either.

    5. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Anenga · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can see it now.

      "You can go ahead and release those terrorists from Cell Block A, we have some new comers here."

      "Oh, who are they?"

      "Sally, Age 15. Eric, Age 17 and Linda, their mother, age 42."

      "What they do? Kill families? Rape children? Run a plane into buildings?!"

      "Nope, they downloaded Britney Spears latest song off Kazaa"

    6. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by jred · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Well, you post at 0, he posts at +2. Rarely do I browse at less than +3, and I'm sure most who eligible to mod wouldn't browse at 0 either. Even if I have mod points, I can't. I tried a few times, but it was a futile effort.

      So that's why he got modded up and you didn't.

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    7. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Dryth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With all these evil terrorists and executives roaming the streets, I'm appauled we're still busting all those poor innocent shoplifters and breaking up domestic disputes! Civil servants should be profiling foreigners and storming office buildings, not enforcing all those trivial matters that don't REALLY effect us! *end sarcasm*

      Terrorism is a matter being dealt with. Big businesses are under the microscope. Are we to put down everything else until these matters are completely resolved? 'Cause y'know what? They won't be. Ever.

      File sharing is a matter of concern. I think we all accept that illegal activity is the norm on P2P networks, and I'm not just talking music piracy (noting the bias hereabouts against the RIAA). Just because there're bigger things going on in the world, doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to all the smaller concerns.

    8. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The system is collapsing.

      Time to party!

    9. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by dimator · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Ouch.

      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
    10. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Stonehand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They've got three choices, really.

      1. Alter or remove the laws regarding copyright until it's legal to "share" other people's work without their consent.

      2. Enforce the laws regarding copyright and those who violate them.

      3. Tolerate an increasing disregard for the law, and have yet another law on the books which /might/ at some time be selectively prosecuted, but isn't often.

      1, alteration or dropping, probably isn't going to happen until either the voters make it such a priority that they're willing to sacrifice their incumbents for it, or until SCOTUS says so.

      2, is what they're going for.

      3, leads to a situation where people may get used to non-enforcement and then get burned later if, say, a prosecutor feels like raising his profile, and where people may feel free to start disregarding other laws as well.

      And law enforcement is /big/. It's capable of multitasking, believe it or not...

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    11. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by antirename · · Score: 2

      No, it's not Congress. It's only those members of Congress who are especially well paid by nefarious special interest groups. See, they're about to go on vacation. They don't have time to pass a law, so they try this kind of stupid shit.

    12. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by antirename · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but do we really have time for them?

    13. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by guttentag · · Score: 2
      It's really quite simple when you think like a snake. The rationale lies in profiling.

      By doing things on the Internet that can be monitored, you are unknowingly taking an ongoing personality test. If "I like chocolate" people are three times more likely to commit robbery than "I like strawberry" people, Ashcroft can probably produce "statistics" showing that people who swap songs illegally are three times as likely to be anarchists who have no respect for the law or the establishment, and therefore are more likely to be terrorists.

    14. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to America. Haven't been here long huh?

    15. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Somethings wrong here... REALLY WRONG HERE"

      Really, what?

      Just because terrorists are worse doesn't mean that other crimes should be ignored. Just because we hunt bin laden doesn't mean druglords should be allowed to do their business or for that matter, houndreds of thousands commiting copyright crimes each and every day.

      One thing doesn't exclude the other.

    16. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, why shouldn't we?

    17. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So who's committing a crime? 800 million people? What are you going to do arrest them all? It's like dope --- millions and millions of poeple smoke pot. But, nothing the Government have tried will convince them to stop smoking weed. It's illegal... but, if 200 million people do it... is it a crime?

    18. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you! Nihilism at its finest! Time to start over again....

    19. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Malcontent · · Score: 2, Troll

      How hard is it to figure out.
      Enron gave a bunch of money to republicans.
      The defense contractors gave a bunch of money to republicans.
      The studios gave a bunch of money to republicans.

      How much did you give?

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    20. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, hollywood is mostly the Jackass Party's grounds...

    21. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have mod points and are not browsing at -1 you are a jackass who shouldn't me moderating. Probably european, too.

      Anyway the whiner should stfu, but still, I just couldn't let your post slide. If the only posts you moderate are those which have already been moderated, you are not contributing much.

    22. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the fuck is modding these posts up? It seems the moderation system is based on whether you agree with someone or not. This parent post is CRAP. It's not "insightful" by a long shot.

    23. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4. Create a new internet with rights management built in and controlled by the media companies.

      Considering the EU are thinking of building their own internet such a thing isn't so far fetched.

    24. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Firefly1 · · Score: 1
      Let's also mention internal national security issues such as leaky agents, child pornography rings...
      Let's not forget leaky politicians, as long as we're here. Sometimes I really wonder if the people doing the leaking understand the implications their actions can have. I wonder if Ritter's solution to the Intelligence Committee leaking in 'Clear and Present Danger' would help... naah, maybe not; politicians in the Clancy universe tend to be more principled than their realspace counterparts... Child pornography rings? Noisome, to be true, but hardly a national security issue. But you've a point: how come we don't see all this hue and cry about the rapists and the drug dealers and others whose actions hurt or kill people every day? Whatever happened to 'by, of, and for the people?' And speaking of revolutions... I wonder how long before something like the events in Vince Flynn's novel 'Term Limits' becomes an actuality...
      --
      - White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
    25. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by half-troll · · Score: 1

      Big business under the microscope? Since the days of the Clinton administration, the SEC has not had enough money to read all the SEC filings. Anderson clearly sold accounting based upon a capacity to ignore bad news -- microscope or not. The fact is that there have been many times in our history when business was under more real scrutiny. You know what? That is a major reason people all over the world started investing in US stocks.

    26. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Don't we have terrorists roaming around? Haven't half of people's retirement funds vaporized thanks to big business' gluttony? ...and Congress wants Ashcroft to bust FILE SHARERS???!! Somethings wrong here... REALLY WRONG HERE!!!"

      And what, may I ask, do you do for a living? Do you hunt terrorists? If not, how come? I mean, surely terrorists threatening your country is a bigger problem than what you're doing now for a living!

    27. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by eXtro · · Score: 1
      The RIAA alleges that they're losing billions to peer-to-peer networking. In reality they're probably losing something, but I don't know how it can be quantified. They're losing potential profits, but its not realistic to say that every person who downloaded the latest hit song would've otherwise bought the CD.

      The costs of having the FBI step up their efforts against the peers involved in peer-to-peer networking is quantifiable though. Since, in general, no money exchanges hands should the FBI be involved? Since the RIAA hasn't made an honest effort to quantify their actual losses as opposed to hand-waving and paper losses should they be involved? My opinion is that they shouldn't be involved unless you can demonstrate that actual finances are changing hands. Just like the FBI doesn't go after all the copyright violations in childrens nurseries such as unauthorized representations of Mickey Mouse or Whinnie the Pooh.

    28. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only on the liberally rich tip.
      In reality, all rich scumbags are closet republicans. Surely we all know that by now.

    29. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by archen · · Score: 1

      3. Tolerate an increasing disregard for the law, and have yet another law on the books which /might/ at some time be selectively prosecuted, but isn't often.

      Funny you should mention that, since I was just thinking about my disregard for the law. Truthfully all these laws as a whole mean less and less to me, as more and more of them are passed. I consider myself to be a very honest law abiding person for the most part. I don't pirate software, hell I even drive the speed limit. But all these laws and copyright schemes have pissed me off to the point where I don't care about them anymore. I don't agree with pirating, but seriously, how in the hell am I going to find music that I LIKE? I'm not listening to that shit on the radio. MTV is a joke. I admit the proportion of songs is much higher than what I buy (I'm still not buying a whole album for one song), but the amount I buy is much higher than what I would otherwise (which would be virtually nil). As many people have said time and again, if the price were lower, more people would buy. During college I copied a HEAP of anime on VHS. Now that I have the money, I'm buying it on DVD. The media giants are just out of control. I could care less about what they want anymore.

    30. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by thogard · · Score: 2

      This will become leading news because its pushed by the higest levels of the goverment and its an issue the media compaines like. The result is that pesky nonsense about all that big business fraud will get bumped out of the 15 minute evening news spot because its just after the soon to be war news and theres not enough time. Its not jsut US medai that has been playing the spin doctor games either. The BBC just ran a big story about a new secret US AF base in Qatar. So why the spin on that? Nice pictures of C-130 and a C-5 and lots of hardware on a brand new base. There is a reason this was on the front page of the BBC web site.

      Of course the FBI will look at P2P investigations like they look into spaming or cracking a US govt computer. They won't do any thing unless they have other objectives.

    31. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 2


      3, leads to a situation where people may get used to non-enforcement and then get burned later if, say, a prosecutor feels like raising his profile, and where people may feel free to start disregarding other laws as well.


      Sortof like the speed limit, J-Walking laws, Drug laws, Prostitution ordinances, and all the other selectivly enforced things.


      I guess file sharing is much more dangerous than those anyway....

    32. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course, Enron gave even MORE money to the democrats. Enron had special treatment from DEMOCRATS (which republicans refused to cater to). You'll find that most industries give just as much money to democrats as they do republicans. In some cases, more.

      But I wouldn't expect your narrow-minded political knowledge gained soley from CNN and the chicks on The View to know the truth.

    33. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >how in the hell am I going to find music that I LIKE?

      Jesus H. God, how did people live before the Internet?!?

      Kid, I'm 42 years old, and you cannot imagine how soft, pampered, and whiney you sound. I'm not saying that I agree with all the tactics of the RIAA or MPAA, but please consider toning down the cry-babying if you want to be taken seriously by anyone who was out of diapers when MTV launched.

      Nobody has a God-given or constitutional right to Entertainment. The forefathers bequeathed us a right to Pursue happiness, not have it necessarily dumped in our laps.

      The copyright holders hold the copyrights because the artists have signed these over to them. The artists have signed these over to them because of the value (real or perceived) which the copyright holder brings to the relationship. Arguably the most important benefit is that of Distribution. A writer wants to get his book onto the shelves at B&N, a comic book artist wants to be grouped with a writer and get his work onto a newsstand. The copyright holders -- Houton-Mifflin, Marvel -- provide those means.

      Digital distribution of encoded video and audio and subsequent grass roots distribution en masse across the 'Net threatens the core contribution that the copyright holder provides the artist. The copyright holder is justifiably scared. "If the artist can achieve global distribution to his audience on his own through the 'Net," the distributor worries, "what does he need me for?" And as a creator of content, I say, yeah, that's a good question.

      But you rabid anti-**AA kooks are just as frightening to the artists as you are to the distributors! I personally think that most recording artists would be happy to forego traditional truck-and-jewelcase distribution in favor of a digital model. Unfortunately, the loudest noise from the anti-tradition side is not from anyone proposing any solution that ensures that Joe Sixpack will compensate the artist if Joe acquires a copy of his song/book/movie/picture. All the creator hears is "The **AA Sucks!" (Umm, yeah, he knows that already, much more clearly than you could possibly imagine) or the nails-on-blackboard sound of "Information Must Be Free!" or the clueless musings of computer science students speculating about how many free copies of a song or a poem he is entitled to distribute online.

      Guys, The World is Not Against You. Take your fists out of the air and your feet out of your mouth long enough to get on the same page, and recognize that one single distribution scheme may not work for every artist. What makes sense for Britney Spears may not make sense for Trent Reznor or Mick Jagger, and what makes sense for David Weber ( http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/03/231423 2&mode=thread&tid=149 ) almost certainly does not work for Harlan Ellison (see below).

      And for the sake of your cause, stop whining like spoiled children! Your background music and summer read is someone else's kid's college fund.

      Sorry for the rant. If, however, you want more, I suggest you check out http://harlanellison.com/kick/kick_rls.htm

      Nobody doles out a textual spanking like the legendary Mr. Ellison.

    34. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans, Republicans, Republicans.

      The Clinton Administration gave us the DMCA.

    35. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      "Enron gave even MORE money to the democrats"

      You are of course lying. It is to be expected in a republican. Please go to opensecrets.org and do some research. Enron gave much more money to republicans then democrats.

      "You'll find that most industries give just as much money to democrats as they do republicans."

      Once again you are lying. Insdustries give much more money to republicans while unions tend to give more to democrats. It's the classic struggle. Teachers, cops, firemen, plumbers etc support democrats while CEOs support republicans.

      Of course republicans also get a lot of funds from christians and such too.

      All of this adds up to the grim fact that republicans get a ton more money then democrats over all. Combine that with the conservative media and you can explain how they control the country.

      Of course none of this explains how they managed to screw things up so bad but that's another discussion altogether.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    36. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this might not be so bad if we were just talking about the Government enforcing reasonable copyright laws. That is, have the rule that anonymous, unauthorized sharing of copyrighted works is against the law; and put the Government in SOLE charge of policing.

      However, if you look at the larger context, you see numerous legal and technological means being applied to give copyright holders perfect monopoly control (something new in American history) both before AND AFTER the sale, and the right to commit computer crimes in the service of their own vigilante actions. In that context, the Constitutional framework for copyright and for several cherished civil rights (e.g. those of Amendments 1, 3, 4, ...)

      In that context, and in light of all the more productive uses for Federal manpower (e.g., uncovering and destroying al Queada cells, catching bank robbers and murderers), I wonder why we should spend extra tax money to do anything that will advance any part of the agenda of the recording industry.

    37. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In that context, the Constitutional framework for copyright and for several cherished civil rights (e.g. those of Amendments 1, 3, 4, ...)
      ... is under serious attack. (The DMCA and SSSCA/CBDTPA are two examples of this.)
    38. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your background music and summer read is someone else's kid's college fund

      Or maybe it's the campaign fund for that Senator/Representative who's going to introduce that bill allowing you crack into that clueless computer science student's PC and shut her down because she's swapping an MP3 entitled "Oops I Did It Again." What's that? It was a home made parody about a....core dump? What the hell is a core dump? Oh well. Stupid student didn't need her computer anyway. Damned hacker....

  16. Oh, is the war on terrorism over now? by phillymjs · · Score: 3, Flamebait

    I'm sorry, I must not have received that memo.

    I'm so glad we have vanquished Al Qaeda and their like-minded brethren, so now we can go after the REAL threats to the American way of life-- the people who are depriving Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti from the cash with which they stuff their mattresses.

    Those file downloaders can share prison cells with those kids who got 20 years for selling a shroom to a narc in the parking lot at a Phish concert. Meanwhile, the evil CEOs that have looted companies at the expense of their employees' livelihoods and 401K's continue to walk around free.

    Memo to Congress: Get your fucking priorities straight.

    ~Philly

    1. Re:Oh, is the war on terrorism over now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you think the FBI's arrest of some jackass for downloading/sharing a ton of illegal mp3/mpg files interferes with the war on terrorism, you are simply a dumb motherfucker. Your argument is as salient as the speeder who tries to tell the state trooper that he/she should be concentrating on "real crime" not wasting their time on speeders. Yeah, right, good luck with that.

      Parent is a troll.

    2. Re:Oh, is the war on terrorism over now? by SlugLord · · Score: 1

      I see... Congress should drop everything and go kill some retard who thinks he's getting 700 horny virgins for killing some foreign devils. Actually, since legislation isn't going to do much, the whole of congress should suit up and head off to basic training. They can be the elite commando squad that kills Saddam and Bin Laden simultaneously.

    3. Re:Oh, is the war on terrorism over now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you kinda have a point going for you, next time post it as your user, sans the name calling flames, and add a fact or two in, and you got yourself an argument, and a post....

    4. Re:Oh, is the war on terrorism over now? by dimator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Memo to Congress: Get your fucking priorities straight.

      I prefer:

      Memo to Congress: fuck you!

      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
    5. Re:Oh, is the war on terrorism over now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree and disagree with the comments everyone seems to be posting.

      I do agree that we have to get our priorities straight... that's something that we've needed to do for A LONG time... I.e., maybe we should take care of OUR needy citizens before we take care of those in other countires, maybe we should take care of our debt before we help other countries out of their own, maybe we should be working to improve our hospitals and health care for our current citizens, who already are in need of it, rather than crowding and bankrupting our hospitals by admitting countless illegal immigrants into them, maybe we should have an FEC investigation into the business dealings of our own government before we start picking on all of our fortune 500 companies, maybe we should be making our tax code more SIMPLE (i.e., a flat federal tax), instead of adding more and more shit into it.

      et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

      My point: we've had our priorities out of whack for the last 20-30 years.

      As for the copyright thing: We are a capitalist society, and copyrights protect the ability of a product to generate CAPITAL, and they are necessary. If RIAA is "stealing" money for artists, that's a problem for the artists to deal with; it does not change the fact that you are stealing, and you are breaking the law when you download a song or album that you don't own. If you think CDs should be cheaper/whatever, stealing them via p2p, or whining about it any time your ability to steal is threatened won't change any thing.

    6. Re:Oh, is the war on terrorism over now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct. The FBI, with all its
      THOUSANDS of agents, can only do ONE THING
      AT A TIME. So, by asking them to start
      arresting massive warez traders, they implicitly
      are being asked to do nothing else.

    7. Re:Oh, is the war on terrorism over now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crimes involving killing people is ofcause worse than, say, beating up someone for example.

      Does this mean that as long as Al Qaida is out there we should simply ignore every other law there is???

      Law should be enforced, end of story!

    8. Re:Oh, is the war on terrorism over now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "depriving Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti from the cash with which they stuff their mattresses."

      Shit mattresses?! You mean depriving Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti from the 20's, 50's and 100's on the top of the stack by kicking out the LADDER they use to reach that high!

    9. Re:Oh, is the war on terrorism over now? by Big+Jojo · · Score: 2

      No, but this is the info-war part of it.

      If a bunch of political dissidents can get together to fight the hypocrisy of the latest War on (Some) X well enough to get past the media blackout on such legalized looting, they need the same kind of structure as Kazaa etc.

      Never noticed propaganda in your music before? How will you fight against it? How will the Powers That Be respond to thought crimes? Maybe by being ready to obstruct new media channels? And having lots of practice doing it?

    10. Re: Oh, is the war on terrorism over now? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2


      > Meanwhile, the evil CEOs that have looted companies at the expense of their employees' livelihoods and 401K's continue to walk around free.

      Actually, several of them have "walked the walk" over the past few weeks... ...though people are starting to notice that oil execs aren't getting the same treatment. One suspects that the sudden interest in prosecuting execs has more to do with elections in three monts than with cleaning house.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    11. Re:Oh, is the war on terrorism over now? by bkc98 · · Score: 1

      Here, Here. The less 'the peoples elected representatives' (read Congress) do, the better off we are. Fewer laws = more freedoms.

      No more corporate welfare! If the music industry will worry about the product they are pushing - the music - then they will make more money. As it is, the drivel that's coming from the major music labels these days just isn't worth my ~$13-$17/cd, generally speaking. So download that one good song from the new album of choice and go about your business. So now I'm a criminal b/c I know bad music when I hear it.

      The next thing we know, they will be going after people giving their opinions on their legislative performance. Welcome to our neo-Socialistic state. Ain't it great!

      Fuck Congress.

    12. Re:Oh, is the war on terrorism over now? by kavau · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Memo to Congress: Get your fucking priorities straight.

      \begin{sarcasm}

      What are you talking about? Congress has its priorities straightened out perfectly: Innocent little kids that share music files over the internet don't have any economic value, and they're hurting big business. Off to jail with them! We got no use for them here!

      Corrupt and greedy CEOs on the other hand, ARE the economy! All they were trying to do is to boost the American status as economic power #1 on the planet. And they were probably contributing generously to the congresspeople's wallets, too. Of course we want to keep them out of jail, so they can continue to pay huge amounts of tax and contribute financially to the political progress.

      We should stop whining: All we have to do is to form a filesharer's lobby that contributes a few billion dollars to each election campaign, and we can be sure that congress will be much more open minded towards our wishes.

      \end{sarcasm}

    13. Re:Oh, is the war on terrorism over now? by swaic · · Score: 1

      You do have a point; you can't just let people commit crimes. However, at times certain crimes do take priority. If there's someone mowing down people with a street sweeper a hundred meters down the street and a cop is trying to write you a ticket, then that's ridiculous. I guess it all depends on the person's outlook as to when the "criminal" should be let go in the pursuit of "bigger fish". Of course, I may be mistaken.

    14. Re:Oh, is the war on terrorism over now? by fatbastard10101 · · Score: 1

      Ashcroft has really been quiet about this guy. I wonder why?

    15. Re:Oh, is the war on terrorism over now? by Patersmith · · Score: 1


      Maybe Traficant was really onto something...

    16. Re:Oh, is the war on terrorism over now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it IS salient, but the cops and judges will never see it that way.

      A cop car driving in traffic does more to control the speed than one sitting on the side of the road, either writing a ticket or radaring for speeders.

      But the cop can't say to his supervisor, "kept average speeds to 58 mph" while he was cruising the highway as an explanation to why he only wrote 10 tickets instead of 15.

  17. I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The vast majority of p2p traffic violates copyright. Yes, there's legal sharing of music. And yes, we can disagree about whether the illegal sharing is wrong.

    But it seems the suggestion is that the FBI uphold the law. They are not outlawing p2p. They are not prohibiting legal music trades. Instead, there's a suggestion that the FBI enforce the law against users who traffic in large amounts of illegal software and pirated music.

    If I put up a web page with links to tens of thousands of dollars of pirated software, I should expect either my ISP to yank my connection, or to get a visit from the FBI. And I would expect many /. readers would think I got what I deserved.

    If I do the same thing with a p2p server, however, there seems to be a belief that I had a right to break the law.

    So, before we get hysterical about "protocols being outlawed", perhaps we should look at (a) the proposal, and (b) the ethics of those 'big fish' traders who traffic in warez and mp3.

    Well, this will likely get a bad mod rating because it's not all "rah rah mp3 warez". But I'm an artist who needs these protections to feed my family. Sure, I've heard that sharing music and copyright-anarchy is supposed to increase sales in the aggregate, but it doesn't work for me any the genre I work in. So I need my audience to please be a *paying* audience.

    1. Re:I don't understand... by 1000StonedMonkeys · · Score: 1

      Welcome to slashdot...

    2. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You are so right. Why do people think their "right" to steal is greater than a creator's right to protect his or her work? If I created it, I should be permitted to license my work in as free or as restrictive manner as I please, and protect it with the strongest means at my disposal.

      Finally, how sad that we both have to post anonymously among all the people cheering for "free speech".

    3. Re:I don't understand... by lunenburg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, this will likely get a bad mod rating because it's not all "rah rah mp3 warez". But I'm an artist who needs these protections to feed my family. Sure, I've heard that sharing music and copyright-anarchy is supposed to increase sales in the aggregate, but it doesn't work for me any the genre I work in. So I need my audience to please be a *paying* audience.

      If I hear your music (assuming you're a musician), I just might want to buy your CD. Which ClearChannel station can I hear your stuff on? Or possibly MTV? With P2P out of the picture, those might be the only ways I'd hear you.

    4. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got your free speech right here in my pants asshole! Right after I give your mom some "free speech" you can have a suck on it too.

      All music, all software and all movies are hereafter and always will be FREE! Free for the taking! Just fill-up and help yourself. Everything is free! Now and forever... and ever. Amen.

    5. Re:I don't understand... by HanzoSan · · Score: 2

      He doesnt understand that mp3s have replaced CDs.

      He wont release his music on Mp3.com, or sell his mp3s via a website.

      If he were so smart he'd release some mp3s to napster with links to his site in them, and people wouldd go buy his cds if they like it, or buy his mp3s and burn them.

      Quality, release low quality mp3s, and sell high quality versions.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    6. Re:I don't understand... by PastorOfMuppets · · Score: 1
      With P2P out of the picture, those might be the only ways I'd hear you.

      Ever hear of concerts? Every CD purchase that I have made in the past 5 years has been a direct result of seeing a band perform live.

      --
      If you don't have anything nice to say, shut up you stupid prick.
    7. Re:I don't understand... by mfago · · Score: 1
      If I put up a web page with links to tens of thousands of dollars of pirated software,

      As long as you are not actually hosting the illegal software, this SHOULD be covered under the first amendment. Of course, you'd actually end up in jail.

      Annoy Can't agree with everything he says (click past the shocker intro), but you've got to admit that he has guts...

    8. Re:I don't understand... by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      What kind of selfish musician are you??? You should copyleft your music so we all can benefit. And more people will listen to your music and buy your CD's, so we're going to do what's right for you, no matter what you want, you have NO RIGHT to control your own property.

      end sarcasm...

    9. Re:I don't understand... by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      As long as you are not actually hosting the illegal software, this SHOULD be covered under the first amendment.

      Right, and due to the first amendment if you hire a hitman to kill someone you're innocent because you didn't actually pull the trigger. Accessory.

    10. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've done that. I only made about 30% of what
      I normally make. It seems some of my audience
      would rather just get things for free and
      not bother to be a 'patron of the arts'.
      I understand their thinking. They probably
      have families to feed... just like I do.

    11. Re:I don't understand... by flonker · · Score: 2

      Actually, I think it's closer to publishing a book on how to kill someone. Under the first ammendment, you can do that, as long as you don't incite people to actually commit the crime. Therein lies the legal gray area.

    12. Re:I don't understand... by dboyles · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If he were so smart he'd release some mp3s to napster with links to his site in them, and people wouldd go buy his cds if they like it, or buy his mp3s and burn them.

      For the little guy who will never get a contract and be on MTV and be on the Billboard lists, that's probably not a bad idea. An artst with a small, devoted following might make a couple hundred dollars selling MP3s from a website (although, if you think about hosting costs, you'd have to have more than just a few dozen people actually buying your MP3s). But obviously the record industry has decided that they don't want to distribute their copyrighted material this way, and for good reason: it's not as profitable.

      Yes, as hard as it may be to believe, record execs don't care as much about art (getting truly good music out there, profits be damned) as they do their bank accounts. That part isn't a shock to anyone. And that's the reason I am *sure* that the record industry has put in a massive amount of energy determining how to handle this whole MP3 situation. You don't make billion-dollar PR and legal moves by flipping a coin.

      That's why I'm so surprised that people can't fathom how the RIAA can be so ignorant. "MP3 is the wave of the future! The record labels are stuck in the past!" When you see hundreds of 13 year-olds screaming for an artist who built his or her reputation solely by online distribution, that's when you'll know that the tides are changing.

      --
      -- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
    13. Re:I don't understand... by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      I dunno, I think placing a link is more like writing a book AND providing a gun. Point taken though.

    14. Re:I don't understand... by DarkZero · · Score: 2

      The mistake you're making is thinking that this plan is actually supposed to support "copyright holders". In actuality, all of the MP3s from independant artists or labels, regardless of their size or even popular recognition, will be ignored. This plan is being pushed by the RIAA and the congressmen that have been paid by the RIAA. The Department of Justice, if they agree to follow along with it, will simply be looking for files that match a list of RIAA songs, not a massive index of all of the American music on Earth, including songs from Joe Blow's Six-Hits-A-Day Independent Music Site.

      But then again, if the P2P services are blanketly taken down, then the artists that want to give their music away lose just as much control over their music as the ones that don't want to give their music way lose under this plan, because they lose the ability to give their music away. So, as in most things, there is no perfect choice. However, given the choice between enforcing the RIAA's copyrights by selectively prosecuting P2P users for trading only THEIR songs, enforcing the copyrights of all artists that want their music restricted by shutting down P2P programs, or enforcing the copyrights of all artists that want their music distributed freely, I have to tend toward the latter, because I believe that independant music has flourished more under the current, open system of P2P distribution than it did during the days when CDs were the only distribution method available. Besides, the RIAA isn't exactly suffering under the current system. Their sales kept going up in spite of Napster and only went down when the entire entertainment industry and most of the other businesses in the US saw a loss in profits because of September 11th.

    15. Re:I don't understand... by antirename · · Score: 2

      What exactly is your genre? The RIAA doesn't have a workable business model... it doesn't work for you, and it won't work for them. If I like your stuff, I'll buy it. If it sucks, I won't. I don't listen to the radio. I'm going to the store tomorrow to get the new Springsteen album (and no, I haven't heard a single song but I don't think I'll be dissapointed). Artists need exposure more than protection, it would seem.

    16. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever considered the fact that you might just SUCK as a musician? Maybe nobody wants to buy your shitty music!

    17. Re:I don't understand... by antirename · · Score: 2

      Either this person is behind the times and hoping that the RIAA will do some innovative that will make them some money, or we're feeding a troll.

    18. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he's an artist who CAN make a living
      with this skill. Can you say the same?
      Have you made something that other people
      are willing to pay for? Oh, yea, those
      fries and burgers you make. I guess
      people are willing to pay for them...

      What he's getting at is that warez ops are
      stealing food from his family. Without pirates,
      he does OK. With this 'lets steal everything'
      attitude, he can't make a living.

      I think you're the one who sucks, AC.

    19. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. You've been trolled.... by the RIAA!

    20. Re:I don't understand... by shepd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >Sure, I've heard that sharing music and copyright-anarchy is supposed to increase sales in the aggregate, but it doesn't work for me any the genre I work in.

      Ever considered that your real problem isn't people pirating your music?

      Your problem is lack of exposure. Who are you? What genre do you play? Where can I sample your music? Are you a big time artist sticking up for the boys club, or a just a little one trying to scrape a living together?

      Without answers to at least some of these questions, I don't see any reason to believe you.

      >If I do the same thing with a p2p server, however, there seems to be a belief that I had a right to break the law.

      I don't particularly think so. I do think that simply running a "node" that offers no actual content is as illegal as my newspaper explaining that Luigi's Garage downtown offered to hook a reporter up with a "hot" deal, or that half the cable guys that they had visit their bait house sold them a hacked cable box.

      If the FBI want to shake up nodes, they should start shaking up newspapers first. They were the first people to actively report where illegal activity happens, and they report it a lot more than anything else. Take CNN along with them, too.

      If the government and media companies want the problem of piracy to go away, its going to take the consumer to agree with them. And as long as the media companies consider us "theives" by default (enter DRM, copy-protected CDs, and CD-R levies) why shouldn't we act accordingly? It isn't like this is the sort of crime where someone is going to leave with physical harm done to them.

      Sorry you're being caught in the crossfire.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    21. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He plays "Gay midget techno-jazz for Pedophiles with the blues". It's kind of like Hank the Angry Drunken dwarf mixing Louis Armstrong as mixed by John Digweed for Jeffrey Dahmer and B.B. King... and he wonders why nobody buys his fucking music.

    22. Re:I don't understand... by antirename · · Score: 2

      Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Damnit, Hillary, you almost had me going.

    23. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pot to kettle: "You're black!"

      Let's drop the pretense... we all know that you are the original guy defending your own post.

      LOSER!!!!!!

      Let's have a link to some of your music if you are so fucking great!

    24. Re:I don't understand... by DeepZenPill · · Score: 1

      But the point is, as the artist, he has the right to choose how his art is distributed. If an artist does not realize any benefit of distributing his music through the internet, that is his decision. Yes, not only is it illegal, but it is immoral to distribute his works against his wishes. I agree that the internet and p2p software could significantly help good artists gain popularity and make more sales, but this method may not work for everyone. Just because the artist decides to ignore the benefits of distributing his work over the internet does not give *anyone* else the right to give it away. Fair use, on the other hand muddies the issue. But as of now p2p is mainly used to obtain warez/mp3's that people have not already purchased, and so those who break the law should be prosecuted.

    25. Re:I don't understand... by Rohan427 · · Score: 1

      Try not being anonymous, tell us who you are, and maybe we'll find enough value in your work to pay you for it, and pull your head out a little.

      1. A lot of file sharing is illegal.
      2. We already have laws against it.
      3. There are valid reasons people share this illegal software.
      4. The RIAA is *NOT* your friend.
      5. The RIAA is *NOT* looking out for you.
      6. P2P networks have NOT harmed record or movie sales.
      7. Studies show that P2P networks have HELPED record/movie sales.
      8. Try actually reading Janis Ian's articles. If she's off base, tell us how, why, and provide data to back it up.
      9. Do you REALLY think Congress would make a statement like this if not from the pressure and millions of dollars thown at them by the likes of the RIAA?
      10. The labels already get paid for copied music: they get a cut of every blank CD sold.

      The DoJ has more important things to do than fight a battle for the RIAA, and THAT is what this is about. The DoJ does enough to invade our privacy now, they don't need an excuse to do more of it. If the labels didn't charge so damn much for music, then they would sell a hell of a lot more of it. As I stated in another post on a similar /. topic. I refuse to support the labels any longer. If you have music I like, and are not affiliated or selling through a label, then I would like to hear it and purchase it. I would even attend a concert, though the ticket prices for concerts are often outrageous as well.

      I suppose the next thing will be to arrest people for playing music at parties, in their car for friends, etc. few people dispute the fact that some file sharing is illegal, but the methods proposed to combat the problem are only addressed at the symptoms, not the root causes.

      People want to use their computers for entertainment. They want to use them for the entertainment media they (usually) have already purchased. They want to use them to view/listen to entertainment as per Fair Use.

      The RIAA and MPAA want to try and circumvent Fair Use yet again in order to continue to line there increasingly large coffers with yet more gold. They don't give a rats ass if what you or I do is within the law or not. They want more laws they say they have a right to make more money at YOUR expense even more than mine.

      Maybe you should talk to the labels and/or congress about where your part of the profits from CD sales are.

      Their 60 year old business plans do not work in this technological age, so they are fighting tooth and nail to stop the technlogical age and push things back to the '30s again.

      Alas, I think it is true, most corporate execs are indeed clueless, incompetent, PHBs that need a swift kick in the ass and a belt in the chops.

      PGA

    26. Re:I don't understand... by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 1

      So I need my audience to please be a *paying* audience

      If thats what you want, get a job with a paycheck every week. Since your an artist, I dont think you are creating for money. and if you are...well more power to you. But my feeling would be your creating to satisy an inner drive, so lets just attach money to it because that the only thing you see in the external world that validates your work? Im sorry, I feel no pity for you. It doesnt take as much balls to say your an artist as it does to actually be one.

      Create because its who you are, not because you want to get money for doing it

    27. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen, the FBI has other work.

      many crimes are going unsolved here. Whrn II say crimes I mean murders, rapes, child abductions, etc.

      FBI should try to solve those crimes first. Then we can talk about trying to catch music swappers.

    28. Re:I don't understand... by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "If I put up a web page with links to tens of thousands of dollars of pirated software, I should expect either my ISP to yank my connection, or to get a visit from the FBI. And I would expect many /. readers would think I got what I deserved."
      Respectfully disagree. If you are linking to a source of information I wouldn't want to stop you, and I'd fight others who tried to stop you. If I published a deadtree editorial re: redlight districts, even with maps, I'd expect to be protected. Providing a link is *not* the same thing as hosting illegal (though perhaps moral) material. It shouldn't be illegal to report facts. Especially it shouldn't be illegal to report facts in the United States of America.
    29. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, as a potential consumer of his music I have the right to listen to a FULL VERSION of the song before I buy it. How do I know that the first two songs aren't great while the rest suck? Since the authors will not *willingly* give the consumer this right -- we take it for ourselves. Fuck him... what makes him think that he can influence my purchase decision. And, lets not forget the people who can't afford to buy shit like CD's and Software. If these things were affordable to begin with -- piracy wouldn't exist on the scale that it does. Piracy is simply a way for the consumer to level the playing field against greedy corporations and artists.

    30. Re:I don't understand... by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 2

      In many countries, there is in fact a difference: you may copy music for your own, private purposes, but you may not do so with software.

    31. Re:I don't understand... by mfago · · Score: 1
      Right, and due to the first amendment if you hire a hitman to kill someone you're innocent because you didn't actually pull the trigger. Accessory.

      Completely fucking different and you know it!

      The correct comparison is having someone arrested for listing the phone number of a hitman.

      It should not be illegal to publish information.That is what the first amendment is all about.

    32. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. A lot of file sharing is illegal.

      Yup.

      2. We already have laws against it.

      And no new laws are being proposed, just enforcement of existing laws.

      3. There are valid reasons people share this illegal software.

      To feed your family, Valjean?

      6. P2P networks have NOT harmed record or movie sales.

      7. Studies show that P2P networks have HELPED record/movie sales.


      To quote you: "tell us how, why, and provide data to back it up."

      8. Try actually reading Janis Ian's articles. If she's off base, tell us how, why, and provide data to back it up.
      You're the one making claims, you provide data to back it up.

      9. Do you REALLY think Congress would make a statement like this if not from the pressure and millions of dollars thown at them by the likes of the RIAA?
      No, but it doesn't mean they don't have a valid point.

      10. The labels already get paid for copied music: they get a cut of every blank CD sold.
      Nope.

      The DoJ has more important things to do than fight a battle for the RIAA, and THAT is what this is about.
      You're exactly right. They should drop everything not related to terrorists. Murder? Kidnapping? Bah! What are single victims compared to the THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO CAN BE KILLED AT ANY SECOND FROM TERRORISTS!!!

      The DoJ does enough to invade our privacy now, they don't need an excuse to do more of it.
      Accessing public file sharing networks is about as invasive as them picking up street walkers.

      If the labels didn't charge so damn much for music, then they would sell a hell of a lot more of it. As I stated in another post on a similar /. topic. I refuse to support the labels any longer.
      This is what it's all about. It's what it's always about. People don't want to pay CD prices. Fine. No problem. But don't think that you're legalally (or, debatably, morally) entitled to listen to the music for free.

    33. Re:I don't understand... by taernim · · Score: 1

      Ever hear of Prince?

      True, he began on a label, but after that, he left to distribute his stuff online. And a number of other groups are doing the same.

      It seems unlikely a group will gain "super stardom" solely by online means. But if they make an impact, then go to online distribution, is that any less admirable? I don't think it is...

      --
      "PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
    34. Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The correct comparison is having someone arrested for listing the phone number of a hitman.
      Believe you me, if you publish a book called "The Big Book Of Hitmen" listing hundreds of phone numbers for hitmen, you'll be arrested in fairly short order.
    35. Re:I don't understand... by Nameles · · Score: 1

      Yeah, then the good ones like The Smashing Pumpkins break up after releasing a great double disc set online for free.

    36. Re:I don't understand... by Nameles · · Score: 1

      Concert is in New York, I live in Germany. How the FUCK am I supposed to get there easily? I'm not dropping a multi-hundred dollar plane ticket and hotel fair to see a concert. If I liked the artist that much, I'd buy a CD off of him, directly.

    37. Re:I don't understand... by Perky_Goth · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they broke up because they're poor and needed another job...

      WTF?!?!?!?

    38. Re:I don't understand... by Nameles · · Score: 1

      Most of the band members got one:

      Billy and Jimmy formed Zwan, along with others.

      D'arcy is a solo artist now I believe.

    39. Re:I don't understand... by mfago · · Score: 1
      Believe you me, if you publish a book called "The Big Book Of Hitmen" listing hundreds of phone numbers for hitmen, you'll be arrested in fairly short order.

      The police wouldn't have time to arrest me: I'd have 5000 hitmen after me!

      The book is still covered by the 1st amendment. This has held up in court several times with books about murder etc.

  18. For the love of... by jvmatthe · · Score: 2
    "Such an effort is increasingly important as online theft of our nation's creative works is a growing threat to our culture and economy," the letter said.

    Unless they mean "our destructive corporate culture that is increasingly abusive to the public", I fail to see how they can claim that this threatens our "culture".

    The ongoing erosion of the public domain because of copyright extension...now THERE is a threat to our culture. I wonder why they don't do something about that... :^|
    1. Re:For the love of... by SlugLord · · Score: 1
      The way it erodes our culture is that people will soon fail to see file sharing as a violation of the intellectual property of the artists and recording companies. Thus, people fail to consider it theft, which it is. Keep in mind that no matter how much you dislike the evil empire, if you're stealing from it in bad faith (you never intend to buy any CD ever again, like most people I know who download off file sharing systems) you are no better than the recording industry, which rips off the artists themselves. If art is a part of culture (which most would agree it is), anything that deprives artists of sustenance and dissuades new artists from creating art also erodes our culture itself.

      Perhaps it's silly to spend all that much time thinking about making laws against things that are already illegal, but the fact is that they have every right and in fact a responsibility to curb the widespread theft that has swept the nation.

      If you're thinking about buying the CD, go ahead... it's just a preview. If you don't like it, delete it. If you like it, buy it. Tell the RIAA it can still make money when people download their songs. Buy a CD and make those songs on your hard drive legal.

    2. Re:For the love of... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      How about someone explain to me the difference between someone who copies a cd from a friend via a trip to his house, and someone who copies a cd from a stranger via a p2p network? (Remembering that a stranger is just a friend you haven't yet met!)

      No, seriously. How is the former, legitimate, sanctioned by law and wholly legal, but the latter is an act of theft, stealing the food from an artist's mouth and getting to be condemned completely?

      Isn't there some confusion in the law on this? I mean where does the law actually draw the line?

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    3. Re:For the love of... by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      P2P typically involves "public performance" by making a work available to the whole damn world.

      And, if memory serves, "copying a CD from a friend" isn't fair use, either. Now, there may be some laws specific to audio tapes ala the Audio Home Recording Act...

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    4. Re:For the love of... by Daimaou · · Score: 1

      Well, then please explain to us why I can go down to any damn library in the US and pick up any damn CD I wish to and listen to it whenever I want to for free. How is this different from filesharing; other than being less convenient?

    5. Re:For the love of... by Stonehand · · Score: 2

      Title 17 of the US Code has explicit exemptions regarding libraries -- really. Hence, they can do things you're not allowed to do so. Go look it up.

      Of course, the definition of "library" might have to be left to a "reasonable person" standard or something...

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    6. Re:For the love of... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      "P2P typically involves "public performance" by making a work available to the whole damn world."

      Firstly, with something like Kazaa, you're only announcing to the whole world that you have the work in your posession (which is not illegal.) You can terminate any attempt to download that work as you see fit, so you have discretion. How different is that to deciding who you let copy your album?

      "And, if memory serves, "copying a CD from a friend" isn't fair use, either. Now, there may be some laws specific to audio tapes ala the Audio Home Recording Act..."

      Regardless of whether it's "Fair Use" or simply allowed by the Home Recording Act, it is legal to copy a friends' cd.

      What's the difference between putting an album on Kazaa, and organising a club (in a public building, or members' houses or something) where pople can borrow each other's cds, and learn about artists and music styles they'd never heard of?

      I would argue that the only difference between those two scenarios is that one is done over a slightly greater distance than the other.

      The question is, does the law actually differentiate between the two, and can it make one illegal without also making the other illegal?

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    7. Re:For the love of... by SlugLord · · Score: 1

      When you buy a CD, you buy a piece of plastic. You in no way buy the intellectual property, and copying it in any way was once illegal. Now through fair use, copying is legal such that you never are using both copies at the same time, but the point is that when libraries put a CD on the shelves, they are no more violating copyright laws than they are when they put books on the shelves. Also, keep in mind that filesharing is roughly like scanning your favorite novel and posting the entire contents on your website. (For those with more interest, check out title 17 for a more explicit permission for libraries)

  19. Well that's good... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd hate to see all the entertainment industry waste all that money on bribing so many of our nation's lawmakers without anything to show for it.

    Seriously folks, when are we as a nation going to say enough is enough with this legal corporate bribery? Can anyone please explain the practical difference between bribery and massive "donations" ? I'm reminded of a remark made by George Carlin, who said "this country was bought and sold years ago". Was he right?

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    1. Re:Well that's good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm reminded of a remark made by George Carlin, who said "this country was bought and sold years ago". Was he right?


      Look around -- the answer is pretty obvious.

      I would strongly consider moving out of the US of A, but there aren't that many places to move to. Europe, no, they face similar problems. Canada, no, their economy is going downhill even compared to Mexico.

      How about Australia?
    2. Re:Well that's good... by SlugLord · · Score: 1

      well of course it's bribery, but there's not really much anybody can do other than write tehir congressmen, which nobody will do, to stop accepting donations from large corporations, or better still, take the money and vote against the corporations.

      It's also a problem that Congressmen can't be an expert in every field (and frankly there's probably little room to be an expert in any field), so they rely on briefs people send them. And guess who the only people are who bother to take the time to explain the issue to teh congressman? Yeah, that's who. They aren't necessarily being immoral: they may just have one side of the story.

      In short: write your congressman and TELL HIM WHY YOU DISAGREE in a polite, sensible tone. Give facts and citations when appropriate. Make it look like you have a head on your shoulders and his aides may actually check your references and give him the letter to read himself. If you're any good at persuasion, maybe you'll actually do some good.

    3. Re:Well that's good... by BitHive · · Score: 1

      Let me put it to you this way--is George Carlin ever wrong?

    4. Re:Well that's good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about Southeast Asia? Singapore maybe? The national language is english making things extra easy. What about Thailand? $5 hookers and stuff!

    5. Re:Well that's good... by Arandir · · Score: 1

      The legalized bribery won't stop until we, the citizens, stop accepting bribes. That's right. We. And we've come to expect it.

      Politicians are falling all over each other in trying to bribe us to vote for them. A politician gives this group some money, and lo and behold, the next election that group overwhelmingly votes for that politician. No matter who you are, odds are you are part of some special group that gets bribed by the politicians.

      Your vote was bought and sold years ago.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    6. Re:Well that's good... by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 2

      Yeah its sad that the USA has degenerated into such a corrupt nation. It's too bad they are trying to drag canada and the rest of the world down with them.

      Anyway, just as rome fell, the USA will fall too in time thanks to corruption and stupidity.

      --
      GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
    7. Re:Well that's good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I *love* $5 hookers.

    8. Re:Well that's good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah...well who says they want you moving to their fucking country? Why would they? So you could come in and steal a job from some local? You should move to Antarctica. We'll leave you alone.

    9. Re:Well that's good... by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

      When I found out I was nothing more than a bunch of vibrating strings, I realized 'morality' no longer had meaning.

      And therein lies the problem. For the last fifty-ish years, morality, the sense of "right and wrong," has eroded, and been deliberately degraded, to the point where it means nothing. The system only works correctly when people (the constituency, the lobbyists, and the elected officials; everybody, starting at the bottom) know the difference between right and wrong, and stand up for right. Unfortunately, nobody seems to know the difference anymore, or at least nobody seems to care. Particularly recently, our culture has adopted an attitude of selfish instant gratification.

      Don't see it? Look at our last president. President Clinton had so many shady deals and moral deficiencies (the Whitewater affair, Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, and Juanita Broderick, just to name a few*) that it's hard to keep count. He was impeached for lying and obstructing justice, for chrissakes! The most powerful man in the country, the one supposed to be setting the example, the one in charge of enforcing laws (Chief Executive), can't even follow simple laws himself. With that kind of inspiration, who is surprised that the rest of the country is following suit?

      We've seen an attack on morality for fifty years. The schools (controlled primarily by the political left, although there are plenty on the right with similar ideas) teach diversity and moral relativism over clear, hard, simple right and wrong. Well, here it is: lying is wrong. Stealing is wrong. It's not OK because everybody else does it, it's not exercising your prerogative based on loopholes in the law/rules, it's not your privilege as an executive, it's wrong. Plain and simple, no ambiguity, wrong. Get it?

      There was a study recently concerning what college students are being caught. Seventy-five percent of students said that they are taught moral relativism over a clearly defined, absolute right and wrong. Interestingly, the about same 75% ranked "diversity" above "an accurate balance sheet" in importance. They're saying that if they can only have one, they'd rather ensure that their employee base was politically correct, then be honest to their investors and creditors. Does anybody else see a problem here?

      My dad is a lawyer for the USAF Materiel Command, Directorate of Ethics and Fraud Remedies. I seem to recall him telling me that his office alone catches roughly half a billion dollars' worth of fraud a year. Think about that--one office, in one Command (the USAF has 11, I think), in one branch of the service, which is but a part of the government, catches half a billion in fraud every year. When are we as a society going to say "enough! This is unacceptable"? When are we going to step up to the plate and demand that everybody be held accountable for his actions? It's popular now to call for sanctions against the executives of the various companies in hot water, but how about the low-level employees? When are we going to charge the entry-level accountant with fraud? You know, the one who followed the exec's instruction to inflate the balance sheet? Or his boss, who should have seen the error as part of his review (you do review your subordinates' work, don't you?)? Or his boss, or his boss? This isn't the fault of one person at the top of the corporate ladder, it's a concerted effort from the bottom of the chain of command all the way to the top. In some cases, the CEO may not even have known (yes, there are some such cases); that does not, however, excuse him from responsibility. Why are middle managers any different? Why are the people who actually entered the data, the ones who actually committed fraud, exempt?

      Ironically, every time there's an initiative to fix the problem at the source, it is shot down in flames, usually by the people crying the loudest about executive corruption. To fix the problem, we have to start instilling a strong sense of ethics in the people. I've heard several proposals for instituting "charactar education" in the schools, but they always seem to be defeated. Instead, we get students who plagiarize essays, and school principals who tell the teachers to let them pass anyway, give them another chance. How are kids supposed to learn right and wrong from that? I'm not talking about elementary school children here, I'm talking about high schoolers! These people are going to be entering the corporate workforce in at little as four years, and we're encouraging the very behavior (through positive reinforcement) that we disdain. College professors who lie about their accomplishments, who claim awards and degrees they haven't earned; when somebody notices, management says "keep it quiet," to prevent embarrassment. Professors who lie about their research; I recall a case recently of an Emory University prof researching gun control history who completely fabricated his research. First he claimed it was from one source, but that source said they'd never seen him; then he claimed it was from a county records department, but the department confirmed that the records he claimed to have used didn't exits--they had been destroyed in a flood years before. He's still trying to find a source, and still works for Emory--why? The Air Force had it right with Kelly Flynn. (For those who don't recall, Lt. Kelly Flynn was a B-52 pilot who was discharged from the USAF for disobeying orders and lying**.)

      Those who oppose character education usually say "that's the parents' job." True. So, parents, why aren't you doing your jobs? Is it because you're too busy working twelve, thirteen, fourteen hour days, worshipping the almighty dollar, and letting your kids be raised by the TV and PlayStation, by Disney and Sony? I've met a number of parents in wealthier suburbs of DC, and the attitude is generally the same: placate the kid so you don't have to deal with him, and give him "stuff" to assuage your conscience for not giving him "love" and "attention," which are the things he so desperately needs. Yes, I know you have jobs, but maybe, just maybe, you need to re-evaluate your priorities in life. My dad is a lawyer, and he's home by about 1800 every night. He's not making a million dollars a year, but we live very comfortably on his civil servant's salary (GS-15, with about 25 years). Mom doesn't have a full-time job, or rather, she doesn't have a second full-time job: she is a mother. No, that's not a dirty word, and yes, it an honorable (and critical!) profession. Raising kids, especially at a young age (when they're most receptive to learning) is a full-time-plus job. We as a society seem to hail the "single-mother-by-choice***" as some sort of hero, a cultural icon. This scares me--first of all, a child needs a father in his life as well as a mother, but secondly, unless she's being supported completely by somebody else, then she has to work. How many people do you know that can successfully and properly handle two-plus full-time jobs? That's right, none. There aren't enough hours in the day to do a full-time job (8 hours/day), another full-time-plus job (8+ hours/day), and sleep (8-10 hours/day to be healthy). And, to make it worse, raising a child isn't something you can do on a 9-5 schedule--you have to be there much longer than just your punch in/punch out schedule.

      You want to know where the problem is? Parents, first and foremost, failing to do their jobs of raising their kids. We can point fingers all over the place, but it all boils down to parents failing to institute a sense of right and wrong into their children, and enforcing it it from a young age. If parents would do it, and demand that the schools hold their children to the same standard (instead of threatening to sue when they do), this problem would go away. Not today, not tomorrow, not even next week; it would take a generation to work, but that's what happens when you have problems that take a generation to really take root. I know we want a quick fix (see also: instant gratification), but it just isn't going to happen. The only way to fix the problem is to persevere, to plug away at it day by day, hour by hour, for the next twenty or so years. Only then can we hope to see the rebirth of a culture of honor, decency, and ethics.

      *For those who say Clinton's personal behavior was probed unfairly, and is nobody's business, you're wrong: he was accused of criminal rape by Juanita Broderick, and the investigation into his behavior was a criminal investigation, which is entirely appropriate--unless, of course, you believe that the president is above the law (like he apparently did). Also, the impeachment was not for the blowjob, it was for lying under oath and obstructing justice.

      **Kelly Flynn: same deal. She was booted for lying and disobeying a lawful order, not the adultery. The woman was entrusted to carry nuclear weapons; she has to be trustworthy, and able to follow orders.

      ***I do not mean to denigrate, or otherwise diminish, the struggles of single mothers who do not do so by choice. I know it's a lot of work to raise a kid, and I respect the desperate struggle these women fight. I'm talking about the ones who choose to raise a kid without a father as a social protest, to "show (or spite) the world" that they don't need anybody. They're using their kids as protest signs, and it's irresponsible, and hurtful for the kid.

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    10. Re:Well that's good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're talking about Jesus aren't you.

    11. Re:Well that's good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's comforting to hear you brother. Just the other day I was trying to explain something similar on a different place, in a different language, in a totaly different country. It reminds me what a russian priest said some time before the "reds" came: "They are everywhere, corrupting our children, our inteligence and most of all our aristocrasy and government. The worst part is that nobody listens to us, they prefer listening to "them"..."
      Make what you want of this.

  20. Good. by kabir · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This isn't intentionally a troll, but if it ends up that way, well, so be it.

    Isn't this what we've wanted all along? Make the people stealing the music the ones who are culpable rather than outlawing the methodology... it seems like the right answer to me.

    Of course there's the implicit requirment (in order for this to be a good thing) that legal activities not be persecuted under this initiative. For that I suppose I'll have to wait and see. Honestly though, I'm not upset in the least about this. When folks download songs they didn't pay for which weren't given away for free by the artist/copyright holder, whatever the downloader's philosophy about it that activity is still theft. And let's face it, that's probably the majority of what goes on with P2P music "sharing" networks... that's certainly all I've ever seen anyone doing with them!

    --
    Behold the Power of Cheese!
    1. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm also disturbed that so many people are upset by this. do most slashdotters pirate music/video? i think it's a good thing as well.. but i don't think it goes far enough. i think that the law should also include prosecuting 16 year old kids and not just "super-nodes" or whatever.. i want little johnny to get busted for pirating mp3s.. it'd stop a lot of the piracy going on and perhaps even create a backlash against the entertainment industry.. companies like napster and audiogalaxy should be left alone. they are innocent. it's the criminals we should go after.

    2. Re:Good. by dimator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When folks download songs they didn't pay for ... that activity is still theft.

      When the music industry charges 20 fuckin bucks a CD; with pennies on the dollar going to the actual artist; with 3 of the top 40 songs available as singles, THAT activity is still theft.

      By stealing, am I taking the law into my own hands? When Congressmen are bought and sold to the highest bidder, what choice do I have?

      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
    3. Re:Good. by garcia · · Score: 1

      Yeah I guess, but that's really not the point here. Yeah, they are looking for "nodes" people who are running large segments of the network...

      My problem w/this is that these "nodes" could theoretically believe they are in it to help out the greater good. Not necessarily facilitate the trading of copyrighted music.

      I say fuck the artists and the RIAA. I really feel that music should be free. I have said it several times before and I will certainly say it again now...

      I only support bands that allow the free taping, distribution, and trading of their music. Check out etree and FurthurNET to trade this music w/others.

    4. Re:Good. by kabir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When the music industry charges 20 fuckin bucks a CD; with pennies on the dollar going to the actual artist; with 3 of the top 40 songs available as singles, THAT activity is still theft.


      Actually, no it isn't.

      Sure, it's a horrible deal for the artists and should be corrected, but it's not theft. No matter how much it sucks, or how much people want to call it theft to justify their own actions, it just plain isn't.

      The artists signs a (very likely terribly unfair) contract with a record company. That's an agreement between two parties who (should, if they are responsible) know exactly what they're getting into, and do it willingly.

      A legal tranfer of rights is not theft.
      --
      Behold the Power of Cheese!
    5. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, by "support" do you mean buying, like, 1/3 of the CDs you copy? Or even a smaller percentage?

      That's great if you're talking about 1,000,000 sales. But have you any idea how UNPROFITABLE most CDs are? They cost thousands of dollars to record, press and distribute. If you lose even 20% of your buyers... you just ate the costs.

      See, the thing is that you either have to go to 100% napster-style distribution or, else you're just 'cannibalizing' your own sales.

      Yea, yea, all the /. posters say that if you give away free music more people will learn about you and will buy your music.

      That's an interesting theory, and it probably worked when there were only 100 or so bands doing this. But there's a GLUT of digital music being given away, and it's hard without spending $$$ on promotion to get people to hear your sound.

      Maybe if there were a google for sound.

    6. Re:Good. by shri · · Score: 1

      That does not mean that the record company is pocketing the 19.95 that does not go to the artist. There are marketing, PR, image costs...

      How about the softdrink industry? A can of coke costs less than a couple of cents to manufacture, yet by the time it gets to you it costs $0.50 to $3 or even more, depending on where you purchase it. Is that an excuse to go around holding up Pepsi and Coca-cola delivery vans?

    7. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I say fuck the artists"

      Well then I say fuck you. Sure you can want the music to be free. But then who's going to make sure that the musicians eat?

      You greedy piece of shit.

    8. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...that's certainly all I've ever seen anyone doing with them!...

      Two Words:

      Porn & Warez

      It's hard to get high-quality music on any of the p2p networks anyways...the "friend" network (borrowing and copying) is still much more effective for getting hi-fi audio. None of this 128kbps crap.

    9. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong pal. He doesn't "want the music to be free" --- it already IS free! And there is not a goddamned thing you or anyone else can do about it. Software, movies, and music are now free to the computer elite. The AOL morons will continue to buy it.... let them feed the artists. And, besides... if I go see a band live in concert or buy a T-shirt they are making plenty. Don't kid yourself.

    10. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an agreement between two parties who (should, if they are responsible) know exactly what they're getting into, and do it willingly.

      A legal tranfer of rights is not theft.


      Except when the artist has no choice between the evils of the powerful record company A and the evils of the powerful record companies B through H. Oh, by the way, companies A through H have formed an industry group called the RIAA to protect the profits of it's members, not necessarily those of the artists or listeners.

      When companies take too much from the people. by keeping the price of a CD artificially inflated. Would that not classify as theft? Of course it is, and there are laws -- antitrust laws -- that were created to protect the public for that specific reason.

      Some could say that the RIAA has taken away representative democracy by buying politicians who have taken away freedoms that we used to have. Wouldn't that be considered theft?

      Diane Feinstein
      Howard Berman

      And if you want to know what's really scary? Look at this and this

    11. Re:Good. by LX.onesizebigger · · Score: 1
      When folks download songs they didn't pay for which weren't given away for free by the artist/copyright holder, whatever the downloader's philosophy about it that activity is still theft.

      Which would be true if it weren't for fair use, which stipulates that you can, in fact, distribute (without profit) copies of copyrighted works among friends. The problem at hand is that it has never been defined how close these friends must be (largely because technology like we have today did not exist or at least was not in such widespread use as it is today when these laws were made).

      The RIAA is compensated for this fair use by receiving a percentage of revenues from recordable media sales (fees that, for some reason, independent artists and studios never see a penny of). Who is it that can't have it both ways now?

      --
      I for one welcome our new SCOviet Russian overlords to whom all our base are belong.
    12. Re:Good. by pjc50 · · Score: 3, Informative
      The activity is NOT theft. Go read the copyright laws; it's INFRINGEMENT, and it's a civil offence. You cannot go to jail or be fined for copying a single song. The FBI cannot touch you for copying small amounts; only the rightholder can sue you.

      Copying is only a criminal offence if (a) you do it for profit or (b) you do it "on such a scale as to adversely affect the rightholder."

    13. Re:Good. by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 1

      Hmmm let's see... music is a form of entertainment.

      Do you ABSOLULTELY need it to survive? No.
      Do you OCCASIONALLY need it to survive? No.
      Can you live without buying music from these "thieves"? Yes.
      Are they holding a gun to your head? No.

      The excuse you are using is what lots of crooks use when they're caught. "But the banks are way too rich and greedy. Me robbing them doen't do any harm to them."

      --

      eTrade SUCKS
    14. Re:Good. by stwrtpj · · Score: 1
      Isn't this what we've wanted all along? Make the people stealing the music the ones who are culpable rather than outlawing the methodology... it seems like the right answer to me.

      When I first read this comment, I agreed with it. I always thought that the law should concentrate on the perpetrators of crime and not the instruments of it. Which is why we take away the driver's license of irresponsible drivers rather than ban cars.

      But then I thought of something else: This is covered under existing copyright laws. Why do we need a set of specific laws to cover P2P networks when existing laws provide for the prosecution of copyright infringers?

      Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but did you read the entire article? I'm looking at this telling line:

      In a July 25 letter released late Thursday, some 19 lawmakers from both sides of the aisle asked Ashcroft to prosecute "peer-to-peer" networks like Kazaa and Morpheus and the users who swap digital songs, video clips and other files without permission from artists or their record labels.

      (Emphasis is mine) Seems to me they still want to go after the networks themselves.

      So while your point is valid, I'm not sure it really is relevant in light of what Ashcroft is being asked to do.

      --
      Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
    15. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets not start using false terms for things just because copyright infringement isn't dramatic enough....

      Copying music isnt theft. That's a legal FICTION. If I copy your book without taking your book, I haven't stolen your book because you can still take it off your shelf and read it.

      It's also not piracy. Piracy is SELLING copyrighted goods. If I'm not running a CD stand in a market selling music you wrote, it's not piracy. It's copyright infringement.

      Just the suggestion that a pimply-faced geek listening to some tunes qualifies as a theiving pirate... Bluebeard must be turning in his grave!

    16. Re:Good. by mqduck · · Score: 1

      A legal tranfer of rights is not theft.

      I'm sorry, but I have to disagree greatly there. Is a small shop owner in New York City signing a contract for "protection" under the coercion of some intimadating men not theft?

      Is creating an atmosphere where the only way for a musician to become popular is to give away most of their profits to some controlling organiztion, as if they have some moral right to own the music industry, not mass theft?

      -Jeff

      P.S. For that matter, is owning a company that makes shirts, and paying the cotton pickers, sewers, truck drivers, etc. only a tiny fraction of the profits, not theft? Or is owning the store, controlling the advertising, controlling the streets, having the presense what gives all these people the right?


      --
      Property is theft.
    17. Re:Good. by evocate · · Score: 1
      Isn't this what we've wanted all along? Make the people stealing the music the ones who are culpable rather than outlawing the methodology... it seems like the right answer to me.

      "Rather than" should be replaced with "before". BigEntertainment and their Congressional employees are still working on making free P2P impossible, as well as illegal. FBI arrests are just a stopgap measure.

    18. Re:Good. by Surt · · Score: 2

      It is theft when the music industry uses threat of physical harm to force signature to the contract. A lot of these artists sign on at a time when they wouldn't otherwise eat. That's theft.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    19. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the last few years of legislative activity I believe. What once was merely a civil matter is now considered a Federal crime.

    20. Re:Good. by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Unfortunatley, the RIAA member companies essentially have an oligopoly on the sale of recordings in the US. Try to sell in a Sam Goody's, Virgin, Circuit City, or Wal-Mart without the backing of an RIAA member. The contract is not between two equals. Similar with radio play. And now, if the rules for internet play are followed, an indie artist can't play on www.foobarradio.com without a few pennies per listener going to the RIAA.

      Taking all of this into consideration, the contracts could/should be viewed as coercive, and therefore illegal.

      What would be more honest would be if the record companies just made everything flat out 'work for hire'. They own everything until time immemorial, and the artist gets paid for their studio and concert time. End of story.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    21. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When folks download songs they didn't pay for which weren't given away for free by the artist/copyright holder, whatever the downloader's philosophy about it that activity is still theft.
      No, that activity is infringement (if we're talking about breaking copyright laws). It may or may not carry a punishment similar to that of theft, but it is different (the title of the N.E.T. Act notwithstanding).

      The very ability for several people to share an idea without depriving the original possessor of it is why Thomas Jefferson wrote that ideas cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Jefferson regarded the ability of ideas to spread far and wide as a blessing.

      The U.S. copyright framework is thus about giving an (optional) incentive to create, so there will be a chance of producing a larger number of useful works, and so that there will be ongoing contributions to the public domain. Not quite the same thing as formalizing the idea that if you take my chair, I don't have it any more.

  21. Time for your Ritalin by legomad · · Score: 1

    C'mon now, go fetch your pills.

  22. The gallery of idiots... by silentbozo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Among those signing the letter were:
    Delaware Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden *
    Wisconsin Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner
    Virginia Democratic Rep. Bobby Scott
    Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers
    North Carolina Republican Rep. Howard Coble *
    and California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein. *

    * We know many of these names by now, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other payola-beholden media-whore "lawmakers" made up the other 13 signatures.

    1. Re:The gallery of idiots... by antirename · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Aren't these the same stooges who always vote for gun control? Just a thought.

    2. Re:The gallery of idiots... by nexex · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      I don't know but they all probably all voted to repeal free speech, err I mean campaign finance reform.


      Remember, now you can't say anything about a candidate 90 days before an election or youll go to the pokey

      --
      Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
    3. Re:The gallery of idiots... by silentbozo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Damned if you aren't right. Maybe the NRA should start pitching to the geeks to get a concerted effort to get rid of these crack-whore politicians. It's sickening - the payola is so blatant, I can almost hear the bags of money being dropped off at each senator/representative's office...

    4. Re:The gallery of idiots... by Old+Uncle+Bill · · Score: 1

      Good point. Maybe we should start following these folks and catch them in the act of receiving payola. You have to believe they are not paid for their services via campaign contributions alone. After all, Big John says "Watch your neighbor", which may or may not translate directly to "Love thy neighbor, but slit his throat if his theology isn't straight." And after all, these are the same clowns making the laws that track us every time we go to the can. I'm sure there are all kinds of tidbits of information in those systems about them.

      --
      Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
    5. Re:The gallery of idiots... by uncoveror · · Score: 2

      Banning legalized bribery does not harm free speech in any way. If anything, it promotes free speech. When campaign finanace reform is passed, My letter to a congressman or senator will be equal to one from a massive corporation, because the corporation will no longer be able to speak louder through payola. If campaign donation is speech, then a billionaire can say slmost infinately more than I can. Free speech is a right each of us should have an equal amount of.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    6. Re:The gallery of idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When campaign finanace reform is passed, My letter to a congressman or senator will be equal to one from a massive corporation ...

      Hmmm ... even if corporate graft is somehow eliminated (hah!) you really think your ink-jet letter signed "John Doe" will be treated the same as a letter with "General Motors" or "Microsoft" printed in the letterhead?

      For one thing, the big corporation employs thousands of registered voters. Many industries, for example logging, get tons of favors because the employees benefit from them. Unless the employees speak for themselves, their corporate employers will attempt to speak for them.

    7. Re:The gallery of idiots... by silentbozo · · Score: 2

      I haven't read the text of the law, but isn't there an exemption for media outlets in terms of reporting during that 90 day gag period? I find it worrying that after the law was passed, politicians immediately started passing laws to benefit the media. You think maybe they're laying up some quid pro quo credits?

      Letters aint gonna do squat if Fox/WB/NBC/ABC(disney) decide to unilaterally shape public opinion one way or another (and don't think it hasn't happened before!) Think about how little mainstream media attention there's been regarding bills like the SSSCA and the peer-to-peer attack bills.

    8. Re:The gallery of idiots... by guinsu · · Score: 2

      Funny how I personally know that Biden himself used napster.

    9. Re:The gallery of idiots... by squiggleslash · · Score: 2
      Yep, he distributes all of his speeches that way. On July 7th* he wrote in the New York Times that "Napster is a great American technology that has the potential to revolutionize democracy, but only if it is used for good, to inform and disseminate. Imagine a world with MP3s of house debates, of Presidential statements, of political speeches and conferences. Napster, and other similar networks such as Gnutella, can bring us this brave new world, a world where every citizen is an informed citizen, where what people say can be listened to without the crippling filters of opposition attack and journalistic massage. In the future I propose, every person, no matter who they are, who logs into a file sharing network will see speech after speech by politician after politician, all accessable and ready to download."

      You can see his point. There's an assumption that a network where audio files are shared is necessarily going to be used to illegally copy audio generated by artists and others who rely on funding from listeners to make their livings. But you don't need to have that great an imagination to realise the full potential of P2P networks is in their ability not just to transmit music but speech and other audiotic forms, from people who want their words transmitted far and wide.

      Who knows. With Ashcroft removing the illegally distributed music, perhaps a revolutionary new Napster where every voice can be heard will be the result.

      * I made this all up. He never said any such thing.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  23. Intergenerational Warfare by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Welcome to the world of intergenerational warfare. I'll bet no science fiction novel you ever read prepared you for this.

    Under Nixon an older, reactionary generation declared a War on Drugs, which was essentially a euphemism for a war on the lifestyle of the youth of that era and the values it represented (chemical experimentation, casual sex, a healthy skepticism of authority, and so on). Indeed, the prohibition of drugs and the actions that have been taken to try and stamp out its use has caused far greater harm, in both a humanitarian and economic sense, than the abuse of the substances themselves ever did or could have.

    A War on Ourselves indeed, or at least a war on the younger generation, one that began under Nixon, was escalated out of control under Reagan and Bush Senior, to the point where we now have over fifty beaurocracies fighting for the collected spoils seized from non-violent drug offendors.

    Now, with the new War on Copyright Infringement, we are about to target today's youth, who trade their music, their movies, their videotapes online, instead of via cassette tape the way us older folk did when we were in high school and college.

    Another front on an intergenerational war, between the dinasaurs of the Jack Valenti Generation of Greed and the emerging, technically savvy information generation they seek to repress and quite possibly destroy.

    This escalation will likely claim even more victims, fill our prisons even more with people even less inclined to violence than the many drug offendors who account for half our inmate population today.

    Worse, we'll have to listen to even more self-righteous tripe along the lines "but these fans are stealing bread and milk from the mouths of Lars and Britney," and "we'll win the war on copyright infringement! These pirates will never see the light of day again! God Bless America!"

    What's next, a broken egg on a frying pan with the words "This represents your Life on MP3?"

    Make no mistake, this is intergenerational warfare, waged by the parents and grandparents upon the children who have chosen to live differently than their elders, indeed, differently than their elders can comprehend. As we draw closer to the technological singuarity I think we can expect ever more extreme examples of the same.

    Hell, I haven't even finished writing a novel set in 2057 that depicts exactly these sorts of events. How close is one to the Singualarity I wonder, when real world events overtake science fiction faster than it can be written?

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      Indeed, the prohibition of drugs and the actions that have been taken to try and stamp out its use has caused far greater harm, in both a humanitarian and economic sense, than the abuse of the substances themselves ever did or could have.

      Hello Mr White Suburbia (I'm assuming), what don't you tell the people of Colombia how fine drugs are?

    2. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by TarrVetus · · Score: 0
      Now, with the new War on Copyright Infringement, we are about to target today's youth, who trade their music, their movies, their videotapes online, instead of via cassette tape the way us older folk did when we were in high school and college.

      But, past intergenerational warfare didn't allow both sides to attack one another. Today's youth and their supporters have the ability to strike back when one of their own is attacked (hack attacks). The cultural wounds from this war may be greater than before as the greater government powers begin hastily reacting with their full strength.
    3. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by Arandir · · Score: 2

      one that began under Nixon, was escalated out of control under Reagan and Bush Senior

      Don't leave the Democrats out! They got us into this mess too. Ever since the Harrison act, no Democratic president failed to increase the War on Drugs.

      Hell, it wasn't that long ago that Clinton had to discipline his Surgeon General for merely proposing the study of narcotic decriminalization.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    4. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 2

      So make sure you only buy locally. Don't even support terroism, support your local (farmer's) economy. Every dollar spent locally is worth $3 (due to the velocity of money).

    5. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by donutello · · Score: 1

      Wow! Jon Katz must be jealous. An entire post full of nothing but inane drivel, a ludicruous hypothesis and equally far-fetched metaphors used to justify it.

      Grow up! They are not prosecuting people who are exchanging music they developed. There is no element of individuality to music swapping. They are doing it with songs that were created by someone else and which belong to someone else.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    6. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by cosmicg · · Score: 1

      The only reason druglords are able to exert such control over Columbia (amongst other countries), is because drugs are illegal here. If they were grown domestically, there would be no need to import, and there would be no American dollars for the drug lords armies. It's not drug use that supports terrorism, but rather the prohibition of drugs that diverts money to international terroists, warlords, etc.

      I'm not trying to claim that all drugs should be legalized (though I might), as the issue certainly has more factors to consider then the plight of the Columbians. I'm just saying prohibiton, not use, creates a black market.

      --
      Cache Rules Everything Around Me
    7. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by balthan · · Score: 1

      But, past intergenerational warfare didn't allow both sides to attack one another. Today's youth and their supporters have the ability to strike back when one of their own is attacked (hack attacks). The cultural wounds from this war may be greater than before as the greater government powers begin hastily reacting with their full strength.

      Reminds me of a sci-fi novel I read a long time ago (I couldn't even begin to guess the name.) On a colony planet, kids started to develop telekinetic abilities, which ended at adulthood. One generation of educated youth figured they were smarter than all the adults, and more powerful, so they tried to take over and caused all sorts of havok. Afterwards it was forbidden to educate kids to prevent another youth rebellion.

    8. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello Mr White Suburbia (I'm assuming), what don't you tell the people of Colombia how fine drugs are?

      I bet you think our drug laws are the best thing since sliced bread.

      This story is from the NY Mothers of the Dissappeared website. The situation in New York is grave.

    9. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 2
      An interesting hypothesis. But isn't the generational war you describe really a class war? It's not about old people and young people, it's about the capitalists and the consumers (or perhaps the anti-consumers) -- sure, the capitalists are mostly older, but that's just because it takes time to accumulate wealth and economic power.

      For example, in his youth Bush was a drug user and a draft dodger. On the face of it, he was the typical implicitly anti-establishment youth of his time. But he wasn't really -- he wasn't the target or ever likely to be a victim of the drug war. He was always a capitalist, even when he was a youth.

    10. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by davesag · · Score: 1, Troll

      The common thread to all of this is Donald Rumsfeld.

      1. under nixon/ford/reagan: war on drugs
      2. under bush: war or terra, tied in with WOD
      3. soon under bush: war on pirates, ie nuke s-e asia, full spectrum dominance of the networks, via eschelon, carnivour, etc, a grab for global jurisdiction...

      and the whole time, sitting there right behind the wings is the perhaps the most evil man in the world, Donald Rumsfeld. This man who was described by Kissinger as a despot was Secretary for Defence under Nixon, Ford, Regan (by proxy) and Bush - think bombing of cambodia, think nicuragua, think the rise of suharto in indonesia and the US embassy supplied hit lists. As his official CV makes clear, he was CEO of some of the world's most evil companies and full time spook.

      His plan is so simple, yet so evil. Divide the world into the haves and have nots. kill the have nots or use them as slave labour, don't bother making death camps in kolma when you can have prison labour labelling underwear.

      the future for the haves is different. they must pay and pay for the privelidge of having.

      the have's are really just the cream of the have nots. they, by benefit of luck, some innate special skills or knowledge can seem like they have, even though their main daily activity is the generation of other people's wealth.

      there is of course the final elite group, the core cabal, illuminati, star chamber whatever. they have and like the man says, them that have get more. rupert, donny, bill (both of them), the georges charleses etc etc, and all those born to rule date rapists you hated at high school and university. these guys have robbed the whole world blind. they have murdered, stolen, lied, enslaved, violated and desacrated to further their own evil agendas. their agendas have a common goal, they are all in one way or anothers players of a huge game of risk.

      this is not a generational war, this is september 11 for your digital rights.

      we used to be able to drink water from a stream. now we must buy it in bottles. the guy busking in the local mall will be busted for music piracy, or be forced to pay an APRA fee if he plays covers of songs in order to get a licence to busk.

      the war on piracy is a protection racket, like the war on drugs and the war on terra.

      you now must pay top dollar to get

      • clean water
      • healthy 'organic' food
      • 'fresh', ie 'pollution free' air - often mistaken for cool air.
      • 'unspoiled' (ie by vast acres of self-similar housing developments, ads, human detritus,) wilderness
      • free (as in beer, marijuhana, nelson mandella) software and data.
      • i could go on but it's all just too upsetting.

      who would have kids in this day and age? they'd be chipped by 6 to protect them from predators lurking on the internet. a bluetooth/802.11/gps/dsp implant to monitor and protect your kiddie 24x7. chipped kids get more rights than unchipped kids, and by chipped think 50cc tablet swallowed before leaving the house, not a permanent implant. this thing will keep an eye on your little darlings for as long as it is in your system, and they then shit it out and need to take another one to be 'protected'. they'll cost a bucket and sell faster than viagra and to be sure, you'll give 'em one with every meal. and who was ceo of some of the world's biggest drugs companies and high-tech bio-surveillance technology companies? big don.

      --
      I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
    11. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by GoofyBoy · · Score: 2

      Exactly how are you suppose to do this?

      You: Its grown locally, right?
      Dealer : Er ... sure thing.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    12. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 2

      And I suppose it was Alcohol that ruined Al Capone's Chicago, not prohibition.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    13. Re: Intergenerational Warfare by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2


      > I'm not trying to claim that all drugs should be legalized (though I might)

      I'll say it: drugs should be legalized.

      Practical reasons:

      1) Drug use actually drops in countries that legalize it, because it no longer serves as a protest, or a marker of membership in a counterculture.

      2) As others have already pointed out, it's precisely the war on drugs that puts Columbia in the state it's in. If the US was smart enough to legalize dope and tax it up until it cost only 90% of what the smuggled stuff does, the Columbian gangsters would fold as fast as the IRA did after 9/11 when Irish-Americans decided it wasn't cool to fund terrorists anymore.

      2b) Related to (2), it is the war on drugs that brought out violent gangs in the USA during the late 20th Century. (Not the "no pass, no play" academic rules that some spin doctors want to blame it on.)

      Ethical reasons:

      1) The war on drugs is the worst kind of class abusue. Look at the diffence in what happens when a senator's son gets busted, vs. an inner-city boy.

      2) It's hypocrisy of the first rank, since we pack people off to prison for growing some drugs and subsidize the growers of other drugs with taxpayers' money.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    14. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by RickHunter · · Score: 1

      You think this started in the 70s? Read some of your country's own history. This started in at least the 1930s, possibly even fifty or seventy-five or a hundred years before that.

    15. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      sigh

      "a War on Drugs, which was essentially a euphemism for a war on the lifestyle of the youth of that era and the values it represented (chemical experimentation, casual sex, a healthy skepticism of authority, and so on)."

      Because everybody knows that if you were born in a certain time period you must be a hippie.

      No, I'm sorry, this whole "generational" bullshit is just another marketing gimick by the media moguls that are behind this current crack-down to begin with. I'm not going to put on a "Generation X" moniker just so you can make it easier for pollsters to water down my opinion with those of millions of others. Not by them and certainly not by you.

      "A War on Ourselves indeed, or at least a war on the younger generation, one that began under Nixon, was escalated out of control under Reagan and Bush Senior, to the point where we now have over fifty beaurocracies fighting for the collected spoils seized from non-violent drug offendors."

      In case you haven't noticed the "younger generation" your cheerleading for is now the one in office in both the White House and Congress. Kinda screws up your theory there a bit, don't it?

      "Another front on an intergenerational war, between the dinasaurs of the Jack Valenti Generation of Greed and the emerging, technically savvy information generation they seek to repress and quite possibly destroy."

      No, I'm an individual and I refuse to be herded into the flock of sheep you're tending to. This ain't a God damned Pepsi commercial.

      "Worse, we'll have to listen to even more self-righteous tripe along the lines"

      Like the kind you just typed?

      "Hell, I haven't even finished writing a novel..."

      Like I said, a cheap marketing gimmick...

    16. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said! That "pepsi" thing - right on target.
      Thanks.

    17. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hell, it wasn't that long ago that Clinton had to discipline his Surgeon General for merely proposing the study of narcotic decriminalization."

      He didn't have to, he chose to. And he paid a price for the choice, but it was quite minor in the face of all his other bad choices.

    18. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by Arandir · · Score: 1

      He didn't have to, he chose to.

      Point is, the Democrats are no better than the Republicans when it comes to taking away our freedom and destroying the Constitution in the name of winning the war on drugs.

      I mean geez! Even the ultra right-wing Constitution party at least discusses the possibility of decriminilizing drugs!

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    19. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      I can never decide for myself when it started. It was either during the "Reconstruction", in 1860, or in (shame on me, I can't remember the year. 1789) when the Articles of Confederation were thrown out in favor of our current Constitution. I vote for 1854-1860, but with the seeds and impetus planted in 1789.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    20. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by canadian_right · · Score: 2
      The ONLY reason that there is so much violence associated with the drug trade is that it is illegal. Being illegal only crimminals are in the bussiness, and being illegal the profit margins are huge - big enough to fiance a civil war.

      How much violence has been associated with the booze trade since prohibition was repealed? None. How much violence was there during prohibition? Lots.

      How hard is that to understand? The American war on drugs has not stopped even one person from getting any drug that they want. It has caused hundreds of thousands of harmless people to be jailed, enriched the most horriblely violent crimminals, and been a complete failure.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    21. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by canadian_right · · Score: 2

      I am NOT a consumer. I am a citizen.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    22. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 2

      Then you are more truly their enemy.

    23. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by joshua404 · · Score: 1
      Hell, I haven't even finished writing a novel [expressivefreedom.org] set in 2057 that depicts exactly these sorts of events. How close is one to the Singualarity I wonder, when real world events overtake science fiction faster than it can be written?

      Expressive Freedom [expressivefreedom.org] - Fighting the Copyright Cartels With Free Content

      So you won't mind if a take a copy of the complete text of your book, put my name on it, and pass it around for free.... right?

    24. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by Amizell · · Score: 1

      So you won't mind if a take a copy of the complete text of your book, put my name on it, and pass it around for free.... right?

      Umm... Looks like he is doing just that by providing a link, except for putting your name on it. The plagiarism part is completely irrelevant to the free music debate as there is no claim that a music trader created the music he is trading. Jerk.

      alex

      --
      --- Wherever you go, everyone is always connected...
    25. Re:Intergenerational Warfare by RickHunter · · Score: 2

      I too vote for 1854-1860, which seems to me to be the first really big period of social change in the "west". Before that, things were pretty constant - even the Rennaisance and colonization didn't stir up the lives of most people too much. Then you hit the mid 1800s, the American Civil War, the start of the Industrial Revolution proper...

  24. I agree entirely with this decision. by MortisUmbra · · Score: 1

    I have long stated that I think the war on drugs, terrorism, and whatever other "wars" we have going on are far to trivial, what we need to be putting a focus on is people who trade music. When it comes right down to it, drug use may ruin peoples lives, terrorists may kill innocents en masse and corrupt corporations may break Joe Public, but lets look at the big picture, if we allow music trading to continue thats just one more corporation that's going to go down and go down hard.... Buy the corporations, for the corporations....wait I meant people....silly me.... How pathetic a world we live in when trash such as we have "in charge" of our country is allowed to do what they have done.... I am sure my views make me a terrorist though.... I honestly do not know how to express the level of utter disgust and disdain I have for this situation as a whole....

    --

    "The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
    1. Re:I agree entirely with this decision. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HA!HA! sarcasm is good. Because we know that you can't really be serious.

  25. oh im sure all of these thieves stole by HanzoSan · · Score: 2


    Stole what?

    lets see, did they steal the copyright from the copyright holder? no.

    Are they selling copied CDs on the black market? Most of them arent.

    So unless you can prove they stole $$ or some tangible object, your whole statement is illogical.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:oh im sure all of these thieves stole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're such a sophomoric idiot! You're just saying that to further justify your sorry ass thievery of other people's creations.

      I tell you what. Next time someone should STEAL your words and post them as their own. Someone should COPY your school papers, your writings, your designs and use them as their own. But of course you won't mind right? Because imagination and creativity don't come in your family tree of missing chromosomes right?

      Get a life. Get a job. Get a CLUE!

    2. Re:oh im sure all of these thieves stole by woogieoogieboogie · · Score: 1

      . Next time someone should STEAL your words and post them as their own. Someone should COPY your school papers, your writings, your designs and use them as their own Nobody downlaoding music is CLAIMING THE WORK as their own. All they are doing is deciding WHEN they want to hear the music. How is this stealing since the music is already free to anyone who listens to the radio.

      --
      ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
  26. Sony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Well Sony can just fsck off for starters... how can they be calling for this when they sit on the other side of the fence and do things like sell CDRs and allow companies trading with their permission under the name 'Sony Centre' to provide multi-region hacks for their DVD players? ...

    Actually, I think the whole lot of them would be fucked if they went after pirates in China too hard (because surely that would cause a rise in the cost on the consumer a/v equipment that these companies are so desperate to have available cheaply enough that they can continue to peddle their wares to middle america...)

  27. Why not catch bin laden? by HanzoSan · · Score: 2

    No they'd rather catch shawn downloading his mp3s off some file sharing network.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  28. Ashcroft versus the JEWS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll
    Those filthy Jews, have you noticed how the Jews are at the forefront of those trying to restrict our rights?
    Know your enemy. Study this list of Jews trying to destroy your freedom:
    • Rosen
    • Coble
    • Berman
    • Eisner
    • Redstone
    The Jews never create anything. They are the parasites who wedge themselves between the producer and the consumer. The Jew takes a slice of every pie that passes by. What the Jew hates is that the Internet is cutting him off from his host. The artists can now distribute directly to their fans. The Internet has made the Jew irrelevant. So the Jew tries to buy the politician to do his bidding. The Jew tries to get bought politicians to pass bogus regulations in order to maintain Jew hegemony over the consumer.

    Listen and learn about the Jew in this mp3.

    Learn the Truth about the Jew

    1. Re:Ashcroft versus the JEWS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's nice to see that biggotry still thrives!

      Dude you are a total cock-smoker! I suppose you hate Blacks and Mexicans too?

      Say Heil to Hitler for us you ass-fucker.

  29. Ending illegal filesharing won't end piracy. by dotgod · · Score: 1

    These companies keep fighting p2p file sharing, when more of the piracy probably comes from people actually burning copies of CD's that they bought. If they make p2p unusable, people will have to resort to getting free music by copying entire CD's from friends rather than just downloading a song or 2 that was all they wanted in the first place.

  30. Reality Check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Somethings wrong here... REALLY WRONG HERE!!!

    You are 100% right.

    What's wrong is that it's a government (both parties) purchased by business, not a government elected by the people. Without real campaign finance reform and/or a revolution, this will be the way of the future.

    1. Re:Reality Check by mfago · · Score: 2
      What's wrong is that it's a government (both parties) purchased by business, not a government elected by the people. Without real campaign finance reform and/or a revolution...

      Couldn't agree more. But do you really think these same jackass politicians are really going to cut-off their own gravy train? Yea, right... turn the USA into the 4th Reich -- perhaps. Become honest -- not a chance.

    2. Re:Reality Check by ces · · Score: 1

      The US has the best government money can buy!

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
  31. Time to burn some Karma... by Teknogeek · · Score: 1

    So, being a McCarthy wannabe isn't enough for Ashcroft, I see.

    This guy just gives me more and more reasons to vote Libertarian. The more I see the Bush admininstration trampling our rights, the more I hate this government.

    Not that Gore would have been much better, with Senator Joe "Blacklist America" Lieberman as veep and all.

    Sigh...I think I'll flee this country in terror before too much longer.

    --
    I mod down anyone who uses M$ in their posts. I like to live on the edge.
    1. Re:Time to burn some Karma... by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      If the government stopping you from downloading music that you haven't bought is your idea of liberties being trampled I suggest you a) read some history b) read some current world news c) rethink your situation.

    2. Re:Time to burn some Karma... by Teknogeek · · Score: 1

      That is where you fail.

      You confuse the act with the technology behind the act.

      Cars can be used in bank robberies. By your logic, the government should ban cars.

      Sure, P2P stuff gets used a lot in piracy...I'm not arguing that. So does IRC. Should the government ban IRC?

      --
      I mod down anyone who uses M$ in their posts. I like to live on the edge.
    3. Re:Time to burn some Karma... by Moridineas · · Score: 2


      No, that's not the point. The point is to go after users--the super nodes--the big time sharers, NOT the system. Punish the people who need punishment for doing things they shouldn't.

    4. Re:Time to burn some Karma... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was 15-20 I sometimes dreamt of building me a life in the US, because that country was so much more free than my homeland. Not anymore it seems... Believe it or not, it makes me sad. First because all the crap that emerges in the US sooner or later crosses the Atlantic, second because it seems citizen Joe Average doesn't react. The US slowly slips towards a kind of "soft dictature" with a choice, every 4 years, between "white hat" and "hat, white", and most people do not seem to care.

    5. Re:Time to burn some Karma... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man. That is truly frightening.
      "..punish the people for doing what they shouldn't.." "..go after the supernodes, ythe real offenders.."
      Do you have any concept of how ephemeral
      your concepts are, and how they are based on
      underpinnings of corruption, greed, arrogance, misinformation and elitism?

      You would have made a good socialist, so
      you are probably doing pretty well right now.

    6. Re:Time to burn some Karma... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush Administration?

      Er, the letter signers aren't part of the Bush Administration. They are senators and/or congresspeople.

      The letter is TO Ashcroft who was appointed by Bush, but I don't know that you can blame this on the Bush Administration.

      Of course, I don't see Bush putting a stop to this either, but at least get your facts straight.

  32. ... star systems will slip through your fingers by vandelais · · Score: 3

    Above is partial quote from Carrie Fisher

    This is a victory for P2P.
    The more the United States congress thinks they have done something substantial that isn't, the better off the file sharers will be.

    This will not have a chilling effect on P2P at all.
    The first human face put on trial for this will inspire a journalistic feeding frenzy, particularly if he looks like you and me or the neighbor nextdoor, especially if he is filesharing documents such as "Declaration of Independence.txt " or "United States Constitution.doc"

    Oh, my God! Did I just type Windows file extensions?!?

    --
    Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
    1. Re:... star systems will slip through your fingers by SlugLord · · Score: 1

      That's a good idea. Actually I think I may just go put those two documents in My Shared Folder right now... anybody know of a pretty version of those in say pdf?

    2. Re:... star systems will slip through your fingers by Anenga · · Score: 1

      Lets hope it's a 13 year old african-american girl, with braces, pigtails, lives in a low-income household, and her only means of hearing her idol - Venessa Williams - sing is through an MP3 on her library's computer.

      One week after she is thrown into Juvi, expect Venessa Williams to give her a special one-on-one performance (LIVE on the TODAY Show, of course!) along with a brand new Dell Computer, presented to her by the "Dude! Your gettin' a Dell!" guy, and hugs and kisses by President Bush and the rest of the Nation's leaders.

      Following that, expect all those politicans who started this entire fiasco to never have a Government job again.

    3. Re:... star systems will slip through your fingers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And one week after that, "Venessa" Williams will slap you for mispelling her name so badly.

      It's Vanessa Williams, NOT Venessa Williams.

  33. From opensecerts.org by jon_c · · Score: 2

    From opensecerts.org, how much money each of the bills backers received from the Music/Movie/Entertainment industry.

    JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR D, $39,324
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR $21,263 (top contrib)
    ROBERT C. SCOTT $0
    JOHN CONYERS JR $27,000 (top contrib)
    HOWARD COBLE $33,483 (2nd contrib)
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN $214,638 (3rd, wow, she gets a lot of $$$)

    Of course these are only the 6 yahoo news listed, i don't know how much the other unnamed 5 are.

    Of those listed most have the entertainment industry as one of there top contributors, save John Conyers, I have no idea why he thinks this is a good idea.

    -Jon

    --
    this is my sig.
    1. Re:From opensecerts.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dianne Feinstein is a known whore, so that's no surprise. I'd like to know how direct the correlation is between votes and the money, with regards to these stupid bills. Talk about a disconnect between the constituency and the lawmakers.

    2. Re:From opensecerts.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idiot voters of California love Dianne Feinstein, even if she is a corporate whore. Probably because it is en vouge to vote for a "liberal" from a "minority" (i.e. a female). She will probably remain in office until she retires or dies. Spread those legs, Dianne, and let the people of California get fucked.

    3. Re:From opensecerts.org by bmasel · · Score: 2
      Of those listed most have the entertainment industry as one of there top contributors, save John Conyers, I have no idea why he thinks this is a good idea.

      Motown Records.

      --
      Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
    4. Re:From opensecerts.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      She's also a Zionist...Jewish money talks in Kalifornia, but with an increasingly radical Hispanic separatist population advocating La Reconquista, the likes of her and Boxer may not last long.

      La Voz de Aztlan

    5. Re:From opensecerts.org by silentbozo · · Score: 2

      Actually, there were 19 of the filthy bastards, so that makes 13 that the article didn't list.

    6. Re:From opensecerts.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel sorry for Robert Scott because he's getting pimped for free. He must have been the last one to join the stable :)

  34. how do they know its pirated? by HanzoSan · · Score: 2

    Thats the question. How exactly do you know for sure.

    Wouldnt it really suck if they ran a sting on some guy who had all the CDs sitting on a rack?

    Put that in the newspaper!

    Oh and as an artist myself, I want my music all over the net, theres no way i'm going to compete with britney spears without that.

    By the way, as an artist, why not make your money selling mp3s? I dont understand why people think they have to sell CDs to compete with mp3s.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:how do they know its pirated? by PastorOfMuppets · · Score: 1
      By the way, as an artist, why not make your money selling mp3s?

      Because mp3s sound like absolute shit. I'm sorry, but it's true. Mp3 audio has no "dimention," it sounds flat. Shure, if you throw in a n aural exciter and subharmonic synthesizer, you can thicken it up a bit, but it still lacks clarity of a CD (or well preserved vinyl).

      Oh, and as an artist myself, I am looking forward to DVD-Audio. 24 bit, 96Khz, 5.1 surround! Oh baby! If you've never had the pleasure of listening to 24/96 audio, you almost can't tell it's digital (ie. much fewer quantization errors than the 16/44.1 audio used on CDs).

      --
      If you don't have anything nice to say, shut up you stupid prick.
  35. This is how it should be but...... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 2

    it's not realistic that it be enforced, or if it is to a level that will really hurt anyone.

    P2P is a legitimate technology and technology is neither good nor bad, it just IS. If you put up pirated warez and music and your ISP finds you, you probably should be yanked. If you get caught then you should face the consequences. After all you should never gamble if you are not willing to lose.

    The problem is the wholesale death of legitimate technologies because someone.... oh ok,..congressmen get paid off.

    To the earlier poster posing the question
    technology..500B a year industry
    record industry..50B a year
    who's going to win this fight?

    Obviously the record industry. It's just like junior high folks, we geeks don't fight very well. Never have, although our self esteem might be better these days :-)

  36. disney hollings by azcoffeehabit · · Score: 0

    i wonder if sen. disney is one of the others not mentioned.

    --
    :)(smile)
  37. Outlaw the INTERNET by HanzoSan · · Score: 2

    I mean imagine all the illegal files traded on the internet, and the kiddie porn, its just all over the place, lets not forget all the even criminals who are robbing the kiddie porn industry of their money by sharing the kiddie porn around, or the warez traders who now have enough money to eat 3 meals a day because they dont spend $500 on every software upgrade microsoft decides to release.

    Lately lets thank the Al Gore for creating the internet, we all know the democrats love piracy.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Outlaw the INTERNET by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Would someone please Mod this up? This is hilarious!

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
  38. In response to several people... by Jynxeh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since a few people pointed out that it was stupid that the government is dealing with things like this while we're "fighting a war against terrorism," I felt a need to say something, but didn't want to respond to just one of them.

    What do you THINK the terrorists want? To disrupt every-day life, well, at least that's part of what they want to accomplish. Fact is, there's a whole country to be run, no? It's not like everything else can be ignored as long as there are terrorists. At that rate, NOTHING else would get done. That sort of thinking is actually what's allowing this government to get away with things they otherwise wouldn't- the opposition going along with conservative ideas, because "oh, we need to fight terrorism, so we should just let this go through so that we can concentrate on that."

    Fact is, the government SHOULDN'T be paying attention only to the "war," and neither should we be.

    That said, I don't agree with this either, but I don't think that "they should be paying attention to terrorism, not this" is a good defense. Would you also like the government to ignore welfare? Health care? Everything but war and defense issues?

    1. Re:In response to several people... by CySurflex · · Score: 1
      What do you THINK the terrorists want? To disrupt every-day life...

      So what you're saying is,

      If the government does not start going after individual Kazaa users, then the terrorists have already won.

  39. bah by Fjodor+the+grim · · Score: 1

    some thieves dont get prosecuted, music industry is one, they steal all they can from the hard work of "their" artists, WHAT DO THEY WANT?? A NAZI DICTATORSHIP POLICESTATE? When are these morons going to stop? When they have surveillance cameras in every home to prevent, what they deem, illegal activities?? THIS IS ALL about taking away all of our freedom and replacing it with a police state.

  40. Irony. Hypocrisy. Congress. by Phanatic1a · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Among those signing the letter were: Delaware Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden

    Hmmm...this would be the same Joesph Biden who's 1988 Presidential bid was abruptly curtailed when it was revealed that he'd plagiarized passages in several of his speeches, and had also been involved in a serious plagiarism incident when he was at law school?

    What an asshole.

  41. Shut down the whole WORLD WIDE WEB! by HanzoSan · · Score: 4, Funny



    Just like we can blame doom creator john carmack for inciting violence at columbine, we can blame the creators of gnutella for inciting piracy.

    Lets create new laws to slowly shut down the world wide web, I mean we capitalists worked hard ot gain control of the web, and if we cant have it, no one can!

    Lets show those GNU pengiun loving open source pirates that sharing is bad! Lets make them so afrraid to share that they'll be forced to work for us!

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  42. who are they? by Eil · · Score: 2


    Can someone post a list of these 19 lawmakers and their states so that we can give them our "opinions" on this matter?

    I would do it myself but I'm just about to go somewhere. If there's no replies, I'll post it myself. Watch this space.

  43. Does this mean my machine will soon be illegal? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    ... Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, said that FBI should not go for casual users but but instead to go after operators of "network "nodes" ...

    Oh, dear.

    Looks like I finally have to rename my machine.

    Darn. Had that name since the entire list of domain names fit on three printed pages, too...

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  44. Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, people are breaking the law, but this is a stupid approach that won't work. Remember, they are wasting YOUR tax dollars!

    1. Re:Yes, but... by Archfeld · · Score: 2

      there's the key..the real reason is NOT to catch people, anymore than the border guards real job is to stop illegal immigration. Both groups exist soley to expand the government and provide additional tax dollars. The governments purpose has become its continued existence and expansion. Frank Herbert covered it well in Dune. Where is Hari Seldon when we really need him ?

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  45. Re:Irony. Hypocrisy. Congress. by Alec+Varezz · · Score: 0

    Don't Baby Bush, Ashcroft, and the boys have other things to do.. Like-- Martha Stewart, World Com, Enron etc.

  46. Zero Tolerence Nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anarchy for the elite, zero tolerence for hoi poloi.

  47. Creating an incentive? by brad3378 · · Score: 2

    The way I interpret this,
    I had better go download some boybands immediately before the risk of getting caught increases. Doesn't that defeat the point?

    --

  48. And what is America's citizens gonna do about it ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Enron,WorldCom,RIAA,Big Brother, peoples whole lives finished (if $==life) cos another greedy businessman wanted another house/pool/chopper

    and what does America do about it ?

    Nothing

    and the chances that these draconian laws are gonna change ?

    Nothing

    and what are the citizens gonna do about their freedom and civil liberties being eroded in front of them in the name of "terrorists" and "industry"

    [you fill in the blank]

    __________________

  49. I Still Want To Know by Alec+Varezz · · Score: 0

    Who won the war on drugs?

  50. small note by Fjodor+the+grim · · Score: 1

    its all about power, a powerstruggle, people who have power (the RIAA etc) will do ANYTHING they can to keep that power, and keep the things like they were - theyre merely "automatrons" who cant work in any other way than blindly doing what theyve always done

  51. What would the perfect P2P be like? by GuNgA-DiN · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Obviously centralized P2P systems like Napster, Fasttrack, and AudioGalaxy are problematic. Sure they are fast.... but their Achilles' heel is the fact that there is a single point of failure. You go after the company or the major nodes and you can effectively shut it down.

    So, I was think about the next generation of P2P. Obviously if the US Gov't and lawmakers start going after P2P networks we will need to develop a more robust, anonymous method of trading files.

    If I was going to make a P2P network I would think about including some of the following features.

    1) Completely anonymous (maybe encrypted?). Your machine could never be singled out by IP address.

    2) The ability to add security (ie: login/password). What if I want to start my own MP3 trading club and only want to have members be "invite only"? That way you can have some control over quality and selection.

    3) The ability to use HTTP (preferably port 80?) to disguise traffic and prevent ISP's or schools from blocking ports and preventing trade.

    4) A built-in, updatable firewall to prevent certain IP blocks from accessing your machine (ie: to prevent companies like Ranger Online Inc from searching your machine and issuing "take down" notices to your ISP.)

    5) The abilty to perform a massive DoS attack on a hostile attacker. Say some company (like the RIAA or Ranger Online Inc.) starts to "hurt" the network or tries to take it down... self-defense mode would kick-in and DoS the shit out the attacker until they stopped their interference.

    6) Error correction and feedback. The ablity for the system to "weed out" bad copies of files based on user feedback. You could also have it check MD5 sums to ensure quality.

    Anyone else think of things that future P2P networks will need to withstand the attack?

    1. Re:What would the perfect P2P be like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it should not be trading files in the first place. Instead it should be positioned as a 'repair service' for damaged files.

      When a file is damaged, only those portions of the file that have been damaged need to be copied. Preferably the copies are made from multiple machines, thus no single machine is ever responsible for fully reproducing a file (and I wonder if it is illegal to copy every 4th byte of an MP3 - after all, those bytes are completely meaningless without the other 3).

      And of course the user must possess the file in the first place if he wants to repair it.

      Together these measures should go a long way to legitimizing the technology. Of course, users may find that an empty file is also technically the same as a damaged one...

      Alternatively, position it as a backup solution. You do not 'share' files, you send them out for remote backup on other people's machines. The purpose of this backup is not to actually give these people *access* to those files (they are still your own) - it's just that you cannot stop them doing so. The application would make perfect sense for the office as well.

      For the rest... Only ever allow people onto the network after they have uploaded a certain amount of copyrighted material. If the RIAA ever tries to infiltrate they will have to commit the same acts they are trying to fight, which in some countries weakens their case considerably.

      At all times make sure the network operates as a closed (invitation-only) club. The point here is again to weaken the legitimacy of infiltrators.

      Encrypt all transmitted data. This will make it harder to prove that a crime has been committed.

      It is funny, I think of myself as a perfectly respectable citizen. The only reason I give these suggestions is because I am so deeply angered by the attitudes of our lawmakers (on both sides of the atlantic).

    2. Re:What would the perfect P2P be like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7) File hashing at block level. This allows you to download good sections of the file even if the rest is corrupted. Similarly provide a way to restore corrupted blocks (a la diff file)

      8) partial downloads - each node only store "samples" of file. This works with #7 listed above. It would really cheese off *AA if useful blocks can be extracted from their loop file. ;)

      9) #5 should be distributed DoS attack.

      10) servers hosted in a 'safe' country.

  52. Pirating vs Profiting by umask077 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Alot of people are using these clients to download music. Ive done it. Ill continue to do it for now. I buy the occasional CD as a result. I buy about 1 every 3 or 4 months. I probably wouldnt buy that many if I couldnt hear the music first. Im not gonna stand around in a store with headphones on to hear it either and the radio? How many times do they forget to tell you the name of the song.

    I personal wont pay 17 bucks for a CD with 1 or 2 songs I like on it. Its not worth it to me. If they were to make it so I could buy just the tracks I like in a format simliar to MP3 Id probably send a buck or two a song but I have way to many cds i bought long ago with just one good song on them. Not worth the money.

    One of the major problems with the "piracy" however is rather vague. I dont have a problem with the music networks or even the software networks. Where piracy becomes evil is when someone tries to profit from it. Selling cds or cdroms is wrong. That is trying to profit off others works and thats a problem.

    I used to pirate software all the time in the glory days of computers (Well before the Web) and I can say when I started I didnt have the money to buy it. I was a kid, but what I did was learn it. Ok, pirating games never gave anyone but myself enjoyment but the apps I pirated tought me about the Apps. Enabled me to get my first job and enabled me to do 15 years in office enviroments making recommendations to corperations on what to buy. If I pirated a copy of Word and then had the company I worked for buy 250 copys for peoples desktop the only people hurt by this were wordperfect(showing my age).

    Piracy is ok in my opinion provided its a learning experiance. Others may argue, and there will always be abusers, but look at the ages of those that never buy CDs, Look at there incomes. They probably would have never bought the cd anyway.

    The real threat is those trying to profit from piracy, What they really need is a different name to describe one or the others.

    Again I think this whole thing is a seriously low priority in light of all the other problems our country has but I dont have the money to buy my own polotician and probably wont in the future.

    I think the real problem however is that people can pay for poloticians, We need to get some laws against people buying them. This legalized corruption needs to go.

    --
    --- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
    1. Re:Pirating vs Profiting by Stonehand · · Score: 1


      Piracy is ok in my opinion provided its a learning experiance. Others may argue, and there will always be abusers, but look at the ages of those that never buy CDs, Look at there incomes. They probably would have never bought the cd anyway.


      A lot of the file sharers/downloaders are probably college students, given the need for bandwidth... and most of them have /some/ budget for entertainment (be it alcohol, music, movies, books, games, vacations, road trips...). Many people accumulate CD collections starting in their pre-teens... and you're claiming that some have age as an excuse? Hell, they can just add it onto their credit card debt like just about everything/everyone else these days...

      Hell, they have access to a computer, probably their own; either that, or they use a public machine and have some way of carrying the music around with them. They feel they can afford to spend the time downloading instead of working. They're probably not destitute.


      The real threat is those trying to profit from piracy, What they really need is a different name to describe one or the others.


      Imagine two competitors. One sells a physical product at a very low cost because he's bootlegging. Because it's a physical product, its distribution takes time and legwork, and has somewhat limited area. The other provides nigh-unlimited downloads anywhere in the world, for just the cost of time and bandwidth (the latter of which may not even be borne by the downloader, or at least he may see no marginal cost if he's not paying per byte and he doesn't need the network 24/7 for something else). Which do you really think is the greater threat to the owner of the IP?

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
  53. Things that fail miserably ... by blandthrax · · Score: 1

    prohibition, war on drugs, stamping out evil, uh, stopping file sharing ... etc.

  54. Fuck them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess we should expect network congestion because of users, downloading everything in their sight to beat this initiative.

    A better solution would be to simply stop listening to and buying RIAA music. There's plenty of good music being created and distributed by nice people who aren't hell bent on destroying our rights. Why put money in the pockets of the fuckers who are.

  55. War, good God (Bruce Springstein reference)... by RockyJSquirel · · Score: 1

    Welcome to the world of intergenerational warfare... Under Nixon an older, reactionary generation declared a War on Drugs, which was essentially a euphemism for a war on the lifestyle of the youth of that era and the values it represented (chemical experimentation, casual sex, a healthy skepticism of authority, and so on). Indeed, the prohibition of drugs and the actions that have been taken to try and stamp out its use has caused far greater harm, in both a humanitarian and economic sense, than the abuse of the substances themselves ever did or could have.

    A War on Ourselves indeed, or at least a war on the younger generation, one that began under Nixon, was escalated out of control under Reagan and Bush Senior, to the point where we now have over fifty beaurocracies fighting for the collected spoils seized from non-violent drug offendors.

    Now, with the new War on Copyright Infringement, we are about to target today's youth, who trade their music, their movies, their videotapes online, instead of via cassette tape the way us older folk did when we were in high school and college.


    I agree, partially. I've wondered about actual wars too, which seem a bit like parents slaughtering their young for next to no reason. Exactly why was communism in Viet Nam supposed to be more important to each American family that the lives (and and freedom, and health and hearts etc.) of the sons we were supposed to scrifice to it?

    On the other hand, the Copywrite war seems more like the corporate class, having bought both the government and the media, using their power to insure their profits. It's not about young people, it's just money talking.

    Also, having law inforcement go nuts over little things seems to fit the puritanical character of American society with its odd "cultural war" as Patrick Buccanan called it.

    I grew up in Canada where there is no "cultural war". Someone pointed out to me that one difference between Canada and the US is that the Canadian government doesn't have the "separation of church and state". So, since religious folks aren't officially marginalized out the government, they don't feel so threatened and the result is peace instead of societal warfare. It's an example of how badly the law of unintended consequences can bite you.

    Rocky J Squirrel

  56. Why is IP the only metaphor? by Burning*Cent · · Score: 1

    Why is intellectual property the most common analogy of modern life made with physical objects? I mean, content providers say that when you take some of their copyrighted material, you have stolen just as if it were physical property. Why aren't more such comparisons made (in people's favor of course)?

    For example, just as a person might own land, he would own his computer. Just as he might build a house on his land, a person would also put a filesystem/OS on his computer. Just as with a house, anything that does not harm another should be allowed on a computer.

    Also, meetings over the internet such as in chat rooms or over P2P networks should be considered assemblies. Therefore, as long as such an assembly is peaceful (no laws being broken, copyrights being infringed upon), it should be allowed to continue. Of course, attacking all P2P networks would be like instituting curfews; all assembly is forbidden because some people might not be peaceful and law-abiding.

    In the offline world, many handgun control folks argue that people kill people and that guns are not to blame. The generalization to draw from this specific argument is that possession of the tools of crime is not criminal or immoral. If this generalization were applied to computers, it mean that writing viruses and cracker tools is not immoral as long as they are not used maliciously. It would also mean that the P2P networks are not to blame, but instead the copyright-infringing users are.

    Just something I had to say...

    Homeric simile of the week: MS's Palladium is like giving the RIAA and MPAA a gun, but the default option of not requiring a signing authority for programs and media is like a bullet proof vest for computers. Sen. Hollings aims to ban bullet-proof vests with the CBDTPA.

  57. makes me happy by GravySkin · · Score: 0

    I am sick of peer to peer file sharing utilities. Business tried peer to peer in the early 90's it sucked, what makes people think it is the next big thing for home users. Nothing like users dropping viruses on one another's hard drives.

    What is so fucking hard about going out and paying for a cd?

    I guess this is the right formum for this kind of article as typical ./ inhabitants:
    1. Love free software (free as in I am too fucking cheap to pay for it.)
    2. Love free music (see as in number 1)
    3. Know record companies and any company charging money for a product is evil.

    Respectfully,

    Anxiously awaiting Palladium.

    --
    "never met a Microsoft zealot"
    1. Re:makes me happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't wait until we fuck up Palladium !! That is going to be fun! Fuck you dick sucker... just because you don't like free shit doesn't mean the rest of us don't. You forgot a category in your list: "free movies"!!! I'm downloading 4 of them right now to add to my 400 Gb collection! So blow me you fucking ball licker!

      ps -- last time I checked .... Linux doesn't run Windows.... so I guess Palladium ain't going to be that much of a problem.

  58. Music Industry: If you don't want people stealin.. by Error-404NotFound · · Score: 0

    Then don't make your music so high priced! Today I just picked up a copy of Unreal Tournament for 10 bucks! Yes, it is old, but it's still a great game and has a lot more replay value than 40 minutes of music! The recording industry charges 20 bucks for one cd with maybe a few good songs on it! I'm all for not stealing, i'm very against warez and copying of software because I know for the most part the developers put lots of work into it and sometimes (like Diablo2) creation can takes YEARS and after release there is patching to be done, and keeping a network with millions of users lag free and crash free (I know blizzard tries :) ) I still buy cds, go ahead, say it, i have a guilty mind... well i do. I have only bought a few at full price though, the others i got from BMG. What does the music industry expect? For a few weeks, a month, or even just a day of time to record a disc and maybe a few months before you get tired of it (tops...) i'd rather go put my money into a nice PC game. If a CD was 7 bucks or even 10 i would buy them MUCH more often. Lets also not forget that cds can sell 10mill copies or so when that's the size of the entire PS2 userbase!

    --
    -=Errors always defy logic.=-
  59. Buy less and less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I buy very little and generally ignore the output of the content cartel and thier artists. I've even cancelled my cable, TV has just become a almost constant infomerical.

    I rarely buy anything, new CD's or DVD's, go to/rent movies or even download music or video.

    The way to hit them is in the pocket book, buy less from the companies so the companies and the artist both starve.

    If an artist wants to make money they should be performing live, then they will be sure to get their payment. And even sell a few CD's maybe.

  60. This will help the REAL artists... by trims · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Imagine if you will, this scenario:
    1. DOJ crawls through the P2P networks, scanning your file swapping list, and arresting everyone it can find which they believe is illegally sharing copyrighted materials. They prosecute a buch of big-time file-sharers, winning some, losing others. But they get enough that it scares most people.
    2. The big P2P sharers leave the networks. Usage drops drastically. However, the P2P software makers are still in business, as they are now left alone. Music is still being shared, only now its stuff that explicitly has been allowed by the Artists to be shared.
    3. Now that the P2P network isn't clogged with NSYNC tunes, people actually can find (and listen to) stuff that isn't on ClearChannel or the other big chain Radio stations. Bands have small successes - releasing 128Bit MP3s to the P2P networks, and selling 256Bit ones on their websites for a couple of dimes. It becomes possible for a regional band to make a few tens of thousands of dollars of MP3 sales per year (100,000 sales @ 40 cents each adds up), and people start to flock to the P2P networks again.
    4. Big-time artists notice it. Those which are in controll of their catalogue (through foresight, ownership of their label, or lawsuits), decide that its possible now. Somebody big tries it, and makes a couple million in sales on their back-catalog in the first month. The artists drool, as they see 75% profit margins on per-MP3 sales, with nothing going to the label (or other middlemen).
    5. Artists flock to the P2P networks to sell their songs, and the big labels are reduced to what they really are: promotional marketing houses. Artists contract with them for fixed fees (or precentages of gross receipts) to do promotion and such, and label no longer get ownership of the music, as Artists now have the means to say "Fuck You" if the label demands it.
    I'd love to see this scenario, and I think it's realistic given two BIG "ifs":
    • IF they really start to clamp down on the big P2P users with huge illegal catalogs, so we can get all the infringing crap off the P2P networks. Once it's all legal and above board, you can start running real marketing analysis and do the business case studies that you need to make it a real sales market and distribution channel.
    • IF the artists continue on the current road of fighting to get ownership of their music. If they quit (and continue with the Faustian bargain of their soul for 15 minutes on MTV), then it's over. I'm hoping they have the backbone to stick it out.
    And realistically, isn't this what we want? P2P networks with LEGAL music for us to try out and see what we want? And an economically viable way for the artists to produce music and get paid for it in a reasonable manner?

    Call it what you want, but sharing copyrighted MP3s right now is definitely illegal, and in the long turn, harmful to everyone. Don't do it - it's NOT the Right Thing.

    -Erik

    --
    There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
    1. Re:This will help the REAL artists... by ftobin · · Score: 2

      Call it what you want, but sharing copyrighted MP3s right now is definitely illegal

      Under US law, true. Don't equate US law with the world's laws.

      and in the long turn, harmful to everyone.

      Debatable at best.

    2. Re:This will help the REAL artists... by tato+(and+tato+only) · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, the problem for small, independent artists is not that the major RIAA materials prevents people finding their works.

      With the current P2P clients, there is no to find something unless you know specifically what to search for. If you already know the artist's name and someone happens to be sharing the works of that artist, with the permission of the copyright holder, you will be able to find it; the fact that most of the P2P users are sharing Eminem does not prevent this now.

      I really wish there were a good way to find the independent artists who want to be heard. I will no longer buy or download anything produced or promoted by the RIAA, and I know there must be lots of good independent work available. The problem is how to find it.

      --
      tato (and tato only)
      This post is strictly opinion, including the spelling.
    3. Re:This will help the REAL artists... by Omerna · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I entirely agree with your post, it's flawed in a couple of key ways...

      1) The DOJ won't win some and lose some. Because of the way our legal system works as soon as people start being found guilty (and they will) the possibility (probabilty)is that EVERYONE will be found guilty.

      2) People won't sit around to get arrested. They'll pull their stuff and hopefully (they hope) they won't be on a list yet. Assuming they "escape" they find/ found a new network using some controls to ensure anonymity and continue to trade what they want.

      3) People won't go back to P2P. Sure SOME people will, but these are in the minority. Most people don't go searching for local bands to support, they want that cool song they heard on the radio. I REALLY doubt that bands will be able to make $10,000+ yearly, mostly because even if they DO release stuff it's to a smaller audience who still have to find their music. Maybe somebody would like it if they heard it, but haven't ever had that oppurtunity? They won't download it.

      3a) Also, paying for music won't happen for a little bit. People won't want to pay for what they got for free last week, last month, last year. By this time a new network will probably have sprung up enabling copyrighted material to be traded again.

      4/5) I doubt there will be enough money flowing to attract artists. Even if there is, established artists have already signed contracts with labels. These labels have the ability to get large amounts of people to hear/see/read about their artists music. A small start-up band definitely doesn't, and even if their stuff is better simply WILL NOT get the exposure necessary to compete with the established band. The established band will make more money than the start-up, causing more start-ups to sign with labels, perpetuating the cycle.

      Anyway, that's just my opinion. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I doubt enough people will "break free" from the labels' marketing machines to let smaller bands compete financially (and they are at least comparing profits because a band will NOT say "Fuck You" to the label if they're gonna lose money) with larger bands who are signed with labels. This just means that a new and "better" trading system will be developed so people can trade their copyrighted material as much as they want.

      --


      No sig for you.
    4. Re:This will help the REAL artists... by MasterKayne · · Score: 1

      I'd love some system that said if you like artist x you'll probably like indie y.
      Or if you like song q you'll probably like indie song r.

      Someone start this. I cannot donate skills but I can/would donate money.

    5. Re:This will help the REAL artists... by R@Bastard · · Score: 1

      IF they really start to clamp down on the big P2P users with huge illegal catalogs, so we can get all the infringing crap off the P2P networks. Once it's all legal and above board, you can start running real marketing analysis and do the business case studies that you need to make it a real sales market and distribution channel.

      The problem is that this is NOT what they want. What they want is to destroy this "market" and this mode of distribution. They're not really all that worried about copyright infringement, precisely because of all the logical arguments one always reads here.

      They KNOW that it doesn't hurt sales. They MAY KNOW that it helps sales. They don't care. They don't want to change their position, their market, their channels of income.

      They definitely don't want the ecology of rock-stardom to change. If it was easy for Joe Schmoe to get famous by sharing his non-label music with folks for 50 cents a download, that hurts them a lot more than people copying Brittney.

      Think about it. This is a classic strawman argument. They choose not to compete fairly, and since there's no other logical way that they can "outlaw" music sharing via digital networks, they have to ghettoize them with crackdowns on "copyright infringement".

      This way they will try and scare non-techies away from the networks (it's a haven for crime; watch out! you might get caught!). It is their goal to erode these networks before they truly become mainstream and destroy their way of business

      --
      Mucous membranes are the part of your brain that, like, make you think about mucous. --Beavis
    6. Re:This will help the REAL artists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I suppose that you dont like ANY bands that have signed on a major label? None. Not a single one? If you say "No" you are a fucking liar. If you say "Yes" you are a fucking hypocrite. You've never ONCE downloaded a copywritten song before? I do it all the time... then I buy the CD's of the artists that I like the most. There is nothing illegal in "sampling" a song. I use it to make better purchase decisions. It's too bad that the RIAA can't understand this. But, I certainly don't feel guilty for doing it.

    7. Re:This will help the REAL artists... by zapfie · · Score: 1

      Whether P2P hurts or helps their sales is highly irrelevant in the end. Even if it caused large boosts to their sales, they'd still try to shut it down, because it is not a meduim they control, whereas radio, music outlets and entertainment venues are mediums they fully control. Control is much, much, MUCH more important than money in the long run.

      --
      slashdot!=valid HTML
    8. Re:This will help the REAL artists... by serutan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That sounds great until you consider that the end result of your scenario is that the music industry dies. Musicians absolutely can survive without the industry, since there is now a free mechanism to distribute their music without signing away the rights. As new bands flourish on the Internet and popular bands move to the Internet, the Music Industry is left with only their existing catalog of increasingly moldy oldies to peddle, becoming a nostalgia industry that eventually folds up.

      Oh, sure, Hilary and her sleazy friends will settle for that destiny. They'll never see that one coming. Naww. No way they'll react by doing something like this:

      Paying their lackeys in Congress to force hardware makers to embed DRM that REQUIRES security technology that is owned by - guess who!! - which gets licensed to aspiring musicians for, oh, say the same-ish terms record companies have been imposing on them for decades. The industry retains control over the master access valve, we get to hear the same stream of big-hit bands selected for us by assholes in expensive suits, on computers and other machines that will no longer play just whatever we want, and 99.99% of the population of musicians grubs along like they do now.

    9. Re:This will help the REAL artists... by Nugget · · Score: 2
      it exists today, it's called emusic.com. It has exactly the feature you are describing.

      Search for an artist, if they don't have any tracks by the artist online, they'll recommend similar indie artists that they do have.

    10. Re:This will help the REAL artists... by kcbrown · · Score: 5, Interesting
      2. The big P2P sharers leave the networks. Usage drops drastically. However, the P2P software makers are still in business, as they are now left alone. Music is still being shared, only now its stuff that explicitly has been allowed by the Artists to be shared.

      Huh? How naive can you get?

      You think the RIAA will just be nice and leave P2P software makers alone once trading of RIAA 0wn3d music on P2P networks drops through the floor? You think the RIAA will just ignore all those independent artists that they don't have any control over but who would now have more relative exposure on P2P networks?

      You've gotta be kidding me. What world did you grow up in?

      The RIAA will not stop until all music distribution methods are completely under their control. Total domination is what they're after and they're not going to settle for anything less. And because they 0wn Congress, they have a reasonable chance of succeeding. Oh, yeah, they might destroy the Internet in the process, but everyone knows that the only people who use the internet as anything other than a glorified TV set are 3v1l h4x0rz and terrorists, right?

      Sigh...

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    11. Re:This will help the REAL artists... by tuxedo-steve · · Score: 2

      There is nothing illegal in "sampling" a song.

      I think you mean ``immoral'', not ``illegal''. One is not necessarily the other.

      --
      - SMJ - (It's not just a name: it's a bad aftertaste.)
    12. Re:This will help the REAL artists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at edonkey2000. It's P2P but it also allows you to queue files based on their hash code. For one thing, this is useful because the search function doesn't always find everything on the network (edonkey does not have a single central server.) Using hash codes is also useful because it allows you to set up a site with special ed2k: links that, when clicked on, will queue a specific file on your edonkey client. Check out www.sharereactor.com as an example. Unfortuntely, Sharereactor's contents are basically warez. But there's no reason the same concept couldn't be applied to non-warez.

    13. Re:This will help the REAL artists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oooh long post, let's mod it to 5!

      it's nice intellectual wanking you got there, but you conveniently forget old stuff I cannot buy anywhere, bootlegs, etc, what about sharing those ?

      oh, and the warning about not sharing, all I can say is ROFL, have you actually met at least one of the shareing people ?
      they don't give dog crap about what might happen, mostly teens and college students who will always find a way to swap, wake up, noone cares about your rants and warnings

    14. Re:This will help the REAL artists... by GoofyBoy · · Score: 3, Informative

      releasing 128Bit MP3s to the P2P networks, and selling 256Bit ones on their websites for a couple of dimes.

      The vast majority of of people are happy with 128. Why would they pay for something which they can tell the difference?

      It becomes possible for a regional band to make a few tens of thousands of dollars of MP3 sales per year

      I doubt it. Didn't Stephen King try to sell a serial novel online then give up near the end? How much better could a regional band do?

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    15. Re:This will help the REAL artists... by zaffir · · Score: 1

      10,000 people bought the novel. I'd say that even one third of that would make for pretty good exposure for a local band.

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
    16. Re:This will help the REAL artists... by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      King's experiment was flawed in many ways. First, it wasn't terribly easy to pay. Second, there was no way of knowing if the story would be finished (it wasn't) and I, for one, wasn't about to pay for a few chapters of a book that may|may not be completed.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    17. Re:This will help the REAL artists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In several cases that I know of the artist recommended was NOT and indie as their label showed in the riaa's member list.

  61. The real cost by tutal · · Score: 2

    I can't imagine what would happen if they actually tried to crack down on this, including all those who use P2P to get a few MP3's. Virtually every college student would be arrested for "stealing" songs that they freely hear on the radio. The amount of police force to pull this off would be astronomical. If the drug war is such a futile effort, just imagine the $$cost$$ of this kind of effort.

  62. Why is it illegal to DISTRIBUTE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I understand fully why it is illegal to have mp3's of albums which I do not own, and why it should be legal to have fair-use mp3 copies of the CD's in the cd rack in my room. But I don't understand why distributing those mp3's is illegal across the board. What if I am transferring a copy of a CD that i own, to another person that owns that CD? If I own a number of CD's and have ripped, tagged, named, sorted, and categorized them myself, shouldn't it be legal for a friend who has those same CD's to download them from me.. thereby saving them the trouble I went through (and saving me the trouble of teaching them how to do it)? Why doesn't the legality of the file sharing apply only to the person downloading the mp3's, as there are understandably legal reasons for transferring those files to begin with?

    1. Re:Why is it illegal to DISTRIBUTE? by Stonehand · · Score: 2

      *sigh*

      Because it's the distributor's responsibility to check. He _could_ claim that he believed that EVERY SINGLE CLIENT which snarfed his PUBLICALLY SHARED files had a legit copy, and that said licenses permitted transfer (?), but... it'd almost always be wrong.

      If he /really/ wanted to be distributing only to people who had the CDs, he wouldn't be putting them on a public share and letting them grab copies without any verification whatsoever.

      Would you expect to get away with handing out porn mags to 4'-tall people with no facial hair, Pokemon shirts, and high-pitched prepubescent voices, taking their word for it that they were over 18? Probably not -- you'd have to be pretty stupid to believe them, and any judge would expect you to make a better effort than THAT.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    2. Re:Why is it illegal to DISTRIBUTE? by Omerna · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how this got modded "Insightful", because this guy is just playing the "What if..." game. If you start inventing specific situations that may/ may not exist you'll NEVER be wrong.

      Of course, in your situation it would be legal. You own the copyrighted material, he owns the material, you're not doing anything wrong... here's where your scenario breaks down- This is NOT what's happening. Not at all, not even close. Instead of a friend it's a stranger. Instead of owning the CD he doesn't own it (I'm categorically stating this and I mean too, nobody would bother to download poor quality tracks from a CD they own, and if you say you do I'm going to call you an idiot or a liar, take your pick). And instead of this happening once it's happening an untold number of times a day.

      --


      No sig for you.
    3. Re:Why is it illegal to DISTRIBUTE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if i leave my front door unlocked, for my brother to walk in when he gets home.. it is perfectly legal. anyone else who enters my house does so illegally. it is their responsibility to know that they are committing a crime by entering, not my responsibility to guard the door. or if i leave my cds in my car with my window rolled down, it may be stupid, but it is legal. is the responsibility of the guy walking down the street to not steal them. as many services have demonstrated (my.mp3.com for example), it is very difficult to accurately determine whether people getting files have the right to do so. much more difficult than standing by the front door and seeing if the guy coming in looks like my brother. why should every online service be required to (ineffectively) determine that all the data being transferred is being done so legally? i could sell stolen VCRs by phone. if i get arrested, AT&T is not responsible. the people arguing for more legislation make so many comparisons to real-world stealing, why can't i?

  63. Face It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    America is fucked, the revolution is dead. From here on in the government are no longer your protectors, they're keepers of cattle. Only hubris prevents you from understanding what you've thrown away in the interest of expediancy. You're children will understand, and you'll be rightly reviled in their eyes.

    1. Re:Face It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what the 2nd amendment is for, assuming that it's still available when we need to use it.

  64. NNTP by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if my ISP is going to get arrested for running NNTP servers. Those DARN network nodes. In other news, several owners of BGP routers were arrested for operating Network Nodes

  65. Government by Big Business, for Big business by demo9orgon · · Score: 1, Interesting
    I look forward to the day when people are going to remember the kind of freedom we have with VCR's, and analog-broadcast tv and radio, and mutter something to the effect that,
    "..you know, that unibomber guy may have been a bit wacked-out, but that bastard knew what he was talking about when he said that technology is reaching too far into our lives and is going to be used to enslave us..."
    Soon, not today, or even next year, but soon, communites are going to form. Close-knit, the kind of community where people operate using a cell-based contact scheme. Files will move through these cells, untraceable. All sorts of programming, news, movies, songs, information. It will still flow, but the people doing it are going to be silent heroes of a freedom that is known in other parts of the world, like the Russian Replublics, Cambodia, China, and other areas where government has grown so draconian that arbitrary arrests and torture are as common as breathing.

    We've already repealed enough freedoms to make it completely possible for anybody to be picked up, labeled "enemy combatant" and quietly sequestered for an arbitrary length of time until fear and intimidation can run their course.

    In the new age of DRM, that's going to be drilled into our children, there will be no fair use. Anything we don't make ourselves is going to me immutable and untransferable. To play a song on two different formats we'll have to purchase a copy in each format, and any technology that sidesteps that profit chain will be the kind of thing that will land Joe-homeowner in the same cell as the thug that's serving life for things that are really wrong, and not just wrong because a bunch of white-haired fat-cats that play the politico-game shake their corpulent fingers at the public and chastise us for having a brain.

    I will probably be behind the wheel of a lorry at the ripe age of sixty peforming or helping in the on-the-fly digital hijacking/reprogramming of tuners to alter DRM lockout and re-empower the citenzry--drive-by reprogramming. Might even leave a little calling card, like a graphic or something to let joe-homeowner know that they've been unshackled. Failing that, I'll probably just kick it up a notch and start performing/organizing PETA-Style data-center raids where we'd free users from databases where they had been improperly captured and enslaved. That would be some exciting shit.

    I think the worst thing that's taking place today in the technology societies is that a culture of submission to corporate interests is finally coming to fruition...all that public education is going to start paying off big for businesses that can afford to buy laws for the consumers who will happily roll over...taking it and liking it. And what's even more frustrating is that as citizens we are powerless by proxy. I don't hear anything about protests, organized or otherwise, working against the erosion of our rights...even the sham they are today would be preferable to a complete amputation.

    --
    Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
    1. Re:Government by Big Business, for Big business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will probably be behind the wheel of a lorry at the ripe age of sixty peforming or helping in the on-the-fly digital hijacking/reprogramming of tuners to alter DRM lockout and re-empower the citenzry--drive-by reprogramming. Might even leave a little calling card, like a graphic or something to let joe-homeowner know that they've been unshackled. Failing that, I'll probably just kick it up a notch and start performing/organizing PETA-Style data-center raids where we'd free users from databases where they had been improperly captured and enslaved. That would be some exciting shit.

      Alex, Dear Boy, there was a bit of nastiness last night, Billy and his droogies said you were involved...

      count me in for the old ultraviolence!! if I live so long...

  66. Remember, this is both parties... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Among those signing the letter were: Delaware Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden; Wisconsin Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner; Virginia Democratic Rep. Bobby Scott; Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers; North Carolina Republican Rep. Howard Coble; and California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

    Just in case any of you out there try to pin this solely on "evil" Republicans... both parties are just as liable.

    Shame on you Dianne, shame.

  67. This is new folks by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is new, so pay attention to what's happening. A truly new crime has been invented--that isn't something that happens often.

    Copyright infringement has never before been a crime committed by individuals procuring their own entertainment. Always before it has been a crime that could only be comitted by major distributors. After all, those were the only people copyright law applied to 50 years ago.

    Stealing a song is not like stealing a car. One involves the deprivation of a personal property, and the other involves breaking a social contract.

    This is new, and I wonder how long this new crime will be with us.

    1. Re:This is new folks by dboyles · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Copyright infringement has never before been a crime committed by individuals procuring their own entertainment.

      I don't think this is either. While obtaining material that you know to be stolen (s/stolen/infringed\ upon) is illegal, I think everybody is wanting to go after the actual distributors. I don't think even Ashcroft would go so far as to say we should go after the kid who downloads a copy of a latest-and-greatest MTV single.

      Always before it has been a crime that could only be comitted by major distributors. After all, those were the only people copyright law applied to 50 years ago.

      Are you sure? I don't have any citations to back this up, but I doubt it was legal fifty years ago for someone to copy a book and distrbute it without having permission from the author/publisher.

      Stealing a song is not like stealing a car. One involves the deprivation of a personal property, and the other involves breaking a social contract.

      You're exactly right, and that's why someone who steals a car is probably going to prison for a short period, while someone who illegally copies a CD will most likely get a very minor punishment.

      --
      -- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
    2. Re:This is new folks by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 2

      Are you sure? I don't have any citations to back this up, but I doubt it was legal fifty years ago for someone to copy a book and distrbute it without having permission from the author/publisher.

      50 years ago you could copy a book by hand or with a large expensive printing press. Private individuals did not normally have access to a large printing press. Copying books by hand, however, had a long exemption from copyright--at least in Europe--though it died out in modern times, so I'm not sure if there is any notice of the exemption in American law.

      You're exactly right, and that's why someone who steals a car is probably going to prison for a short period, while someone who illegally copies a CD will most likely get a very minor punishment.

      I was trying to say that the 'very minor punishment' is a new thing.

    3. Re:This is new folks by dboyles · · Score: 2

      50 years ago you could copy a book by hand or with a large expensive printing press. Private individuals did not normally have access to a large printing press.

      But technology has changed, so you have to expect the laws to evolve to reflect that. In effect we've essentially given private individals large printing presses. That is, we've made it so that he/she can violate copyright law with almost no effort.

      Copying books by hand, however, had a long exemption from copyright--at least in Europe--though it died out in modern times, so I'm not sure if there is any notice of the exemption in American law.

      I also don't know about American law in regards to the subject at hand, but it's certainly not illegal for me to record myself singing "Baby, One More Time" and distributing it (if it's not for profit, IIRC - think about bands covering songs). Of course it's still illegal to take Britney's copy and distribute it. I think that small adjustment to the analogy is necessary to bring things up with the times, so to speak.

      I was trying to say that the 'very minor punishment' is a new thing.

      I don't think it is. If a publisher knew of someone who was illegally distributing their works, they might take him to court for a small sum, or have some other sort of minor legal action taken against them.

      --
      -- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
    4. Re:This is new folks by Thenomain · · Score: 1

      Copyright infringement has never before been a crime committed by individuals procuring their own entertainment.

      And yet, it has always been illegal to own song sheets that you did not legitimately buy. "But I did it for my own entertainment" was not a solid argument in the 50s and it's not a solid argument now. The only difference is one of atom-to-bit-shifting.

      Now imagine owning several thousand different songs and you let anyone come by and make a copy of one. Even I (who am not the most clean of people in this example) can't imagine that when the idea of "Fair Use" was created anyone thought the everyman could make thousands and thousands of copies.

      This is not a new concept, this is just a renewed concept. There is no sudden "new type of criminal", just a new type of person to be an old type of criminal.

      Stealing a song is not like stealing a car. One involves the deprivation of a personal property, and the other involves breaking a social contract.

      Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that laws weren't supposed to uphold the social ideals of the civilization they're meant to serve.

      --
      This now concludes our broadcast day.
    5. Re:This is new folks by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 2

      Before the DMCA, Copyright was always a Civil offense, not a criminal one.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    6. Re:This is new folks by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 2
      And yet, it has always been illegal to own song sheets [mpa.org] that you did not legitimately buy.

      Well, quoting the Music Publishers' Association is all fine, but they are just summarizing the law and conveniently ignoring the whole Fair Use exception, which directly contradicts what they say.

      The MPA says:

      What About Photocopies That Are Now In Our Church/School/Library?

      Destroy any unauthorized photocopies immediately. Replace them with legal editions.

      Title 17 says:
      Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    7. Re:This is new folks by suwain_2 · · Score: 2

      while someone who illegally copies a CD will most likely get a very minor punishment.

      I know I might be missing your point, but... Under laws like the DMCA, aren't some of the penalties supposedly similar to those for murder? While it would be in insane perversion of justice (but what else do you expect from the RIAA?), I believe that things like DMCA violations can land you something absurd, like 25 years in jail.

      I don't remember the specifics, but I definitely remember a discussion about how the penalties for copyright infringement were sometimes actually WORSE than murder.

      I see the point you're making, but I'm also not so sure that copying a CD is something that will get you "a very minor punishment."

      --
      ________________________________________________
      suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
    8. Re:This is new folks by Windrip · · Score: 1

      It's not new, and it's not relegated to corporate sleazery. here's a reference I found while researching the George Harrison (RIP) / The Chiffons 1983 case.

    9. Re:This is new folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Your point about "deprivation of a personal property" vs. "breaking a social contract", while an astute observation, also isn't new. In "FAIR USE FOR COMPUTER PROGRAMS AND OTHER COPYRIGHTABLE WORKS IN DIGITAL FORM: THE IMPLICATIONS OF SONY, GALOOB AND SEGA"[1] Prof. Pamela Samuelson makes the following point:
      At the heart of the contest between the parties in Sony was a very fundamental difference in the conception about the nature of copyright law. Universal viewed copyright primarily as a property-rights regime. Sony viewed copyright more as a regulatory regime in which interests of copyright owners were to be balanced against the interests of other commercial participants in the marketplace and of the public at large so as to achieve the larger purposes of copyright law."

      [1] This article used to be on the net. It looks like the professor has removed it. A good search of Google's cache may find it, but I can't find it right now.

    10. Re:This is new folks by csteinle · · Score: 1

      The interesting thing is that this is spin, rather than an actual lie. They don't say "destroy photocopies you have in school" - they say "destroy any unauthorized photocopies". The quoted law authorizes school's copies.

  68. Please use a few more brain cells next time by tempestdata · · Score: 2, Insightful
    There is no need to hurl personal insults at me. Just because some people use the software to steal (I'm not saying they are right), it does not mean you can shut down a whole medium of communication and stunt the spread of information like that.

    What if the printing press had been outlawed cause it allowed people to print hundreds of copies of a book without the copyright owners consent. Dont put words in my mouth. If anyone is a fool, its you for having called me that.

    Were betamax (VHS) tapes ruled illegal? NO! Yes they could have been used for piracy (and indeed were). But there were other LEGAL uses, and just because a few people are misusing something doesn't mean that no one can use it.

    what next> Ban guns? Private Airplanes? Knives? hell our society would collapse if we went around banning everything that was being abused by a few people.

    --
    - Tempestdata
    1. Re:Please use a few more brain cells next time by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      There is no need to hurl personal insults at me

      You are correct. I apologize.

      BUT it is my understand that nobody is talking about taking down the whole infrastructure this time--going after the super nodes or whatever you wish to call them, not the casual users, the big time sharers. And nobody is talking about outlawing p2p, mp3s, or anything else you bring up.

    2. Re:Please use a few more brain cells next time by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      Quote: ...just because a few people are misusing something

      Quote: ...being abused by a few people.

      And what proportion of transfers on KaZaA, Morpheus, Gnutella, et al, are actually made in compliance with copyright and contract law? Of the people "sharing" files, how many of those people actually either a) have the copyrights, or b) are only sharing files with permission (e.g. public domain or other explicit prior permission)?

      And what important communications, prithee tell, did these networks facilitate? Do you hold conversations with people by exchanging Metallica songs?

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    3. Re:Please use a few more brain cells next time by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      WRONG. Super nodes are the nodes that keep the network running, it has nothing to do with the amount of files they share

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    4. Re:Please use a few more brain cells next time by theRiallatar · · Score: 1

      ugh... they're all so blatantly wrong. It's not the sharers they should be going after, but rather they need to prove that the people downloading the song don't already own a copy of the CD or tape or whatever that the file came from. The sharers are simply providing an alterantive to the average user figuring out the (sometimes) cumbersome audio ripping programs, which is just media-shifting.

  69. Hillary Rosen's a Dyke! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..and I bet her snatch smells so bad you'd gag if you went down on her...

  70. WinMX by Pac · · Score: 2

    Is it my machine (PIII 900 - 256 MB) or is WinMX is major memory/CPU eater? Or should I configure it in some other way than the default?

    1. Re:WinMX by DarkZero · · Score: 2

      WinMX, according to my machine (PIII 450 - 256MB) and the reports of everyone else I've talked to that uses WinMX (1.2Ghz or more - 256 MB), WinMX slowly leeches away your RAM as time goes by. It shouldn't be a bother for the first hour or so, but it should start really slowing down your system afterward. I'd recommend only downloading in short bursts, but leaving it on for uploading purposes for the entire night if possible. That's what I do.

      But personally, I think that a small sustained usability issue is a small price to pay for a good P2P service that's decently fast and isn't loaded with spyware and other crap. But then again, I'm biased toward WinMX, because it's very popular in Asia and thus has a lot of anime, J-Pop, and video game music.

    2. Re:WinMX by Pac · · Score: 2

      I usually leave whatever sharing program I am using on all the time. Gnucleus, for instance, is extremelly well-behaved, but unfortunately too few people have been using it lately.

      But I can't afford to let WinMX slow down my machine while I am working on it. So I will probably follow your advice and let it run alone during the lonely RIIA-less winter nights of the southern hemisphere...:)

    3. Re:WinMX by dytin · · Score: 2

      I really don't have the same problem that you report. I'm using WinMX 3.22 on my P4 2.0 GHz w/ 512 MB RAM. I've left WinMX on for days, even as much as a week or two at a time, and never experienced any slowing down of the computer. Of course my computer does have more RAM, but I've left WinMX on for a day or two on my slower (PIII 450 - 128 MB) computer without any noticable slowdown. It could be a configuration issue though possibly. I'm connected through a secondary connection, maybe thats it...

    4. Re:WinMX by flonker · · Score: 2

      I use WinMX on this system (PIII 450, 128 MB, T1). I notice considerable slowdown, even on a secondary connection. (On a primary connection, I can't use my computer for anything else.) I notice, however, if I disconnect from the network, I get all of my speed back, and the "leaked" memory seems to get freed.

      (I share several hundred files, totalling quite a few gigabytes.)

    5. Re:WinMX by Nameles · · Score: 1

      Theres your problem right there. The more files you share, the more it has to index them, which as stupid as it sounds, takes up a fuckton of RAM.

  71. Same DOJ that's let M$ off the hook by EvilStein · · Score: 2

    Great, the same people that let Microsoft get away with a monopoly are now going to go after people trading mp3s. I wonder if we should even worry quite yet.

  72. Second. by SHEENmaster · · Score: 1

    I second that proposal.

    While they're at it, why not take down this one. There are rumors going around that they stole GPLed source code for their own use, but they refuse to release the source code that would contain it. This "source code" is like D.N.A(Deprecated Natural Ability blueprint stuff) in that it can prove guilt or innocence.

    If I've learned anything from CSI episodes 1-&CURRENT, it's that those who refuse to give a DNA sample are always guilty.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
  73. MP3 Download Rush? by devnull17 · · Score: 1

    I guess we should expect network congestion because of users, downloading everything in their sight to beat this initiative.


    Don't bet on it. If a significant number of Americans were well-informed enough to react to congressional recommendations, we wouldn't have shithead congresspeople in office to make them in the first place.

  74. Finally they are doing the right thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of closing down the networks themselfs it's better to require that the police do their jobs.

    No matter how much the search is encrypted in the end you always connect to another machine and download a file, if this file contains copyrighted material that person should be prosecuted.

  75. What do you expect? This is the best they can do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Terrorists killed 3000 on Sept 11th? Okay, let's make scapegoats of Afghanistan civilians, kill 5000 of them, and claim victory despite not getting Osama Bin Laden.

    Corporations sucking up money illegally? Okay, let's make scapegoats out of Adelphia, take our time with Enron and WorldCom, and claim victory despite the fact there are still untouchable corporations out there doing the same bullshit.

    This is just a continuation of a pattern. Address the symptom instead of the root cause, make an example out of someone so you look tough, claim victory despite having solved nothing but breeding discontent. I'm telling you, the shit's going to hit the fan because you guys don't know how to police your own government.

  76. Old News Loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You posted this one yesterday lamer.

  77. Lamar Smith by URoRRuRRR · · Score: 2

    It should be noted that Lamar Smith is a supporter of the legislation for hollywood to break into a user's computer and erase all of their stolen music files.

    Fellow Texans- DON'T REELECT THIS GUY!

    --
    "Oh no, 3 horny women and only 2 condoms...Thank god I read slashdot"
    1. Re:Lamar Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fellow Texans- DON'T REELECT THIS GUY!

      And elect who? A socialist democrat?

  78. Me love you long time! by DavesError · · Score: 1

    This is ridiculous... when is congress going to be held accountable and quit being the whores for Big Business/MPAA/RIAA?? Five dollar, me love you long time.

    1. Re:Me love you long time! by Arandir · · Score: 1

      when is congress going to be held accountable and quit being the whores for Big Business

      As long as we give congress so much power over our lives that they have to sell the excess, the whoring won't stop.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    2. Re:Me love you long time! by silentbozo · · Score: 2

      When we vote the whores out and replace them with people who will pay attention to American citizens, not corporations. Time to clean House again (and please, let's empty the crap out of the Senate this time, too?)

  79. Noncommercial copyright infringment by tato+(and+tato+only) · · Score: 1
    I think that generally, noncommercial copyright infringment is a civil matter, not a criminal one.

    If members of the copyright cartel believe that users of file sharing networks are infringing on their copyrights, they should file civil lawsuits against the alleged infringers. The federal government should not be involved in disputes between private parties, except as a neutral arbiter if one of the parties brings a lawsuit.

    Instead, the copyright cartel has convinced a group of senators to try to convince Ashcroft to bring criminal charges against alleged infringers. This means that the entire cost of litigation in this matter where there is no clear public interest will be borne by the public. The investigation and the prosecution will be publically funded, as will the defense of any accused alleged infringers who choose to use a public defender. In the event that file sharing is found to be a criminal matter, the public will bear the cost of the penalty as well; we will have to pay for the incarceration of a large number of people. Further, we will lose the positive contributions to society those people would have made if their lives had not been ruined by the criminal convictions they received.

    If you are a constituent of one of these offending senators, please write or call and express your outrage. I have done this already. Make the copyright cartels fight their own battles. And do not help fund their battles; do not buy any products of the MPAA or the RIAA.

    --
    tato (and tato only)
    This post is strictly opinion, including the spelling.
  80. Wondering why? by alizard · · Score: 2
    Why is it more important for Ashcroft to bust song-swappers than terrorists? Or the crooks at Enron, Worldcom, who have stolen billions of dollars from stockholders? How about fraud at Global Crossing?

    See below. Here's the profile of a typical legistator who called for this. While it's universally conceded that politicians are 0wned, one would think that Senator Feinstein would be embarrassed at coming so cheap.

    To put this into perspective, if 1,000 geeks cared to come up with $500 each and contribute it under the name of a single organization, Feinstein would be a fanatic P2P advocate, even if she can't spell P2P.

    OpenSecrets campaign finance disclosures

    Dianne Feinstein (D)*
    1. Lawyers/Law Firms $485,118
    2. Women's Issues $294,532
    3. Retired (AARP,etc) $286,413
    4. TV/Movies/Music $216,138
    5. Real Estate $203,346
    6. Securities & Investment $142,135
    7. Health Professionals $112,494
    8. Computer Equipment & Services $107,866

    individual contributions
    Global Crossing $24,000
    Walt Disney Co $22,750
    William Morris Agency $21,000
    Time Warner $16,800
    Vivendi Universal $15,000 Any questions?

    1. Re:Wondering why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all your base are belong to us!!!!!!!!!

    2. Re:Wondering why? by silentbozo · · Score: 2

      I think it'd be cheaper to buy our own candidate and replace Feinstein. I'd rather have a candidate who stays bought, rather than one who will whore for whoever is paying more at the moment.

    3. Re:Wondering why? by silentbozo · · Score: 2

      On the other hand, Feinstein appears to have a long senate seat, so barring a recall, we'd have to wait another 4 years before getting a chance of unseating her... :(

    4. Re:Wondering why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which is why I can't understand why so much of slashdot supports the democratic party..

    5. Re:Wondering why? by alizard · · Score: 2
      Check the URL, she raised $12M to get reelected. (I used the figures for the 2000 race, since this is indeed an off-year for her)

      We also don't need exclusive use of her services, we need only outbid Mickey Mouse and friends.

    6. Re:Wondering why? by boredomjockey · · Score: 1

      [ "To put this into perspective, if 1,000 geeks cared to come up with $500 each and contribute it under the name of a single organization, Feinstein would be a fanatic P2P advocate, even if she can't spell P2P." ]

      A clever idea, and well worth considering in some cases, but you have to remember that politicians aren't for sale at a fixed price; they're up for auction to the highest bidder.

      The current bid for Feinstein et al.'s loyalty is only this low because the RIAA has no competing bidders at the moment. In situations such as this one, where you're up against such massive sources of wealth, it would be nothing for our competitors in the auctioning off of Feinstein's votes to step up their bids by a factor of 100 if they wanted to win the prize badly enough. We're well out of our league here.

    7. Re:Wondering why? by alizard · · Score: 2
      you're up against such massive sources of wealth, it would be nothing for our competitors in the auctioning off of Feinstein's votes to step up their bids by a factor of 100 if they wanted to win the prize badly enough.

      If the DMCA/RIAA want to give Dianne Feinstein $50,000,000 or even $5,000,000 , even the press and the average voter will wonder why and what they're trying to get from their money. The probability of this is exactly 100%, because the opposition candidate will notice and the attack ads will trumpet it when she runs for re-election next, even given that she isn't running again for another 4 years The GOP is very good at attack ads.

      The phrase "The Senator from Disney" won't be exclusively an in-group geek community joke anymore, and the favorable public image Disney has will be more than neutralized by the fact that even Joe Sixpack knows that there is never a good motivation in terms of the public interest for a corporation to make a gigantic campaign contribution to an incumbent. Suddenly the press starts asking questions of the sort that indicate the incumbent is in deep shit.

      Since there isn't 5-10% more difference between winning and losing a election, I'd say that rubbing the public's collective face in the fact that she is 0wn3d would probably be in effect, an award of the Senatorial seat to the GOP the very next time she runs.

      In this case, the "smart, safe" thing to do would be for her to return the RIAA/MPAA money publically and pledge to work for "protection of consumer rights".

      The other obvious point that an organization capable of giving $500K to a single candidate in a single election cycle has lots of motivated people in it and probably has a lot of non-member support behind it. The support of the NRA or AARP goes well beyond its membership.

  81. Uhh... by NullPointer · · Score: 1

    Just because some CongressCritters have sent a letter to Ashcroft it doesn't mean he will do anything about it. The President is his boss, not Congress (separation of powers). Of course, if Ashcroft doesn't direct the FBI to do anything, Congress can always threaten to withold some funding in the next budget. And, as others have pointed out, there is this terrorism thing happening which (by all accounts) has got the FBI completely strapped for time and manpower these days. I wouldn't be too worried about it, yet...

    --
    NULL
  82. Freenet question by HypersonicAtheist · · Score: 1

    It is my understanding that a freenet node operator may store her files in ram rather than on disk.

    Say she detected that the police were battering her door down and she shut the computer off- would there be evidence for criminal trial?

    1. Re:Freenet question by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      Hm. I don't see how, unless

      1- The Freenet software doesn't lock the pages in memory, and some got swapped out (...or archived by a system save/restore utility)

      2- ...and the data recovery gurus actually /find/ the swapped out data in the partition or file, and

      3- ...they find enough to break whatever encryption's there. /or/

      4- The Freenet software itself gets banned somehow, and is found on the disk.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
  83. Haha. Bad PR or what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I think someone mentioned this before, but can you imagine them sending a 15 year old kid to juvy just because he downloaded a few songs from the Internet of his favorite band? This will be absolutely HILARIOUS because what they're doing will finally bring all of this shit to the surface for non-techies to see and understand.

    When the so-called 'masses' start seeing their kids getting put away for song swapping, they'll wonder wtf the big deal is about. It'll finally click that the record labels are manipulating the government to make some extra money (which is more viable now in light of all these big corporate busts), and I suspect the record labels will get a lot of heat.

    A bit too optimistic? Maybe, but try to imagine how some of your friends and family would react if you were thrown in prison (along with drug dealers, pedophiles, rapists, etc) because you were downloading MP3s. They'll get it right away.

  84. How about you all start wiring into your neighbors by t0qer · · Score: 2


    I've commented on this before.

    Life is good in my neighborhood now and it's getting better.

    Since the last time I talked about this i've moved the wire out of the hole and patched up the wall. The wire now runs into the garage where i've moved most of my equipment. Call it a silicon valley tradition!

    For the 4th we used some good ol shoutcast to have a Super Stereo Effect. One house did the left and the other did the right. Pretty neat.

    Sorry congress and asscroft. You're trying to dumb down our kids by restricting this technology. So what if it isn't some classroom, I bet if you ask any of these kids about the topology of a p2p network they could
    tell ya. Yeah yeah, some nameserver, blah blah, it's fuckin DNS big woop.

    A persons reasons for learning this technology could stem everywhere from video games, file swapping, chat. These can lead to higher things such as networking and scripting, which can go one step further which is pure code.

    I own my house, i'm gonna teach my neighborhood how to rip cd's, network computers and why they need to learn it. Tough shit if you don't like it, I think it's going to add to the value of the neighborhood.

    One of the coolest things we got runnin now is a webcam. I catch ppl in the act of letting their dogs shit on my lawn. It's a fuckin riot when you do a playback for them. The other neighbors are into it too, we just all point
    out in our front yards.

    We all gotta vote in 2 years people. Sorry for taking a political soapbox here but BUSH SUCKS! Serious guys, i'm still poor as shit, living off of ramen. Despite all attempts at finding work all I get is a temp agent baiting a
    job just to get my resume. Hmm, must eat ramen to make house payments yum. Ever watch yourself lose 60lbs in a year?

    It seems there is an overwhelming push by the goverment to get our young people into the military. Look at the new Reality Show Boot camp. They're trying to appeal to the MTV kids those dirty bastards.

    Troll me or not, this was a pretty political story, and these are my convictions and I stand by them. I will not be made to change my opinion on the basis of what karma I might get. I urge everyone in a similiar situation
    to mine if they've never voted before, please go down tomorrow and get registered to vote. IMPEACH BUSH!

    thank you
    --Toq

  85. The Real Pirates, Thieves, Criminals by MasterKayne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Before the inevitable "you thieves are getting what you deserve" posts please consider the following points:

    Copyright covers more than music and movies a few are:
    Architecture
    Books
    Bumper stickers
    Choreographic works
    Images
    News Articles
    Poetry
    Plays
    Sculptures
    Software
    T-S hirts
    Video Games

    Copyright was supposed to be 14 years. A limited monopoly, a deal, a trade-off, a balance.
    Copyright was supposed to be for promotion of, not hoarding and controlling, the arts and sciences.
    Anything older that 14 years should now belong to society, that means us. It should be ours, that was the deal.
    Anything older than 14 years has been stolen from the public domain. Buying laws does not make it right.
    Those people in government are supposed to represent us, the people did not demand or accept a change in the deal (except through ignorance or apathy).
    There is going to be a hole in the public domain until things change.
    Copyright changes are about money and control, not right or wrong.
    DRM makes copyright eternal or criminals out of those that break protections.

    As far as I'm concerned, the deal is off!

    It is off in the sense of the following:
    My kids have a "correct" understanding of copyright. At every opportunity I let them know what I think is right (about everything, not just copyright.).
    My kids listen to oldies or indies (my son loves 2 1/2 White Guys) and have never bought a CD.
    My kids mainly buy/read books that are in the public domain (GUTENBERG).
    My kids all know how to play two musical instruments (they are making their own music, and have higher tastes).
    My kids understand that what they buy is theirs and they can do whatever they want with it.
    My son is a nut with our camcorder. He has respect for the movie industry but higher tastes.
    My kids live in a region free macrovision free home (in fact crippled CDs or software are immediately broken. They'll not hunt for the CD to a game I purchased.)
    My kids use proprietary software only when there is no sourceforge alternative.
    My kids hear "copyright infringement" not "pirate" or "thief".
    My kids hear "crippled CD, software" not "copy protected".
    My kids understand that ideas and information are free[without restraint] and can be shared with no loss to the originator ala Jefferson, and that IP is artificial based on an agreement.
    My kids trade, copy, use anything older than 14 years without hesitation or reservation.

    In fine, I'm helping to raise a generation that expects a certain level copyright freedom.

    The real pirates, thieves, criminals are the likes of the RIAA, MPAA.

    Respond rationally and you just may change my view.

    p.s. I realize that I have indoctrinated my children but that is my darwinian right :0)

  86. Fiddling while Rome Burns... by R@Bastard · · Score: 1

    Right or wrong, it's ridiculous. It seems to be one of those "last desperate act" things that an empire (or an administration) does before dying.

    There are more and more of these things all the time... TIPS, PATRIOT, Drug War, Missle Defense shield... things that will do NO GOOD, as demonstrated by countless non-ideologues.

    But, they make us (or our corporate sponsors) feel good, so we do 'em. Better to do a futile something than nothing? Not in my book, not when taxes pay for it and there aren't enough taxes to go around.

    What a waste.

    --
    Mucous membranes are the part of your brain that, like, make you think about mucous. --Beavis
  87. What the hell is wrong with you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure about the complete list, but Howard Coble is a Presbyterian. He is most certainly not Jewish. But more importantly, why are you so anti-jew? I don't see Jews as enemies, I see you as an enemy. Asshole.

  88. Well said... by Critical_ · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately I can't agree with your last statement. There isn't much a joe-schmoe like me can do. Gone are the days when us citizens could walk up to the white house and talk to our president. Today, the president gives his hello's-and-how-are-ya's to money. Who has money? Not me, but those corporations do. Sure the public is partly to blame. We want immediate results and we want to feel like we are winning. Its easier to go after those who we call "the others". I can go on and on over my rant. Mr. Ashcroft lost an election to a corpse, is there anything more we need to say?

  89. Diane Feinstein Corporate Whore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Close your legs, your corruption reeks.

  90. Prohibition all over again? by Psx29 · · Score: 1

    Could this kind of thing lead to massive disregard for the law, as I can not see anybody following this kind of law. During the prohibition organized crime became a big thing and very few people ever cracked down on "illegal" alcohol (I put illegal in quotes because everyone was drinking anyway). Could a similar thing like this happen to the online world in the US where crackers run a mok and because everyone breaks the law already by file sharing -- no one cares? Only time will tell....

  91. when will they learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    copyright holders and anyone else holding a monopoly exist by the grace of the citizens of the world. They abuse their privaledge and we shall rescind it.

  92. I predict by waspleg · · Score: 1

    that if they do it will be just about as effective as the war on drugs *cough* not at all *cough* and just about anything else large numbers of people want to do that doesn't actually harm anyone

    1. Re:I predict by Joz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, i mean nobody ever gets killed over drugs or anything, could you imagine!?

  93. Let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have child molesters, kidnappers, rapists, and murderers.

    But who are we going after?

    Music swappers!

    You have got to be kidding me. Give me a break!

    How many children's lives and escaped murderers is it worth to bust some kid who copies a Britney Spears song?

    I dont want my tax money going to help the RIAA maintain some monopoly. Please put our millions into getting resources for the FBI to fight REAL crime.

  94. I Don't Think Most People Here Want to Read This.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...because it might actually lead them to admitting something ugly about their self. I know the arguments for free software, and I agree with many of them. I'm aware that the big record labels are exploiting many artists. But, as the cliche goes, two wrongs do not make a right.

    I think what angers most people is that, if this thing were taken up, they might actually have to pay for things like music instead of taking it for free. While I am against DMCA and other draconian measures, I think people involved in swapping MP3s of published music and mpegs of movies should take a serious look at what they think and what they do.

    I love capitalism. We are in a capitalist economy. The idea of capitalism is that if I work hard and produce a product or service, I can make a living when people pay me for that product and service. If I produce a popular product, or a service that is outstanding, I can charge more, and the market determines my price. There is an exchange -- a fair and equitable exchange -- for my goods and/or services. I've found, with some services I provide in the way of counseling, that when I've done "charity" work and given my services for free, the client not only doesn't appreciate my help, but keeps asking for more and more.

    While it sounds like something my parents or our teachers would say, the truth is people have a much better sense of appreciation when there's a fair exchange. Maybe I have a different perpsective. I prefer classical and jazz, and I know the artists are not getting rich off their recordings. I pay my hard earned money for CDs because, if I like the artist enough to buy a CD, I want the artist to make a living so they will continue making more recordings.

    You can justify file swapping all you want with rationalizations all day long, but in the end, actions speak louder than words. We are what we do -- we can preach all day about what we believe, but what we do shows people who we are and what we truly believe. Someone that feels they have a right to music for free is someone that shows they don't need to pay a fair price or make a fair exchange for a product. My parents had such a word for a person: a spoiled brat.

    I realize a lot of people will hate what I say, and a number will probably mod this to troll. All I can say to that is one thing I learned working in residential treatment programs for 10 years. People become the angriest when confronted with a reflection of thair actions and suddenly realize how childish or ugly those actions are. That's when they go into denial and blame the person who is holding up the mirror and creating the reflection.

    Go ahead and rationalize downloading songs and movies. I just remember a friend of mine who was doing that. She showed me a copy of LoTR. I asked her if she liked it. She said, "Yes." I asked her if the filmmakers did a good job. Again, she said, "Yes." Then I asked her 2 questions she could not answer without getting uneasy. I asked if the filmmakers deserved to get paid for their hard work. Of course she said yes, but she saw where I was heading. Then I asked how they would get paid if everyone copied the movie instead of paying to see it or to buy the DVD. Her response was that enough other people would buy the DVD. In other words, she did not want to take the responsibility, as a consumer purchasing a good, to provide a fair exchange to the people providing her those goods.

  95. Why do our congressmen want murderers to go free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are rapists, murders, and child killers in this country.

    Who does the FBI go after?

    Music swappers!

    I dont want my tax money wasted on arresting some kid who couldnt afford the pricey Britney Spears CD and copied it without incurring a loss to anyone (read Jefferson for info on this).

    How many millions are wasted on helping xxAA ??
    Money that could pay for publicity/child posters. Money that could pay for forensics and agent training.

    I hate to say something cheezy but "If those millions could save one child or help catch one rapist, it would be well worth it".

  96. "Pirated Software" ;-) by umStefa · · Score: 1

    Hmm... I guess it is time to load a couple gigs of open source software into my shared folders and rename everything

    Pirated Warez - (Insert Program Name)

    --
    Technology is most abused by the very people it was created to help
  97. Quit Slashdot (offtopic) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For help in quiting, check out
    Quit Slashdot.

  98. Its ok to steal stocks but not britney spears by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder how long a 15 year old kid would get in the slammer for downloading a britney spears mp3 vs the CEO of Worldcom who defrauded 7.1 billion dollars worth of employee's and stockholders life savings.

    Manipulating and stealing Stock ok, downloading mp3's bad.

    Same is true for packet sniffing and reverse engineering. Under the DMCA, packet sniffing to make a program compatable with something else is illegal and bad. However killing competetion and cutting tens of thousands of jobs who use to work for your competitors ok. If Microsoft never existed do you think Oracle, Borland and Watcom would have like 10x the staff they do now as well as enjoy healthy competition from companies that would of existed because Microsoft would never exist. My guess is that Netscape would be quite huge right now would and its software would be a whole platform and not just a web browser. Its a shame.

    1. Re:Its ok to steal stocks but not britney spears by quietlysubversive · · Score: 1

      k.... and judging from NS 4.7, I'm pretty goddamned happy that microsoft kept them from migrating to a whole platform.

      --
      ----(o)----
  99. The two problems I see by Daimaou · · Score: 1

    There are two problems at the root of all this. First of all, the RIAA, MPAA, etc. operate under the psychotic delusion that if one million people are sharing files, and they can somehow stop those people from doing it, that it will directly translate into one million new sales. It won't.

    To illustrate the second problem, I would like to cite two quotes from Mark Twain:

    "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress."

    "Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

    What is happening here is that the market has spoken, people want to download music, and the corporations are too damn stupid to make it happen and profit from it. Instead, they are lobbying in congress to make laws to force consumers to buy grossly overprices CDs which are usually 10% good music and 90% high-fidelity defecation.

    I believe the reason so many people share music is that you can record from the radio or go borrow a CD from your local library; both for free. So people look at file sharing and say, "what's the difference?", and not one single person can answer that question effectively.

    Instead of lobbying with the government, perhaps "The Industry" should actually listen to the market. To start off with, they could do the following:

    1) Stop pushing one hit wonders. Nobody wants to pay $18.00 for one song and eleven nuggets talentless drivel. People will download the one song they like and leave it at that.

    2) Lower the prices of CDs. Most CD stores where I live sell new CDs for $18.00. New movies on DVD are usually $15.00. There is a big problem with that.

    3) Offer a service so people can download music for a reasonable price (read $0.25 or less per song you greedy bastards).

    Perhaps file sharing is wrong, perhaps not. Regardless, it is very easy to justify doing it since there are many other mechanisms available to consumers to get free music; legally.

    Whatever your stance on the file sharing issue, it is wrong for congress to play the ass-licking sycophants to corporations in return for monetary bribes and votes. If you can't see that this is happening and it is probably the biggest threat to our country and our freedoms, then we're in a really sad state.

    I hope this made some sense. It's past my bedtime.

  100. Re:The Real Pirates, Thieves, Criminals (KUDOS) by nzru.() · · Score: 0

    kudos to you my friend. I'm doing the same thing here and even with my nieces and nephews, cousins and relatives alike.

    power to the people.

    I can remember a time when it was Government for the people by the people... now I'm not sure who's for who.

    --
    Oops! I did it again
  101. un-elect Senator Feinstein by jchristopher · · Score: 1
    California Senator Dianne Feinstein is listed as a supporter of this action. She also voted for the DMCA. California has a lot of tech savvy people who are directly affected by her 'sellout' to the media industry.

    Let us not forget Senator Feinstein's actions when election time comes. I've voted for her before, but never again.

  102. So our children are economic terrorists now? by Ogerman · · Score: 2

    Think about it a second.. who actually uses these P2P networks? I'll bet it's at least 70% children between 12 and 17 years old--ie. the middle/high school crowd. I mean, can you imagine the scene? FBI knocks down door to some random house in US suburbia to find a 14 year old girl downloading NSuck albums and chatting on IM. Meanwhile, her parents, who have absolutely no idea what Kazaa is anyhow, are completely puzzled.

    "laws must not be judged by what good they will do, but by what harm they will cause"

  103. Heh... Hooray for Equal Justice. by wedg · · Score: 2

    Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, said that FBI should not go for casual users but but instead to go after operators of "network "nodes".

    Gotta love when the message is simply: We can't prosecute everyone, let's just make examples. If something is a law, and everyone, and their mother, is busy breaking that law - perhaps it shouldn't be a law. This is a democracy after all. Or so we would claim. Heck, it doesn't even have to be everyone - just a majority. I have a feeling that those people in the RIAA aren't a majority. Even including all their artists. Even including all the casual artists.

    This is one of those instances where the law must change to prepare for the times. We don't need more specific internet-only or technology-only laws. The real question is: How do you preserve someone's right to their property (in this case, music) while contending with the fact that any one, any where, at any time, may simply download it without any knowledge, much less permission.

    The answer is not in mandating technological blocks. That would be a sisphyian task, as has been demonstrated already. So how do we solve the problem?

    I don't really have an answer. Would you bother to buy a CD if you could download all the songs legally? Should artists become charity-only? Or rely on live tours solely (although, I've often heard that artists make no money from CDs anyway). It's a hard question. I'd be jumping the gun if I said that this marks the end of copyright law as we know it; however, it certainly warrants a rethinking of the practicals of modern law and technology.

    --
    Jake
    Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
    1. Re:Heh... Hooray for Equal Justice. by pjl5602 · · Score: 1
      This is a democracy after all.

      Actually this, the United States of America, is a representative republic. It's not a democracy. If it were a democracy, then yeah, if over half of the population thought it okay to break a law, then the law could cease to exist if a vote were taken.

      However as this is a representative republic, the rule of law as established by our legislative branch and enforced by our executive branch is what we are bound by. As crappy as it may be, distributing content that is copyrighted is illegal under that law.

      You are right on about the law needing to change, or at least be a bit better defined with respect to personal/not for profit/fair use vs. copyright enforcement.

    2. Re:Heh... Hooray for Equal Justice. by wedg · · Score: 2

      Technically, you're right. But I think we've killed enough people in the name of spreading Democracy (not a representative republic) that it's ok to call it one. Personally, I think we need to 'start from scratch' on the lawbooks. Give the politicians something to do, so they don't have to go and feel busy by making up new laws that take away our already existing rights.

      --
      Jake
      Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
  104. You're too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scoffs the evil RIAA...

    "Hahaha! For the past five months, we've placed tag info in every britney spears and nsync single available on P2P. Now when this becomes law, we'll be able to identify every one of you music pirates, and put you in prison with the rapists, murderers, and terrorists, right where you belong!"

    A chill goes down my spine as I realize that I don't know anyone who DOESN'T have at least one song "by" these crappy "bands" for satire purposes.

  105. Scenario by Ironpoint · · Score: 5, Funny


    Inmate 1: What are you in for?
    Inmate 2: I blew this guys face off with a shotgun because he didn't have my money. And you?
    Inmate 1: I downloaded some Weird Al mp3's and uploaded that video of the monkey sniffing his finger and falling over.
    Inmate 2: Sicko. You disgust me, its people like you...

  106. Really? CD's are banned in NYC libraries by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

    The riaa has sucessfully banned them in New York by copyright lawsuits. I assume they are banned nationwide and I also assume that books will be next. After all speech and knowledge is not public but rather a corporate property.

  107. Oddly Enough by NeuroManson · · Score: 2

    They're using such a BS excuse to shut down P2P, which as far as the rest of the country is concerned, is split almost equally down the middle amongst those for or against file sharing... Wouldn't it have been easier for them to simply claim that some folks are sharing Al Qaeda messages encoded into pr0n or mp3s instead, so they could shut them down entirely?

    Most likely, the sheep that over 75% of Americans are, nobody would raise a stink about it (other than slashdotters and the EFF, of course), and would even support them, possibly attacking computer geeks at random as "terrorist sympathizers"... In fact, I guarantee if they did, they'd run reports on every RIAA associated (yes it's redundant) media corporation network in existance... Of course, this is one possible scenario...

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  108. exactly by martissimo · · Score: 2

    when Hollings proposed that hardware be restricted everyone cried that why should our computers be crippled to stop the thieves. A common sentiment was that it should be the record companies responsibility to seek out and bring charges against infringers, not hardware makers.

    Well you can't have it both ways, now that they want to actually go after the copyright infringers directly, people don't seem to happy about that either.

    They *are* going to do something about all of this, and this solution sure beats the hell out of everyone having to buy crippled hardware... if you really dont think a 20$ CD is worth buying then it shouldn't bug you too much not being able to download it either.

  109. Sorry but Ha!! by Alec+Varezz · · Score: 0

    Q: Why are Unix emulators like your right hand? A: They're just pussy substitutes!

  110. a letter to Diane Feinstein..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sent to Senator@feinstein.senate.gov ......

    You do not represent the people of California.
    You will not be elected again in this state.
    You have been highly incompotent in your reign of idiocy.
    We the people will make you an example to other rent-a-politicians.

    Dianne Feinstein (D)*
    1. Lawyers/Law Firms $485,118
    2. Women's Issues $294,532
    3. Retired (AARP,etc) $286,413
    4. TV/Movies/Music $216,138 ***************
    5. Real Estate $203,346
    6. Securities & Investment $142,135
    7. Health Professionals $112,494
    8. Computer Equipment & Services $107,866

    1. Re:a letter to Diane Feinstein..... by DEBEDb · · Score: 1

      Running this through a spell-checker
      may give your letter another second to
      live before being deleted.

      --

      Considered harmful.
  111. Err. . . . by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

    Waaait;

    if arrest customers, then who buys CDs?

    I betcha that after 30% of so of america's teenage to young adult population is behind bars that THEN the RIAA will start to notice some SERIOUS drops in revenue. . . .

  112. Scariest John Ashcroft Fact? by bedouin · · Score: 1

    1) 'Annoints' himself with 'holy' Crisco oil

    A few years ago, John Ashcroft was nicknamed the Crisco Kid after he "anointed" himself with the supermarket favorite the night before he was sworn in to the Senate. Ever since he was nominated for attorney general, there's been a widely circulating e-mail campaign to make the greasy label stick: "Say no with Crisco," it says, suggesting that anti-Ashcroft folks mail bottles of Crisco to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
    New York Magazine http://www.nymag.com/page.cfm?page_id=4323

    2) Writes 'Patriotic' songs, tells staff to memorize

    Footage of Ashcroft singing: http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2002/02/25/ashcroft.si ngs.wbtv.med.html

    America's Attorney General, John Ashcroft, has taken his fondness for morning prayer meetings at the US Department of Justice one step further - he is asking his staff to start the day by singing patriotic songs he wrote himself.
    BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1854922. stm

    3) Believes Calico Cats are a sign of Satan

    Shortly after becoming Attorney General, John Ashcroft was headed abroad. An advance team showed up at the American embassy in the Hague to check out the digs, saw cats in residence, and got nervous. They were worried there might be a calico cat. No, they were told, no calicos. Visible relief. Their boss, they explained, believes calico cats are signs of the devil. (The advance team also spied a statue of a naked woman in the courtyard and discussed the possibility of its being covered for the visit, though that request was not ultimately made.)
    AndrewTobias.com http://www.andrewtobias.com/newcolumns/011120.html

    4) As a Pentacostal, interprets the Bible literally

    What differentiates Pentecostals from other Protestants is their expressive, emotional form of worship. It's also what makes some people most suspicious of the movement -- all that emotion, coupled with an intense, literal reading of the Bible.
    This has some has some critics worried that one of the nation's most famous Pentecostal, attorney general nominee John Ashcroft, might not be able to separate his religious beliefs from his political duties.
    ABC News
    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/WorldNews
    To night/wnt010116_pentecostalism_feature.html

    5) Supports indefinite detentions without charges

    "Ashcroft supports indefinite detention without the necessity of bringing charges for those suspected of terrorist activity. "
    Indiana University Law http://www.law.indiana.edu/pubs/front/20011008_sca nlan.html

    6) Insists Staffers call him simply, 'General'

    "John Ashcroft, chief among the Bush warlords, likes to be called simply 'General.' Has this ever happened before with an Attorney General? Did anyone but a mail room intern ever call Janet Reno or Ramsey Clark 'General'?"
    CounterPunch.com http://www.counterpunch.org/vest0618.html

    7) Sings in a Republican Barbershop Quartet

    "Despite singing bass in the quartet with Jeffords, Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Attorney General John Ashcroft, a former Republican senator from Missouri, Lott has been unable to change Jeffords' discordant ways."
    Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
    http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/may01/profile
    24052301.asp

    8) Supports secret trials and deportation hearings

    At the end of March, in New Jersey, state Superior Court Judge Arthur D'Italia, declaring that secret arrests are "odious to a democracy," ordered the release of the names of immigrant detainees held in New Jersey county jails. ... In Michigan in April, U.S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds ruled against the closed deportation hearings, noting, "Openness is necessary for the public to maintain confidence in the value and soundness of the government's actions, as secrecy only breeds suspicion..." ... Of the more than 1,000 noncitizens arrested after Sept 11 (we don't know how many) hundreds have been released (we don't know how many) and some deported (we don't know how many)--of this group, the government announced no indictments relating to Sept. 11.
    The Oregonian
    http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/oregonian/
    in dex.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base /editorial/1023278144287930.xml

    9) Lost an Election to a dead man

    "After serving one term in the Senate, Ashcroft ran in a bitter and tense race for re-election against Missouri Gov. Mel Carnahan.
    After the governor answered a request from Pope John Paul II and commuted the death sentence of a notorious murder, Ashcroft portrayed Carnahan as a liberal who was soft on crime. Carnahan tried to portray Ashcroft as a right-wing conservative. The two candidates had argued over issues of abortion rights and tax cuts.
    Three weeks before Election Day, Carnahan was killed when the plane he was traveling to a campaign event crashed in bad weather near St. Louis. Because his death was so close to Election Day, the governor's name was still on the ballot.
    And despite his death, Carnahan won a narrow victory over Ashcroft on Nov. 7. "
    ABC News
    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNew s/ ashcroft001222.html

    10) Spent $8K to cover semi-nude 'Justice' statue

    1. Re:Scariest John Ashcroft Fact? by jx100 · · Score: 1

      now, if we could work CowboyNeal into one of those, we'd have our next poll

  113. ALERT: MODERATORS ON CRACK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the *hell* is that flamebait?

  114. Kindly remember... by epcraig · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Remember the signers of this on Election Day.

    --
    Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
  115. shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "shit"

  116. What the focus is... by rosewood · · Score: 3, Funny

    Need a group on Terrorism, check
    Need a group on Kiddie Porn, check
    Need a group on Kid Napping, check
    Need a group on serial murders, check
    Need a group on drug traffic, check
    Need a group on tax fraud, check
    Need a group on smugglers, check

    Need a group on file swapers

    Hmmm

    Note to self: Dont pay taxes this year ...

    Ammendum to note to self: Dont pay taxes this year and move to zanzabar and start taking opium rectally

  117. Fight them from the ground! Legally. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 - You buy CDs and DVDs.
    2 - Corporations make money.
    3 - Corporations use that money to buy politicians.
    4 - Politicians pass unhetical laws to give more money to their owners.

    Did you guess what to do? (hint: point 1)

    Since a law that forces you to buy 3 CDs and 1 DVD a year is (still) unlikely to be passed, please stop whining and do the right thing.
    It's fair, it's legal and it works.

  118. Re:Mod this parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are a lot of dumb artists.

  119. Re:Why do our congressmen want murderers to go fre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Q: Why do our congressmen want murderers to go free?

    A: Because rapists, murders and child killers have no effect on profit making. Welcome to capitalism.

  120. We better start working on hand gestures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We better start coming up with hand gestures:

    Like, for instance, G, or "G-side" for Gnutella dudes.

    We'll have fights with the Donkey Posse, to establish supremacy over the supply of cigarettes and stuff.

    When we come out, we'll be huge and mean...

    Word

  121. Your excused by dsb · · Score: 1

    We also have child molesters and rapistists roaming around. Should we forget about them too?

    Half of everyone's retirement funds have vaporized, so now what do we do completely change the system? MOST of big business is doing very well, thank you very much, a few bad apples affecting alot of the whole, certainly not good. So are we now to assume CSCO, MSFT, C, are big business bad apples too? So Martha Stewart doesn't give us the right recipe. WTF do you want? I just don't get it. It just seems like more of this liberal seminar shit of "I'm pissed off, the American way is wrong!"

    If something is REALLY WRONG HERE, then prove it, get involved and write your ELECTED officials or at least post something constructive

    1. Re:Your excused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said forget? On the contrary - don't distract authorities from their real job, from the real crimes. There are enogh copyright laws, if RIAA wants, they can go after swappers themselves. Only after swappers, not after thecnology. The node usually does NOT even know that a song is being swapped. And so forth.

    2. Re:Your excused by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1
      We also have child molesters and rapistists roaming around. Should we forget about them too?

      <SARCASM> Hey, they are not forgotten: you really should download some movies from the P2P networks. They are not forgotten at all: there is enough material to keep them busy a looooong time </SARCASM>

  122. Consequences of prohibition by PaxTech · · Score: 2
    what don't you tell the people of Colombia how fine drugs are?

    The only reason drugs are ruining Colombia is because they're expensive, and the only reason they're expensive is because they're illegal. Once you make something illegal, you create an opportunity for money to be made, and since it's illegal, contracts have to be enforced with the barrel of a gun.

    Don't confuse the negative aspects of prohibition as being negative aspects of drugs in and of themselves. It's a classic strawman argument.

    Yeah, I know I'm offtopic, but I couldn't let that one slide..

    --
    All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
  123. Virginia - Home of AOL and the DCMA by N8F8 · · Score: 2

    I wonder if Virginia Democratic Rep. Bobby Scott has beed putting the thumbscrews on ISP AOL(TimeWarner) to crack down of file sharers? Somehow I think not.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Virginia - Home of AOL and the DCMA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live there. It sucks.
      Maryland is much nicer.

  124. Free up the net for more drum and bass.. by caluml · · Score: 1

    I for one wouldn't miss the States musical tastes. Too much country and western, and not enough drum and bass.

    Clear the airwaves, move over...

    Incidentally, did you read on the Register about someone writing about why we should create a US free internet, away from all your stupid laws...?

  125. I had no idea... by tkrotchko · · Score: 2

    "I'm appauled we're still busting all those poor innocent shoplifters and breaking up domestic disputes! "

    I had no idea the FBI was concerned with shoplifting and domestic disputes.

    Does the US Attorney General also get involved with these cases?

    What else about the US Criminal justice system would you like to share?

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    1. Re:I had no idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You smashed this poor fellow! Please, use some tact while dealing with ignorants like him - otherwise you just might induce domestic violence. Give 'em the truth little by little, piece by piece...

  126. Sucks to live in the USA. by hvatum · · Score: 0

    Citzens of every other country except the US can safely laugh at the diffrent bills being passed there. The Lawmakers in the US seem to be happy to pass bill after bill untill they have legislated all of the technical specialists out of the US and will then have only their precious media companys which are also hated by much of the world for spreading american cultural imperialism. Living in Germany and Norway I find what is happening in the US every day quiet funny for a country which annoyingly flaunts itself as some kind of leader in personal freedom and freedom of the press. Over here in germany you can pick up any linux mag and it will have instructions on how to set up your linux box to play dvds, can't say that for Linux Journal.

    --
    Netbooks, they come with Linux or a $3 copy of Windows. Either way, Microsoft loses.
  127. Fix Moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another poorly-moderated post, this is totally ON-topic, and mere mention of the free-speech implications of campaign finance laws (which never seem to affect crooks like that shit Torricelli if they're slick enough) was enough to upset a left-wing, unthinking moderator. Please, someone unbiased, fix this.
    oddsman

  128. My conspiracy theory by musicmaster · · Score: 1

    Maybe he isn't after the file sharers at all. Maybe he just wants to stimulate his telecom shares. File sharers have been the driving force of the internet for quite some time.

  129. What a load of crap....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My ass... I run sound for a living and you have no idea what you are talking about. I have also been a network admin for University of Texas, and can tell you that it IS harder than that. Lifting heavy gear all day, dealing with squirrly club owners, etc... Only 1% of the bands make money off records, the rest tour/ play live for their living. If you think is anything like sitting in you living room playing guitar, you are daft.

  130. A ludicrous waste of taxpayer resources . . . by werdna · · Score: 3, Informative

    While the Congress did provide for Criminal remedies for copyright infringement, they did so only in cases where the individual was doing so for private financial gain, or for cases where the infringement was egregious and amounting to actual privacy (at least $1,000 value in 180 days). For Justice to actually make a case against any individual would require intensive investigation and monitoring over an extensive period of time.

    It is for precisely this reason that the Congress provided for civil remedies for copyright infringement including awards of an attorney fee -- so that private copyright owners can pursue their remedies on their own dime -- if it actually creates a meaningful cost to them (and presumably to society).

    RIAA would like for us to spend tax money to support them, and save them the costs of prosecution. These Congressmen are engaging in the worst kind of pork by suggesting that our Justice department should waste tax and precious law enforcement resources prosecuting penny-ante civil copyright infringement cases. RIAA neither needs nor deserves such public assistance. Save Justice resources for meaningful pirates, yet, or more important, for meaningful law enforcement matters. The RIAA should take care of itself.

  131. Why should the Internet be any different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I send warez via snail mail to someone do they open the package and arrest me? not usually, so why is the Internet any different? just because it is possible to snoop doesn't mean it should be done. Internet privacy is an endangered species.

  132. The east is the best ? by Mikelikus · · Score: 1

    I'm glad US Congress and the RIAA don't own me and as such I can still hang around in my file sharing. *sings happily*

    What makes me think actually is that with all these laws people most likely in the future will look to growing economies such as India and China as a haven for new techonologies and new forms of developing them. This will make this type of countries increasingly more advanced until one day they will probably surpass the all mighty US and the EU.

    I for one would place my own company in Singapore or something... would never have to abide by nazi-like rules.

    --
    -- Would it be acceptable to just put my name on my sig?
  133. Re:How about gnutella?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a share dir in my pc where i copy all song from CDs I bought. What is wrong?

  134. theft by commodoresloat · · Score: 2

    hmmm; perhaps that isn't theft, but when these companies intimidate another company into handing them millions of dollars for alleged copyright violations, how is that not theft? Giving legal sanction to theft does not make it any less theft.

    1. Re:theft by LordNimon · · Score: 1

      Again, it's not theft! The whole problem with the copyright laws today is that too many people are using the word "theft" when they should use a different term, like "infringement" or "extortion".

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
  135. your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Use 'slashdot' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter

    you've got to be kidding... 'slashdot' in the subject line of any emails to me is automatically filtered as spam!

  136. Re:Why do our congressmen want murderers to go fre by Mr.+Balrog · · Score: 1

    No, its got nothing to do with capitalism. Its because the anti-crime people can't pay congress as much as the MPAA and RIAA can.

    Capitalism is good.

  137. Supporting Theft Threatens Internet by reallocate · · Score: 1
    Why are people so adamant about making and distributing copies of copywritten material? Don't you think that if you started printing copies of the top ten best-selling books that the publishers, with justification, would come after you?

    Put aside tthe large coffers, contracting methods, and general shenanigans of the entertainment industry. Even if they turn out to be the scuzziest people in the world, even if entertainers sign contracts that give them pennies on the dollar, that's all irrelevant. Their products are under copyright, not in the public domain.

    Seems to me that arguing for the "right" to distribute unlimited copies of someone else's copywritten work is a lose-lose sitatuation: lose the "right" to steal and lose the freedom of the Internet.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  138. Re:Good. Death to People who Supress LIBERTY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    YOU are WRONG.

    When there is a monopoly, a cabal of pricks who fraternize to prevent a free market, it is theft on the industry's behalf. You are snarky kneejerk for supporting them. The are a means by which your liberty ends.

    If a free market existed in music, CDs would be 2 bucks a pop, tops.

    Fucking asshole price fixing monopolist elitist fascist closet-communists - I hate them. Yes, communist. communists sell mediocrity (like broken cds that don't play in computers for a start) to the masses, the sheeple, the plebeians, the proletariat, while they run off with all the fuckin money.

    You know nothing of true free-markets, free information. Read up on Jefferson and Madison.

    Small government, freedom of information. If its worth paying for, a free market will have millions lining up to make you, the worthy entrepreneur RICH.

    HOW ABOUT THAT, free market meritocracy. Copy metal and plastic a million times will fucking over the artist that created it isn't that innovative.
    ... no one possesses the less because everyone possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me receives [it] without lessening [me], as he who lights his [candle] at mine receives light without darkening me. - jefferson


    When British armies burned ... Washington in 1814 and its library of ... 3000 volumes, Jefferson [replaced the books with] eleven wagon loads of volumes from his own library -- [6500 books] -- the nucleus of a new Library of Congress.


    And.

    Did you know the fathers of copyright law in the USA, also pivotal in starting the free public library system?
    KNOWLEDGE WILL FOREVER GOVERN IGNORANCE: AND A PEOPLE WHO MEAN TO BE THEIR OWN GOVERNOURS, MUST ARM THEMSELVES WITH THE POWER WHICH KNOWLEDGE GIVES.
    WHAT SPECTACLE CAN BE MORE EDIFYING OR MORE SEASONABLE, THAN THAT OF LIBERTY & LEARNING, EACH LEANING ON THE OTHER FOR THEIR MUTUAL & SUREST SUPPORT?
    LEARNED INSTITUTIONS OUGHT TO BE FAVORITE OBJECTS WITH EVERY FREE PEOPLE. THEY THROW THAT LIGHT OVER THE PUBLIC MIND WHICH IS THE BEST SECURITY AGAINST CRAFTY & DANGEROUS ENCROACHMENTS ON THE PUBLIC LIBERTY
    THE SAFETY AND HAPPINESS OF SOCIETY ARE THE OBJECTS AT WHICH ALL POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AIM, AND TO WHICH ALL SUCH INSTITUTIONS MUST BE SACRIFICED


    You people who pervert our founding fathers intentions on our free market and free society will be forced to live in a hell of your own fucking creation. Raging perversions, loss of Constitutional rights all veiled in candy coated GREED and DECADANCE and POLITICAL CORECTNESS. I salue those who employ me, entrepreneurs, innovators and centers of higher learning. I FERVENTLY deprecate the masses of ancillary Ferengi-like "grabbers-on," you bottom feeding devoid of innovation fucks that find themselves and politicians (both "democrat" [You slimy democrat politicians who drape themselves in the suffering of the plebian and use them to get ahead then once you are in office you FUCK THEM IN THE ASS WITH A HOT CURLING IRON] and "republican"[smaller government? Where republicans, where, you make it FUCKING FATTER] seedy lawyers, knowledge and soul-less thieving officers of companies, marketing pukes, "salesman" and other worthless creatures. You stand on the shoulders of programmers, engineers, scientists, doctors, muscisans, and a myriad of real contributors. You will be judged harshly. You will hopefully be killed for you hubris and total disregard for those who make your life better. You scum will pay.


  139. About that internatinal/foreign thingy by segmentation+fault · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I thought it was quite obvious now that
    1. Everyone have to follow US law
    2. US doesn't need to follow international law
    3. In terrorist friendly countries, that is countries which fails to recognize the above statements, US has the right to procecute people without the need for any law
    --
    -segfault
  140. Martha Stewert for President by woogieoogieboogie · · Score: 2, Funny

    while trying to absolutly nail Martha Stewart, I would say they were correct. They should leave Martha alone. If it wasn't for her, I wouldn't have matching stuff in my bathroom and chicks love a guy with matching stuff in his bathroom.

    --
    ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
    1. Re:Martha Stewert for President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I don't care if they go after stewert. But they show total hypocrasis by letting MS and Ken lay off the hook. Nixon was total liar and stop short of impeachment. Raygun and bush were constant liars and made bad long term palns (Bush's signature is on the authorization that taught bin ladin how to attack the russians and ultimatly us). Clinton was a liar about his personal life (to be honest, things that we had no right to ask, but once asked, he should have told the truth). Now we have W who is lieing about the anthrax, His involvment in Enron ( I can not wait until the democrats examine his personal stock in may 2001 - he claimed that he turned them over elsewhere to be handled, hopefully he will testify that he had no insider trading back ), and with MS.

  141. Time to Vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all of you who don't vote, but enjoy the freedoms, privileges and rights given to us by the constitution (including fair use) It is now time to get up off your duff and vote. It is the only thing that will make a difference. If you really want to make a difference, get a friend to register and vote too. Vote these bums out who are taking your rights away. Do it at the primary level if party is important to you. And finally, let the people you are voting for know why you are doing so.

  142. Re:The Real Pirates, Thieves, Criminals--Wrong! by reallocate · · Score: 1
    "Buying" laws may not not produce legislation you see as equitable, but the law remains the law until changed. Almost all the posts here are arguing for the right to engage in criminal activity, and their main argument seems to be that it ought not to be illegal.

    For god's sake, the stuff is only throw-away commercial pop entertainment. Are you going to stake the future of the Internet on the "right" to distribute, say, Mariah Carey tracks? Come on!

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  143. Good, who cares? by Nameles · · Score: 1

    How many people here still use P2P? We've all moved on to greener pastures.

  144. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "fails to curtain song swapping "

    Like, kill them? It's curtains for them?

    Or is it possible that you meant curtail, and are just way to fucking lazy to look up a word of which I know damn well you weren't 100% sure.

    DICTIONARY.COM - it makes you look not so stupid.
    Come on you fucks. If it's going on the first page, lets try not to make us all look like fucking grade-school dropouts.

    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      should be "too fucking lazy"

      that is a typo

      l and n are not near enough to each other to have been a typo, so my point stands.

  145. outlaw everything by shd99004 · · Score: 2

    What about songs and other material that you legally CAN share on P2P networks? Artists and musicians can't use this technology for their own purpose in that case. Also, I anyone can use FTP or HTTP or whatever to spread materials anyway. In the future, the internet wont be what it once was. Sadly, the governments will do everything they can to control this too. Every time something new comes up, they are there to either outlaw it or control it as much as possible.

    --
    Will work for bandwidth
    1. Re:outlaw everything by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Governments in the free-world countries were never going to censor the internet - someone like Bush wouldnt want that on his slate, it would be a public relations nightmare. So, the other option, start censoring the internet bit by bit, first its the illigal music, you can justify it because its piracy, (9/11 btw provided a great platform for censoring stuff, and for making laws that stop 'anti-american' practices like, say.. stealing other peoples land^H^H^H^H music). The first amendments already gone, so they dont have to worry about that anymore, which allows them to get on with stopping the whole thing

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    2. Re:outlaw everything by shd99004 · · Score: 2

      Yes, they are doing it bit by bit, often in the name of safety and security. Do it slowly and the people will adapt... until it's too late.

      --
      Will work for bandwidth
  146. Appeal by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is an OXFAM^H^H^H^H^H RIAA appeal, for the record companies of America. Every day, Music bosses loose millions of dollars. Dollars that feed their families, buy their yachts, and fuel their Learjets. Good people such as AOL-Time Warner and Disney, are doing their best to make a living for themselves, but they need your help.. Just $2 could help win a senator such as Fritz Hollings, just $2 could go towards the legal fees needed to bring down a pirate, and just $2 could press 100 music CDs or DVDs that could be sold off for $20 a piece. We need your help urgently, so, please send, just $2, or whatever you can afford...

    Remember - give a man a lawyer, and he can run a company for a day. But give a man the money to bribe a senator, and he can change the law to run his company for years to come.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  147. How about curtail NOT curtain by k0tic · · Score: 0

    ...fails to 'curtain' song swapping...
    If somebody read and spell-checked each part of this site, it would look so much more professional. It would probably boost the site's reputation and advertising revenue too.

    --
    hell
  148. Congratulations, you are a corporate drone! by dasunt · · Score: 2

    Moridineas writes:

    FOOL ALERT!!!! Free Speech doesn't give you the right to steal someone's work. Free Speech doesn't give you the right to listen to anyone's music whenever you want to. How about some common sense please!!

    Thanks. You assumed any user of P2P software is engaged in piracy. Congratulations! You are a corporate drone. Now, dispite with the RIAA and the MPAA tells you, its possible to trade stuff on a p2p network without being involved in piracy. If I want to share the entire project gutenburg collection on Kazaa, its my right. (Hmmmm, that's a thought....) If I want to share my homemade wallpapers online, that's my right. If I want to throw gimp online under the name 'graphic softwarez', that's my right. (Another interesting thought).

    I'm rather fond of the idea that you have to be breaking the law before you can be arrested. Just having the knowledge to rip a cd/dvd or pick a lock doesn't mean I'm a criminal.

  149. So, will the FBI arrest our Senators?!? by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Oh, dearie me, what shall we do with half our government in jail for illegal file sharing? ;)

    ZDNet posted an interesting opinion piece back in July about how we should quit using P2P now that the Senate has. Check it out here:

    http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/m ai n/0,14179,2874687,00.html

    The part that interested me most was this quote:

    >> The Senate, which is now crafting legislation
    >> that would further restrict the illegal sharing
    >> of copyrighted works over networks, was
    >> apparently a hotbed of illegal file sharing and
    >> other peer-to-peer (P2P) networking activity.
    >>
    >> Last week, the Senate Sergeant at Arms clamped
    >> down, and cut off all P2P networking within the
    >> Senate. The reason? Such networking practices
    >> were a security risk, and they were being used
    >> to violate copyright laws.

    As they say, "our tax money at work". The senators involved (it does not name names, but gives the idea that such activities were widespread) were not only breaking the law, they were using our tax money to do it. If you check the various news stories, at least two movies were illegally downloaded and watched by the senators during Senate hearings on legislation such as the Hollings bill. One of the videos was pirated by a senator, the other by the President of Disney.

    If these congresspersons are correct (some of the ones asking for the FBI's "help" were senators), shouldn't the FBI take care of the most widely publicized cases first, the ones with easy proof, that involved public money?

    After all, they are the ones who think this is such a henious crime that we have to pull the FBI off of child kidnapping cases and the "War on Terror" to deal with it.

    Me, I think the FBI has better things to do than bother with people sampling music before a purchase and freeloading kids who wouldn't or couldn't pay for a CD anyway. But then our senators are the ones with all the file-sharing experience, not little old me. Surely they know better. ;)

    "Really, gentlemen, if that's the case, let's see the power of attorney given to you by Mothra."
    Torahata "Mothra vs. Godzilla"

  150. Slashdot opposed to Open Source Principles. by bons · · Score: 2

    On of the big principles of Open Source is that people should be allowed to choose their own license and distribution method and that we respect that decision.

    We don't have to like their decision, but if we are to have any hope of having our own licenses respected, then we must do the same to everyone else.

    When someone decides for themselves what license and distribution model someone else's creation should fall under and they take it upon themselves to enforce their decision, they're no better than what we accuse the RIAA of being. They take the decision out of the creator's hands and assume that right for themselves.

    And if that's what the movement have become, I, for one, am disgusted with it. What kind of people are we to sell out or principles for simple greed?

  151. Yes! We have no free speech! by yerricde · · Score: 2

    Free Speech doesn't give you the right to steal someone's work.

    I understand what you're trying to say for code and for text, but music is different, as there is only a finite number of melodies. There are only 12 distinct notes in an octave, and about three meaningful durations in music (eighth note, quarter note, and longer than quarter note). Thus, the musical alphabet consists of 36 letters. In the United States, having four notes match four notes in a previously copyrighted song will get you sued; the precedent is the "Yes! We have no bananas!" case. For reasons explained in music theory (namely transposition and fermata), you can ignore the first note and the last duration, giving you effectively only three symbols in a melody. (If you're unclear on the math, reply, and I'll try to explain further.)

    If you take 36 to the third power, you get fewer than 50,000 possible "hook" melodies, and given the number of musical works already registered at the Library of Congress, a songwriter is bound to write a song whose hook is "substantially similar" to one of them sometime or other. Arguing the coincidence defense (which is a valid defense under US copyright law, called "independent creation") costs more in legal expenses than most songwriters make in a year. So when almost all possible melodies are copyrighted, how will anybody be able to write music?

    The solution is to nix the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and to set more realistic standards for what constitutes musical plagiarism.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Yes! We have no free speech! by inerte · · Score: 1

      The problem is that music is not about notes and chords. It's about the distance between them.

  152. Why Doesn't Anyone Ask... by Mojo+Geek · · Score: 1

    Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, said that FBI should not go for casual users but but instead to go after operators of "network "nodes".

    How many songs and how much bandwidth is a "network node"?
    10,000 songs behind a cable modem? 10 Songs fed from a T3?

  153. Compulsory licence by yerricde · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Alter or remove the laws regarding copyright until it's legal to "share" other people's work without their consent.

    That's called "compulsory licensing," and many Slashdot readers have suggested forms of it in comments. Under a compulsory license scheme, a copyright owner would not be able to stop a particular use of a work (e.g. AOL Time Warner refusing to show Speedy Gonzales and also refusing to license it to other networks; see this K5 story and this comment in particular) but would be able to 1. collect a royalty (copyright law), and 2. declare unauthorized works "not canon" (trademark law).

    Sounds fair to me. Can you see any reason why compulsory licensing would "promote the Progress of Science" (U.S. Const. I.8.8) any less than the current scheme?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  154. Collusion to extort? by yerricde · · Score: 2

    The artists signs a (very likely terribly unfair) contract with a record company. That's an agreement between two parties who (should, if they are responsible) know exactly what they're getting into, and do it willingly.

    Without signing one of the Unfair And Collusive Standard Industry Contracts, there is NO way you can get your music or your recordings on Clear Channel radio, NO way you can get your CDs into Wal*Mart and Best Buy, and NO way you can market CDs to anybody who is younger than 18 years of age because only 18 and up can hold the credit or debit cards necessary to make an online CD purchase.

    I smell antitrust.

    A legal tranfer of rights is not theft.

    But is it extortion?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  155. Profit in the price of the pirated good itself by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Copying is only a criminal offence if (a) you do it for profit

    Under the No Electronic Theft Act, when you download a pirate copy of a CD, even if you do not redistribute it, you gain a 17 dollar profit.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  156. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  157. Re:Uhm...How wrong can one guy be? by darkPHi3er · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "Actually, hollywood is mostly the Jackass Party's grounds

    You're right, BUT, not mostly, almost entirely, i live/work there and there's no faster way to find yourself out of a job or unemployable than identify yourself as a non-liberal (they hate independents/Naderites/libertarians nearly as much as Republicans here - i voted for Nader in the last cycle and was savaged by a number of my friends).

    Malcontent (who i modded down and some know-nothing modded back up), reflects the fashionable political ignorance of people who don't bother to look it up...

    the vast majority of IP and content controls have always been sponsored by and promoted by Democratic lawmakers (and always will be).

    Liberal stalwarts like Hollings, Biden, Kennedy and Lieberman tend to lead the way in Entertainment's dream legislation in Congress.

    the overwhelming majority of Big Donors to the Democratic Party are from the Entertainment Industry. (What did Streisand give in the last cycle 8 or 12 million? Spielberg another 6 or 8 million? The Bloodworth/Thomasons several more million. Fred Bijan will have given the DNC about 40 million over the last few years, including buying their new HQ building for them.

    Clearly a "vast right-wing plot".

    There are a small handful of non-liberals (like Milius, Mann, Heston) and you will note that they aren't big campaign contributors and they are all over 50 (except Valente who's about 250).

    You will also note, if you look at the voting records of such legislation, that usually far more Republicans vote AGAINST tightening content controls, and that very few-to-no Democrats vote against them.

    WAIT! What am i thinking? Introducing facts into a /. knee jerk anti-Republican screed --- SORRY! lost my head there.

    As a diehard political centrists and independent it's people who don't bother to fact check that cause more grief and protect the scoundrels who pass crap UCITA and the DMCA....

    Just remember - When MP3s are illegal, only criminals will have MP3s

    --
    Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
  158. go to hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another example of Democracy for sale. At least in Russia its the oil companies and not the music companies that own the government. I use Grokster and live in Moscow I really hope this shit doesnt affect me. Then again Im only here till December and then its back to London. Haha Americans.... thats what you get when you elect republicans. We put Labour into power and have been happy for years. Clinton had sex with an intern big deal have some party loyalty. The man was a great president though a poor husband. Gore deserved to be elected I cant fathom why he wasnt. The one thing I learned about Russia while going to school here is that in Russia its not about party loyalty or even idealogy as it is about the individual. They have made Putin into a a quasi George Washington/Jesus figure. In Britain its more about the party and social ties to the party. In the U.S (I went to NYU) I have no clue how you determine who to vote for and thats why you have politicians who are so tied to special interests. They know that the electorate cares more about their sex lives than about the issues. If every individual participated in the democratic process either by volunteering time ot their own money the special interests wouldnt be neccesary. In Britain labour cares about the unions the conservatives use the church. Corporations are far less powerful because in manyways the post war consensus still exists or casts its long ugly socialist shadow. In Russia its a fight between Putin and the St. Petersburg Chekists and the remnants of Yeltsins inner circle as to how best to procceed with reform. The only thing both sides agree on is how to get rid of the communists (who have lost chairmanships of every comittee in the Duma) Political parties come and go every few months but the faces are the same. Putin and his people Chubais and his. The Chekists have won in terms of the path for reform, for now, but fighting over the budget and other issues goes on and on and on.

  159. Isn't the US great? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything goes, so long as it benefits corporations. Greed, money and power are the order of the day.

    The US is heading for a terrible fall, and my won't it be surprised when the rest of the world isn't interested in helping.

    1. Re:Isn't the US great? by Art_Vandelai · · Score: 1

      It's an ongoing evolution in the centre of power of the United States. Many years ago, the US was the biggest manufacturing powerhouse in the world. Today, almost everything for sale is made in Asia. Finance, Media and IT are the tools that maintain the U.S. world leadership. All of these are concepts that can be learned - there is no physical barrier stopping, lets say India or China from building an empire in these areas that rivals the U.S. That's why the government is striking now to protect its dominant industries, and it's relative position in the world. When you're a small population trying to dominate or control a larger one, 'sharing' can sometimes be a dangerous thing.

  160. Would UseNet be taken down? by michaelmalak · · Score: 2
    They know they can't stop the determined ones (I mean there is always usenet and IRC)
    Who's to say UseNet and IRC won't be taken down as a result of this?
  161. 17 USC 506 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sec. 506. - Criminal offenses

    (a) Criminal Infringement. -

    Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -

    (1)

    for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

    (2)

    by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any
    180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted
    works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,

    shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code.
    For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted
    work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.

    (b) Forfeiture and Destruction. -

    When any person is convicted of any violation of subsection (a), the court in its
    judgment of conviction shall, in addition to the penalty therein prescribed, order the
    forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all infringing copies or phonorecords and
    all implements, devices, or equipment used in the manufacture of such infringing copies
    or phonorecords.

  162. artists w/o even pennies by agent00013 · · Score: 1

    I guess we should expect network congestion because of users, downloading everything in their sight to beat this initiative.

    I've heard this in every story about increased lawsuits or prosection since Napster died. The congestion increases constantly because people want more music, etc. "free." It's called greed. I used to be the same way, till I realized I was screwing the artists I love out of the few pennies they do get. Until there's a different and more effective way to pay artists for their music, buying their CDs is about the only thing I can do. (Oh, and don't buy them at the mall and complain about prices... CDs are up to $8 cheaper on the internet if you shop around.)

    _endrant_

  163. Broken Moderation by NoWhereMan · · Score: 1
    Even if I have mod points, I can't. I tried a few times, but it was a futile effort.

    You need to read the Moderation Guidelines again. This type of attitude breaks the system. It takes time to read all those posts below 2 but the gems down there are worth it. If you do not have the time to do this properly, you should let those points expire. What you describe is more of a popularity contest.

    1. Re:Broken Moderation by jred · · Score: 2

      If I get to the article soon enough, I have no problems browsing at 1 or even 0. Do you have time to read 587 posts? That's how many this article currently has. And many times my mod points do expire.

      Although I haven't gotten them in a while, I don't know if it has anything to do with it, but I stopped getting them around the same time I started metamodding.

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
  164. My reaction... by Cinematique · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I watched a news report that stated music sales have fallen 13% from last years numbers.

    I work for a major clothing chain.

    My manager recently commented on how our business has fallen off around 13% compared to last years numbers.

    Coincidence?

    Maybe we should start arresting school girls who share eachothers clothing plus those damn thrift shop owners who profit from the resale of shirts and jeans. They're cutting into the original retail seller's profits.

  165. just go after slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    slashdot sucks anyway just blow them out of the water

  166. I took distances in account by yerricde · · Score: 1

    The problem is that music is not about notes and chords. It's about the distance between them.

    I took distances into account:

    There are only 12 distinct notes in an octave, and about three meaningful durations in music (eighth note, quarter note, and longer than quarter note).

    Think of the 12 distinct notes in an octave as distinct intervals, or frequency domain distances, from the first note. Think of the durations as time domain distances. This makes only 36 (time, frequency) distance vectors from one note to the next, and fewer than 50,000 sequences of three such distance vectors. There still aren't enough sets of distances for a songwriter to be able to create original melodies.

    Unless there's some other hole in my argument...

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  167. couple hundred? by HanzoSan · · Score: 2

    Couple hundred? More like a couple hundred thousand.

    Depending on the amount of fans you have.

    25 cents a song, per fan, 50,000 fans, if they all buy 8 songs, thats 200k

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  168. No he does not by HanzoSan · · Score: 2



    You cannot control how your art is distributed by the masses, you can only control when.

    Once he released it, its out in the wild, he has no control.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  169. War on drugs by dextr0us · · Score: 1

    Its like the war on p2p, since it causes poverty among record labels, motion picture producers, and software companies. HONESTLY FOLKS! dont they have more pressing issues for john ashcroft than stopping p2p?

    --
    "Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
  170. Why this is GOOD by reynolds_john · · Score: 1
    In the light of events over the last couple of years with respect to cdrom music, file sharing/swapping, et al - I believe it is long overdue for the law to start doing its duty.

    There is NOTHING illegal, or ethically or morally wrong with what the music industry does today;
    The populous supports the industry gladly - immediately swallowing outrageous prices for cdroms and other media.
    The populous does not take action to instead support local musicians - to band together and make those successful who they think earn it without ridiculous record and recording contracts.

    Frankly, we deserve it . Only in the face of hardship will the average joe respond to the outrageous prices, lack of control over purchases, and ridiculous laws. For a long time we have all been the proverbial frog in the pot of cold water, with the temperature slowly rising.

    I welcome the most draconian laws they can possilby put on the American public. I wholeheartedly endorse them scanning our hard drives with impunity, making DVDs that can't be copied, making CDROMs that can't be copied - or even (via "The Road Ahead" by Bill Gates) music that you pay for EVERY TIME YOU LISTEN TO IT.

    Bring it on! The decision of whether or not we deserve our freedoms is quickly coming to pass... and as far as I'm concerned, it's long overdue. As long as we continue to be collectively passive, and hold our television and mind-numbing media entertainment above our individual and collective rights, we deserve it.

  171. a monopoly is a monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RIAA's stranglehold is no different than any other illegal monopoly's. I say fsck them. It's illegal to run the same (paid for) version of MS Windows on more than one machine (in my own home). It's purported to be illegal for me to download an MP3 of a RAP song I liked in high school (but have long since lost the original cassette I bought back then and the receipt of its purchase). You know, it was pretty illegal to throw tea in the Boston Harbor all those years ago too. But SO what! I'm now sick-and-tired (as are the rest of you) of trying to correct things through the "right" and "proper" channels. I have ZERO faith in RIAA and almost as little in Congress. Fsck them all. "When the people fear the government you have tyranny;
    when the government fears the people you have liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson. It's time the government remembered who butters its bread.

  172. I think so :-) by inerte · · Score: 1

    These are pre-defined distances. I meant with distance anything from one milisecond to one whole year.

    Anyone can play any song on any instrument. Getting the melody right that it is the hard part. And melody is about the time between one note from another... I can play Stravinsky on the piano, if I can press the key anytime I want to. But that wouldn't sound right :-)

  173. Re:How about you all start wiring into your neighb by t0qer · · Score: 2

    Yeah tell that to every one of my unemployed sysadmin friends.

    Bush is the problem, Clinton did a wonderful job of keeping osama happy. We only had 1 weak attack on the WTC and some conflict in somalia during his presidency. Actually, the WTC carbombing happened during Bush Sr. reign of "no new taxes" so that puts the score of home based attacks for clinton 0, bush jr & sr 2.

    The country is in worse shape than you're willing to see my friend. The .gov is lying about exactly how fucked up it is. Look around you, how many of your friends are out of work? Of those friends, how many have been out of work for a year or more?

    Bush cheated to get into office, and he's running the country according to his own agenda. He's cheating the american taxpayer by throwing everything into the military. He sucks he sucks he sucks.

    And fuck you for saying this.

    what do show is your amazing stupidity:

    You can't even use proper fucking grammer you twit and you call me stupid? Fuck you. By your level of grammer i'd say you're still in gradeschool. It should be.

    what you have shown is your amazing stupidity:

    or even simpler

    what you show is your amazing stupidity:

    Unfortunately you're a moron, utterly and completly devoid of anything resembling a brain. In fact, instead of brains, you have shit. That's right, shit. Instead of a spinal column you have your colon stretching up your neck into your head. That's why when you talk shit, you don't use proper english grammer. Twit.

  174. (Musician || Musicologist) != Federal judge by yerricde · · Score: 1

    And melody is about the time between one note from another... I can play Stravinsky on the piano, if I can press the key anytime I want to.

    I guess you're criticizing the lack of an exact definition of "short, medium, and long" note durations. Well, I defined short as an eighth note, medium as a quarter note, and long as a dotted quarter or longer. (In some songs, it's sixteenth, eighth, and dotted eighth.) I didn't try to model melodies in the detail that musical notation records them; I was trying to reduce them to what a federal judge will look at under the copyright case law standard of "substantial similarity".

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  175. Unenforcable laws by DarkGamer · · Score: 1
    As far as I know, oral sex is still illegal in Mass. The problem remains: if something is done privately without directly harming another, how do you stop it? Even if congress makes this happen, how long will it be before a more anonymous p2p client (a la free net) replaces kazaa as the most used protocol?

    I give it two weeks before technology supercedes legality once again.

    As for the RIAA and their political lapdogs, I would love to see them try to take their entire consumer base to court:
    *envisions some minimum wage clerk getting a 300-page stack of IP numbers*
    "now serve subpoenas!"
    lol

  176. Not over 'till all the big interests get theirs by DarkGamer · · Score: 1

    The current state of the USA is rather gloomy:

      • Media giants cram marketing down our ocular and auditory nerves every second we're not paying attention.
      • Big money tells us what to think, who to vote for, and who to kill overseas.
      • There are way too many people in the United States to be an effective and progressive democracy. Good luck getting a majority to agree on anything.
      • Lobbyists run our government, don't fool yourself. And what they lobby for makes the higher ups richer, usuually at the expense of the lower tiers and the general public. Examples are the prison guard association (more drug laws! more prisons! more money!) and the restaraunt association (lower hospitatlity wages below minimum so that tips compensate! We pay less!).
      • Ignorance + Technology + Legislature = bad medicine. The RIAA and MPAA are just symptoms of this.

      Too bad I'm not rich enough to own my own senator. I could be the first kid on my block. Won't they be jealous then? </rant>

  177. Understand this, then... by the+saltydog · · Score: 1

    >Sure, I've heard that sharing music and copyright-anarchy is supposed to increase sales in the aggregate, but it doesn't work for me any the genre I work in. So I need my audience to please be a *paying* audience.
    >

    If I hear something I like, I BUY it. If it sucks, I DON'T. Therefore, if you find your music being traded, and your sales/revenues aren't going up, well, I think you can figure out the rest for yourself.
    Oh well, time to fire up Grokster for the rest of the weekend. Congresscritters? Go fuck thyselves. (and Hilary Rosenbitch, too, while you're at it.)

    1. Re:Understand this, then... by mkldev · · Score: 1

      Second that. I've bought about ten CDs by artists as a direct result of having downloaded their music. I hear a song on the radio, I dl a handful of songs to see if that's the only song I like. If I decide the group or artist is a one-hit-wonder, I toss them. If I decide the group or artist is actually good, I buy the CD.

      I'm far more likely to buy an artist if I can listen to all of the tracks in a -decent- -quality- format like an end-user-ripped MP3 rather than these crappy RealAudio tracks that many of them pt on their web sites. (Nothing wrong with RealAudio if you know when to use particular codecs, just that most content providers don't. :-)

      So for those of you in the industry, know this: if you stop people from making your music available, I'll stop buying your CDs, pure and simple. I'm not alone.

      --
      120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
  178. Consent Doesn't Matter For Slavery by krmt · · Score: 2

    You know, you're not legally allowed to sell yourself in to slavery in this country. No way, no how. It's simply against the law.

    You also can't legally have consentual torture. This is a big issue for a lot of people in the S/M crowd, since this is what they do.

    Basically, you are not allowed to waive some of your basic freedoms, no matter how much you want to. Same thing goes for killing yourself, suicide is technically illegal.

    While these people might be purposely signing themselves in to a bad deal, perhaps the same ideas can extend to them? For a lot of these artists, what they are accepting is a sort of consentual slavery, with the way the industry is structured.

    --

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

  179. Once you sell it, the consumer owns it by AZPhysics · · Score: 1

    If you release something and I buy it, I have the right to tell others what I think about it. I have the right to do research on it. I have the right to share excerpts, or quote excerpts from it. I have the right to make back-up copies. I have the right to loan it to convert it to a format that is more suitable for me. As long as I am not selling it or making money off it, there isn't a whole lot you can do. Physical property rights trump nebulous "intellectual property rights." If they don't trump them in legal circles, they will certainly trump them in de-facto practice as peer-to-peer services demonstrate.

  180. You can quote a book by AZPhysics · · Score: 1

    Books, in general, are copyrighted. However, you can quote them without infringing copyright. Similarly, when you are sharing compressed music you are only sharing an excerpt from the music. Usually, you are only "quoting" a tenth of the information available.

    However, you are ignoring the commercial aspect. You don't get money from the files you share on a p2p network. You are sharing the files in a noncommercial manner. The minute I get paid for the files I share is when I am breaking the law.

    It is inevitable that as more CD's are mass-produced their price drops to a slim margin over the actual cost of materials. This is especially true for old albums. With packaging and handling that comes out to probably $3. Not suprisingly, this has happened first in classical music. I recently purchased 7 classical CDs with an average price of ~2.50 or so. Information is cheap in an information economy. If you aren't going to make enough money being a musician (and most don't) get a 9-5 and do music on the side. Better yet, teach it. There is always a demand for that.

  181. Do you play the lottery? by AZPhysics · · Score: 1
    The business of recording music is basically a lottery. One group in thousands gets the big money, the rest get 0. Most of the times it is the image of the bands that sells the records. Sometimes, some truly talented performers get through. (I am listening to Charlotte Church right now. How can anyone have a voice like that?)

    Now, don't think that just because you get a big record contract you will actually make money. This has become very obvious lately. In the congressional hearings Roger McGuinn of the Byrds mentioned that he made very little even though his group hit the bigtime. ( http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=195&w it_id=253 ) He says

    Even though I've recorded over twenty-five records, I cannot support my family on record royalties alone.

    So the question is, how do you make money in the business? McGuinn mentioned that touring was how he made his money. Also, check out www.folkden.com to see how he promotes himself. Another folk singer (Peter Breinholt) who also testified at the congressional hearings had a similar report. ( http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/oldsite/1092000_p b.htm )He records his own CD's, tours heavily, and is very much a family man. He also offers many free samples of his music, live recordings, and even sheet music on his website ( www.Peterbreinholt.com ). He even returns e-mails. I am much more likely to buy his CD's for gifts (as I recently did for my brother) since I know he is an independent artist not working for the RIAA.

    A freind of mine is getting his PhD in Saxaphone Performance. How will he make money when he graduates? The same way he does now -- by teaching. Music instruction will always have a market, and it is a market that is getting bigger as there are more middle-class famalies that can afford lessons or formal schooling. There are opportunities there.

    There are also financial opportunities in the production of music. You can easily and cheaply make a recording studio. (I figure $10K for a computer, microphones, and sound deadening panels is cheap compared to what it used to be, and is fraction of the cost of a grand piano or a good harp) If you only apply your musical abilities to the getting of a recording contract, you are severely limiting your earning potential.

    Finally, you have to realize that this is a market economy. I would like to be paid to browse slashdot, but nobody derives enough value from that to pay me. Despite a degree and somewhat marketable skills, I have worked on assembly lines , cleaned a lumber yard, and other odd jobs to provide for my family. Many other people have done grunt work as well. You have to pay your dues. You may have to work a real job, and do music on the side. Not every musician is going to make it. That is part of life as well.

  182. Re:The Real Pirates, Thieves, Criminals--Wrong! by MasterKayne · · Score: 1

    "Buying" laws may not not produce legislation you see as equitable, but the law remains the law until changed. Almost all the posts here are arguing for the right to engage in criminal activity, and their main argument seems to be that it ought not to be illegal.

    I agree. Sharing "Mariah Carey tracks" is not civil disobediance and will not bring any positive change. My voting and educating my children to different way, may. In the meantime public libraries and used CD/book stores are the way to go.

    For god's sake, the stuff is only throw-away commercial pop entertainment. Are you going to stake the future of the Internet on the "right" to distribute, say, Mariah Carey tracks? Come on!

    Mariah Carey's first album was in 1990 only 12 years ago. We will fully respect the copyright on her ablums. More to your point; It is not worth the future of the Internet for the pap that is marketed today, I agree again.

    "the stuff" is NOT "only throw-away commercial pop entertainment", see my first point. The public domain is being robbed of everything for nearly the last hundred years!

  183. Well Times, are a chang'in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time for me to pick up a guitar and learn to play my own music because I certainly am going to stop paying RIAA tax. Ill listen to high school bands before I fork out any more money for RIAA Tax. And buy from independent labels, fuk them... I don't need thier crap. They have pushed this consumer too far. So, so long RIAA asswipes.

  184. Thats Right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's right, ladies and gentlemen! Its not those poor, misguided terrorists that are a threat to the U.S. Its those eeeeeevil music swappers! No, not the people who copy from CDs and tapes to recordable media, but those people who do the same thing using the INTERNET! Let the drug dealers, rapists, child pornographers, murderers, mafia, corporate fraudists (thats a real word, honest), and tax evaders from prisons so that we can make room for the bad internet music swappers! Its good to see that our hard earned tax dollars (and the music industries hard earned payolas) get put to good use!

  185. Idiot ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - The Jews never create anything.
    Have you never heard of Bob Dylan ?

    Crawl back in your hole. The era of the pogroms is over.

  186. Joe Friggin Biden by Windcatcher · · Score: 1
    I live less than five miles to the north of the state where this piece of work lives, and I can never understand why the people there keep re-electing him. "Oh, but he gets things done for Delaware." Talk about a selfish and shortsighted attitude!


    I really want to know if there is anyone out there in DE who has decided to VOTE AGAINST THIS GUY. Just what is it going to take for you people? Just how much restriction does this guy have to place upon you, upon everyone, before you decide that you've had enough? I don't mean just about copyrights, but about EVERYTHING. Dollars to doughnuts, if there's a bill that takes away some right, or places some restriction on the population, THIS BOZO VOTES FOR IT. Damn it all to hell, what is it going to take???

    Grrr... I think I'll go bite someone.

  187. Sad state of affairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here in Australia there has been repeated coverage of the FBI's persuit and prosecution of an international paedophile ring. This included a soundbyte of some fellow from the FBI stating that the victims of these criminals would be haunted for the rest of their lives because the images would stay on the Internet for years.

    Obviously there are congress-critters who place the profits of the RIAA over the rights of children worldwide. :-(

  188. "Sore"? Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't you mean "Soar"? "Let the Eagle Sore" doesn't make sense. In fact, it risks creating a sore spot in my mental syntax analyzer.

  189. 19 congress members, 19 hijackers.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...hmmm..

    I guess some terrorism comes in 19's.

  190. Re:Pirating vs Profiting FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard from a German friend that there is system over there for young people to download software for free for learning purposes. Thought you might be interested in knowing that governments might agree with you.

  191. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME, ...NO, no excuse by darkPHi3er · · Score: 2

    From your previous post, i rather suspected that you're (formally or informally) trolling for the Dems, but this one proves it. As much as i dislike this phony and destructive Left-Right political paradigm, people like you (and that right-wing idiot who didn't do any fact checking) insist on keeping the ball rolling.

    My Sincere Apologies to the thinking/rational members of the /. Community for the excesive length, but "tossed off" facts require real context. SORRY!

    Let's deconstruct some of the above post, why don't we?

    "Once again you are lying. Insdustries give much more money to republicans while unions tend to give more to democrats. It's the classic struggle. Teachers, cops, firemen, plumbers etc support democrats while CEOs support republicans.

    In the last two Federal cycles, Republicans received about 625 million dollars and Democrats received 449 million, or the Democrats recieved about 70% of revenues the Republicans received. Don't know about where you live, but around here, 449 MILLION DOLLARS is a lot of money.

    here are some links to real data, you can find verified numbers for just about anything, if you look;

    Common Cause
    Judical Watch
    Federal Election Commission
    Roll Call Magazine
    Library of Congress' THOMAS legislative info site
    Vote dot Com
    TownHall dot Com
    Pew Research Center (reasonably balanced/verified poll data)

    You also neglected to mention some rather important things. Especially as you seem to be attempting to tie the current economic probs to a particular party.

    1. The vast majority of Technology CEOs supported Clinton and Gore, and routinely give big donations to the Democratic Party.

    2. The vast majority of CEOs in the Finance sectors (stock brokerages, investment banks, bond houses) are also Democrats and are amongst the Dems biggest contributors

    3. The Republican Party gets much more of its money from individual "grass roots" contributors (i.e., people sending in twenty or fifty bucks) than the Democratic Party does.

    Whereas, the Democratic Party gets the vast majority of its donations from corporations, with very few dollars coming from "grass roots" donations. That's a kinda important point in this discussino, since you seem to be so wound about corporate donations.

    4. The two largest contributor groups of the Democratic Party are two of the most regressive and damaging special interests in America. Teachers Unions (NOT the teachers themselves -- for whom i have HUGE respect by and large) and Trial Lawyers.

    Teachers Unions have gutted and stalled any meaningful educational reform in this country for 30 years, while students' test scores have plummeted (and they continue to actively obstruct schoool reform) and Trial Lawyers are making it virtually impossible for anyone to start a new business in America without hugely expensive liability insurance (which many entrepeneurs cannot afford). I've done several tech startups in Cali -- next one WON'T be here, i'm done with this messed up state.

    Trial lawyers are also increasing the price of virtually every product we buy with frivolous deep pockets liability lawsuits.

    The key determinent in politcal fundraising actually seems to be, not so much supposed politcal affiliation, but rather who has control of the House. When the Dems had control of the House (and the White House) they outraised the Republicans by about an average of 20%.

    The actual reality is that corporations will give money to whoever can deliver the goods. That will always favor the Party in the Majority. We have the best legislators money can (and does) buy. But, why would any corporation want to waste money on a legislator in the Minority??? What sense does that make? You spend money to buy influence, PERIOD.

    When the Republicans took control of the House, they found that they could outraise the Dems, especially in "party building" monies. The reason is generally held to be that whoever controls the House, controls the purse strings. If you're looking for bucks, you go to the Majority Party.

    "Once again you are lying. Insdustries give much more money to republicans while unions tend to give more to democrats. It's the classic struggle. Teachers, cops, firemen, plumbers etc support democrats while CEOs support republicans."

    nice troll! actually cops and firefighters vote mostly republican (about 68% nationwide), teachers do indeed vote mostly democrat (about 82% nationwide -- though that's starting to change -- there's been nearly a 10% increase nationwide of teachers who are voting republican in the last decade, whoda thunk it?)

    (i have no idea how plumbers vote), you're sidestepping the fact that it's actually police and fire unions who give big amounts of their members' dues to far-left candidates.

    "All of this adds up to the grim fact that republicans get a ton more money then democrats over all.

    True kinda/sorta, but certainly NOT "..a ton more", through the next election cycle, there will probably be about 18-22% advantage for the Republicans. Or about the same numbers that the Dems had over the Republicans when they controlled the House and Senate.

    A significant difference, but certainly not fatal. Clearly the Dems aren't attacting voters the way they used to. The Republicans are (and have always been) the "Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight", when it comes to image projection. So, that pretty much suggests that the Dems are just losing their appeal. The Republicans are usually not adroit enough at attack politics, they're too busy blowing off their own media toes. (Look at Bill Simon in Cali,-- this guy couldn't get a BJ in a whorehouse, what were the Republicans thinking????)

    From about the 1960's to the late 1980's, the Dems had an (by your standards "large") advantage in money raising. When the Republicans and Gingrich took over the Congress in the '94 mid-terms, the money gap started favoring the Republicans.

    My favorite though is "...Combine that with the conservative media and you can explain how they control the country."

    Where would this conservatie media be? You've got the looney-tunes Washington Times, the spooky strange FoxNewsChannel and that's about it.

    Meanwhile, the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washingpost, Time, Newsweek, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS, and most big city newspapers might as well just print the DNC's "Message of the Day".

    Limbaugh gives the Republicans a pretty large presence on talk radio. (despite a decade of dire predictions by the Left about Limbaugh fading away, he's still do quite well, fascinating. i woulda never thunk it.)

    But the most successful "politics" shows on TV are O'Reilly (yeech, i'm waiting for Bill to allow a guest to complete a sentence before he starts screaming at them) and Larry King, who spends more time discussing his own opinons than his guests. I can't watch EITHER of them without getting a headache. So, I don't.

    O'Reilly is hardly a conservative, and while King is technically a liberal, as O'Reilly continues to pummel King in the ratings, King has drifted back to the center.

    So the vast majority of media in this country is pretty much Center-Left.

    It is also boring, trite and doesn't spend any real time discussing any alternatives to the obviously dysfunctional Left-Right paradigm that has captured the votes of the majority of the few voting Americans and turned off/over about half the eligble voters in America.

    I voted for Nader before, and it looks like i'll be doing it again in '04.

    --
    Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
  192. Screw it!!! by just+some+computer+j · · Score: 1

    As a reluctant citzen of Missouri, I have this to say about Ashcroft, he was a horrible Governor. And now, after 9-11, everything that he doesn't understand becomes a target. So, I propose this, Screw it, Download everything you can. Piracy is nothing compared to the crimes that Ashcroft has committed in the last year.

    --
    eh, this sucks, I am going back to bed....
  193. Re:don't understand...THAT'S WHAT *AA IS SCARED OF by darkPHi3er · · Score: 2

    It seems unlikely a group will gain "super stardom" solely by online means.

    The Music Industry has INTENTIONALLY built a business model based upon certain assumptions, these include;

    1. Artists should sell 500K+ on their 1st album

    2. Artists need to "Borrow" money from the label for pricey production and some touring related costs to be paid back later (can you say "Company Store"?)

    3. The label needs to put huge amounts of (recoverable) expenses into each artist, and the contract with the artist will make sure that the label recovers ALL it expenses FIRST.

    All of these business practices (and numerous others, like the fact that most artists NEED to tour to make any real money) ensure (exactly as they are meant to) that any artist that can't routinely sell 2-5 million copies over a 3-album contract NEED NOT APPLY.

    This is very similar to the early Movie Business and 60's and 70's aerospace industry.

    You "create" a cost-structure that is expensively prohibitive for newcomers (think "high entry barriers"), so that, simultaneously, competitive new labels won't be formed every week and so that your artists are permanently in debt to the label. Combine that with 10 or 11 year contracts and you effectively OWN your artists.

    The entire music business has been intentionally engineered to limit the number of viable music companies and to limit the number of successful artists and lower the artists' ability to control their careers.

    The labels can afford to put 10 million dollars(or more) into a marketing campaign for a Britney Spears, N'Stink, Christina Aguilera, ad nauseam

    With a ten million dollar marketing campaign my Grandmother could go Platinum (and she's DEAD)....

    This simultaneously locks out equally talented artists who don't have someone willing to spend 10 million dollars on them AND... ...simultaneously indebts the artist to the label.

    Best of all worlds,right?

    Artificially high cost structure and indentured talent. With the successful artists fully aware that there are 100 equally talented artists ready to take their place if they get "out of line".

    Why don't they want usful digital distribution?

    Because ANY EFFICIENT means of digital production and distribution THREATENS THAT BUSINESS MODEL BY LOWERING THE VISIBLE COSTS OF PRODUCTION AND DISTRBUTION BY EXPONENTIAL FACTORS, therefore...

    The Internet (as we know it) MUST DIE.

    --
    Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
  194. Why would the government pay for those classes?

    All you need to think is: "Terrorist Evil, Dubya Good".

    If you are interviewed, say something mindless like: "I'm behind the President 110%".

    --
    * * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
  195. Re:Uhm...EXCUSE ME, ...NO, no excuse by Malcontent · · Score: 2

    Well that was a nice rant. But sorry it was kind of lame. I would go through it point by point but that would be kind of long so I will instead point out the following.

    You are obviously anti union, you blame the "trial lawyers" for the countries ills and you don't think Bill O'Reilly is a conservative. Yea that sounds like a republican to me. I don't believe for one second that you voted for Nader.

    As for the whole left-right thing sorry but that war is going on despite your denial. Republicans are at war with democrats. There may be bystanders but they will be killed. The democrats are losing this war and price for losing is severe. Being a prograssive person I choose not to stand by and be killed by the republican war machine. It's better to fight back at least that way you can die with honor and dignitity. I didn't start this war but I have to fight it just like you are doing. You are on the winning side at this moment but hopefully we can muster up the resources to counterattack and hold our position or gain ground soon. Otherwise we will all end up being palestenians.

    --

    War is necrophilia.

  196. Re:Uhm...WHOA...limp response... by darkPHi3er · · Score: 2
    "I would go through it point by point but that would be kind of long so I will instead point out the following.

    See my reply doesn't actually qualify as a rant, because in addition to using emotional neutral and adult language, i also provide data and sources and external references to validate the data.

    And, OF COURSE, you WOULD go through it, but of course you won't -- because having to make a reasoned, rational, thoughtful case, rather than just spewing irrational, secular partisan rhetoric would require that you marshal facts, arrange data and make a convincing reasoned counter-argument.

    Which you, of course, can't do.

    Fortunately, I can. Let's do it again, shall we?

    "You are obviously anti union"

    Strike One; Grandpa was an AFL-CIO shop steward. I think the American worker is getting screwed and that Big Labor is helping. The rising tax burden (back up to total marginal rates of 50% in Cali, NY, Mass, et al) is eroding his buying power, and ability to put together a decent retirement package or estate for his children. In my neighborhood 100K homes sell for 1M. Inflation is destroying the real income of the middle-class.

    you blame the "trial lawyers" for the countries ills

    Strike Two; Gross misstatement, and wrong at that. I don't "blame" the trial lawyers for anything. "Blame" is both a childish and over-emotive term. That's Grade School talk.

    I assign to the trial lawyers their responsibility for the mess they are making of our legal system and product liability laws. No more, no less. There's plenty of people helping them.

    "and you don't think Bill O'Reilly is a conservative. Yea that sounds like a republican to me. I don't believe for one second that you voted for Nader."

    Strike Three; No one with a brain thinks Bill O'Reilly is anything but an loud-mouthed entertainer. Even Limbaugh is more thoughtful (not to mention consistent) about his political positions. In between hawking his; website, newsletter, appearences, etc (figure about 60M/year gross take).

    O'Reilly appeals to the great mass of fed up Americans, by taking their pent-up frustations at the "forces beyond their control", and putting on the entertainment equivalent of the old Soviet "show trials".

    O'Reilly's show is driven by pop opinion polls. He rants, He raves. He beats up the Left. He beats up the Right. And then he pimps the vast range of O'Reilly Products, from his books through his radio show. Then he and his "victim du jour" hop in his limo and go have a cosmo together at jean georges.

    Like you, he's rarely thoughtful, rarely considered and frequently just says stuff for the attention.

    I been a registered Independent for over a decade. Am one of about the 3 1/2 people who actually voted for Kathy Brown for Gov of Cali (She was a twit, but at least she was a principled twit. Most of my registered Democrat friends wouldn't even vote for her. Wilson PO'd me with his support of the blatantly anti-immigrant Prop 187, without bothering to explain to us what the Cali economy would do without all those illegal immigrants that do much of the state's dirty work. Clear political scapegoating by the state's Republicans).

    There is NO Left-Right War. There is no Left-Right anything is this country. There is a ruling political class, beholden to Big Business, Big Labor and well-heeled Special Interest Groups.

    The Dems have their Patrons. The Right has its.

    And the average American is caught between them. The average American finds both sides distasteful and extreme, and justs wants them to steer the car down the middle of the road.

    But, I don't suppose that you read opinion polls either.

    --
    Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
  197. Ironic, Isn't it? by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

    It seeems that Digital Rights Management would actually save P2P. Go figure.

    If clients like Gnutella were forced to reject files whose sharing violated their DRM flags, their illegal use would be restricted to non-protected data.

    I hate to sound like a troll, but DRM may actually be a Good Thing. The only drawback(in this case) is that the controllers of DRM technology could charge up the wazoo to license the technology, and make it illegal not to.

    But such is life in a free market economy. :-(

    "Rights Management" seems oddly fitting, in this context.

    --
    What's this Submit thingy do?
  198. Hmmmm... correct me if I'm wrong... by AdamD1 · · Score: 1

    Music labels have not ruled out suing individual users, and have pushed for the right to flood peer-to-peer networks with bogus files, or disrupt them by other means.

    "Have pushed for the right"? How about: have already been flooding peer-to-peer networks.

    That's just lame. I mean yeah: protect your copyright and all that (whatever,) but seriously: if they would just shut the hell up and embrace the fact that free mp3's leads to people eventually supporting an artist (and if the price is right, their labels) this would cease to be converted into a "fair use rights" issue.

    Something about a head and an ass and one thing being inside the other?

    ad

    --
    Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
  199. Re:don't understand...THAT'S WHAT *AA IS SCARED OF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You described the recording industry prefectly. You must have been paying attension in econ class too.

  200. Re:Uhm...WHOA...limp response... by Malcontent · · Score: 2

    "And, OF COURSE, you WOULD go through it, but of course you won't -- because having to make a reasoned, rational, thoughtful case, rather than just spewing irrational, secular partisan rhetoric would require that you marshal facts, arrange data and make a convincing reasoned counter-argument."

    MMM no. Your post was mostly half truths and no I still don't feel like going through it point by point.

    "Strike One; Grandpa was an AFL-CIO shop steward. I think the American worker is getting screwed and that Big Labor is helping. The rising tax burden (back up to total marginal rates of 50% in Cali, NY, Mass, et al) is eroding his buying power, and ability to put together a decent retirement package or estate for his children. In my neighborhood 100K homes sell for 1M. Inflation is destroying the real income of the middle-class."

    Wow nice string of non sequitors. Let's see if I understand what you are saying.

    Your grandpa was a union member. Ok that's nice I guess what does that have to do with anything?

    Big labor is screwing the american worker. HAH!. Very funny! Yes blame the unions for the screwing of the american worker, that's a good one. I suppose the republicans, the chamber of commerce and the corporations have nothing to do with that huh?

    Rising tax rates are huring the working people. OK so are you saying that big labor is raising the taxes on the american people? Since when do the labor unions pass legislation?

    Houses are expensive where you live: Yes. Probably because the population keeps growing while nobody is making more land. Move to a place where people are moving away. Oh the unions do not have the power to raise the cost of real estate sorry to break it to ya.

    "No one with a brain thinks Bill O'Reilly is anything but an loud-mouthed entertainer. Even Limbaugh is more thoughtful (not to mention consistent) about his political positions"

    The only people who think that O'Reilly is not a republican are people to the right of him. That means just to the left of Reagan. And you think Limbaugh is thoughtful. Then you claim you are not a republican. HAH!

    "There is NO Left-Right War. There is no Left-Right anything is this country."

    What hole do you live in man? Do you watch TV? Do you read the papers? There are a lot of wars in this country. Why do you think Limbaugh calls environmentalists "green nazis"? Why does he call feminists "feminazis"? There is a war and he wants to associate environmentalists and women who want equal pay with murderous regimes who killed 6 million Jews. Why does he do that? Because he wants to incite people to kill them that's why. Try this. Put a greenpeace sticker on your car and drive to montana. See how long it takes for you to be pulled over or have your winshield broken. There is most certainly a war the people like Oreilly and Limbaugh are the propaganda arms of that war. The desired result is a subjugation of the "liberals".

    --

    War is necrophilia.

  201. Re:Uhm...WHOA...limp response... by darkPHi3er · · Score: 2
    "Your post was mostly half truths and no I still don't feel like going through it point by point.

    and that pretty much says it all about your position, why defend your (indefensible and inchoate) position when you can just spout cheap ad hominem personal attacks without ever having to support your claims?

    nice try, but it won't fool too many people, you can ran around screaming "conservative" or "Republican" all you want, but it's just cheap demagoging.

    And has absolutely nothing to do with supporting or defending your position and the your so-called claims.

    The DATA that you don't wish to address are simple and consistent.

    The VAST MAJORITY of the American people are relatively-to-very happy with George Bush and their own financial circumstances. They have some worries about Wall Street, the economy and the state of education across America. Some worries, some even increasing worries (the economy) not anywhere near either a crisis state or even prominent concern.

    No one has to take my word for it, it's easy enough to verify;
    The Zogby Poll
    The Field Poll
    The Gallup Poll
    The Los Angeles Times Poll
    PollingReportdotCom -- Great Polling Summary Site
    The Institute for Research in the Social Sciences at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
    CNN's AllPolitics website, frequent has latest polls
    CBS News Polls

    The "Left-Right" War rubbish you are talking about is disproved by two simple (and recent) votes of Congress.

    The OVERWHELMINGLY BIPARTISAN vote for their own pay raise and the vote for next year's Federal budget.

    Both overwhelmingly approved by both parties.

    Yep, some Left-Right split. The Dems who control the Senate are so worried about their Republican "opposition" that they voted for Bush's Tax Cut and Bush's Budget and the Patriot Act and the DMCA and UCITA.

    And the Republicans who control the House are so worried about the Congressional Dems that they have gone along with EVERY redistricting plan controlled by a Democratic state legislature, all across America. The Republicans have no plans to challenge ANY redistricting across America, even though the net gain will go to the Dems (about 2-4 seats in the next Congress)

    And the Congressional Dems are so worried about their Republican counterparts they cut deal after deal with them for their own priorities in the current budget AND VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY with the Republicans for the Patriot Act, DMCA, Sonny Bono Copyright Reform, et al...(and i certainly don't need to mention the "Under God" Pledge votes LEAD by Democratic Congressional Leaders Daschle and Gephardt, do I?)

    Or are you asserting that the Democrats and all the major polling organizations are in league with your much-detested Republicans?

    Both Parties have the ability (with a split Congress) to bring the legislative process to a complete halt. Gee, strange then in a political/idealogical "War" that neither side is doing that. They are (with a few exceptions) merrily holding hands and passing budgets and spending authorizations and all sorts of other legislation with nary a discouraging word.

    So, our elected officials don't perceive a "War", the American People don't perceive a "War", the Pollsters can't find a "War".

    So, where is it?

    You can give all the anecdotal myths you want, and for every one there's a counter-example. Like your hypothetical "Greenpeace Sticker in Montana", which anyone can respond to with a "NRA Sticker in Berkely" example.(That's the "One-to-Many Fallacy", and bigoted to the eyeballs, btw. Even should both hypotheticals evince reality, so what? No shortages of jerks in this world. One asshole just proves that he/she's one asshole.)

    I've had Cali Dems tell me that I "helped get George Bush elected" by voting for Ralph Nader, here in the state where Gore rec'd 2.4M votes MORE than Bush. That called zealotry AND self-delusion.

    there's more GENUINE drama on "General Hospital" than in our politics...or as was said long ago, by another 3rd party Presidential candidate, "There ain't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties."

    AMEN

    --
    Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
  202. Re:Uhm...WHOA...limp response... by Malcontent · · Score: 2

    "and that pretty much says it all about your position, why defend your (indefensible and inchoate) position when you can just spout cheap ad hominem personal attacks without ever having to support your claims?"

    Look man I said I wasn't going to but here I will take one example to show you how wrong you are. In your original post you said.

    " The vast majority of Technology CEOs supported Clinton and Gore, and routinely give big donations to the Democratic Party.

    2. The vast majority of CEOs in the Finance sectors (stock brokerages, investment banks, bond houses) are also Democrats and are amongst the Dems biggest contributors"

    Ok it's the truth but it's not the whole truth nor is it nothing but the truth.

    First of all the tech sector and the banking sector do not form a majority of businesses in this country. Even if both statements are true this still does not represent a majority of CEOs.

    Secondly I would like to see you provide one iota of evidence that "The vast majority of CEOs in the Finance sectors" are democrats. What do you mean by a vast majority? 70%? 80%? Go ahead prove it or shut up.

    Thirdly. Even if a CEO gives more to the Democrats then Republicans the corporation that they oversee frequently give more money to republicans. Take microsoft for example. MS employees give more money to democrats but MS the corporation gives more money to republicans.

    There is no two ways about it. Corporations give more money to republicans and unions give more money to democrats.

    "The "Left-Right" War rubbish you are talking about is disproved by two simple (and recent) votes of Congress."

    Listen if all it takes is two votes to prove something to you then never mind.

    Sure there are times when the parties work together to screw the people but that's because the right VS Left war is only a cultural one. The rich VS poor is the economic war. There is more then one war going on and sometimes the congressman work together to advance their own side in the rich vs poor war.

    "which anyone can respond to with a "NRA Sticker in Berkely" example"

    you know try as I might I can't find an incident like that anywhere. Sure you hear about republicans killing abortion doctors but you don't hear about abortion doctors killing priests. You hear about republicans beating and killing gay people but you never hear about gay people hunting down republicans and beating them. You hear about republicans painting swastikas on synagogs but you never hear of jews painting star of davids on the republican party buildings. I could go on and on. Are gays objecting to republicans being married? Are gays trying to push legislation denying housing to republicans?

    And BTW please don't suggest that all those abortion clinic bombers, gay bashers, swastika painters and cross burners are not republican you know perfectly well they are.

    --

    War is necrophilia.

  203. Re:dirty panties? by plutonium+binky · · Score: 1

    obviously you have never been a woman, otherwise you'd realize that there is no substitute for conditioner. -binky. (spreadin the word about hair care)