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."
Missiouri voters decided he was less fit for public office than a dead man. What more can I say?
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
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!!!
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.
/. readers
would think I got what I deserved.
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
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.
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."
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)...
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
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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
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?
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.
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))"
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))"
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
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
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.
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!
Before the inevitable "you thieves are getting what you deserve" posts please consider the following points:
S hirts
:0)
Copyright covers more than music and movies a few are:
Architecture
Books
Bumper stickers
Choreographic works
Images
News Articles
Poetry
Plays
Sculptures
Software
T-
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
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.
http://saveie6.com/
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.
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
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...
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
-segfault
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}
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?
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.