Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Infringement In the News
Lots of newsbits about copyright infringement today - let's mash them all together with some egg whites and breadcrumbs and see what we get. marklyon writes "The DOJ announced that they are planning to prosecute filesharers under the The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act. John Malcolm, a deputy assistant attorney general, made the pronouncement at the Progress and Freedom Foundation's annual technology and politics summit Tuesday. Cnet has extended coverage." Reader M_Talon writes "According to this article on ZDNET the RIAA is using one of the DMCA's more nasty clauses...the right to subpoena an ISP for a suspected pirate's personal information. They want to force Verizon to reveal the customer's information, and Verizon is refusing on the grounds that the pirated material isn't on their servers." Reader MattW writes "Apparently some theaters are consenting to run anti-piracy ads before movies. After all, these are not a bunch of fat cats we're talking about -- piracy now threatens the livelihood of the rank and file workers of Hollywood. After all, the movie studios are having a terrible year,
right?" Finally, the Washington Post (probably one of the last articles we post from their site, as they go registration-required) discovers spoofed files on Gnutella, and public radio is reporting that the RIAA will drop their suit against listen4ever.com, since it's, uh, gone.
Brazil has decided you're cute.
1. Don't distribute works you don't own the copyright for.
2. Don't distribute works whose total value is more than $999.99US
3. Don't distribute works whose total value is more than $999.99 US for more than 180 days.
The government kinda shot itself in the foot with this one. It will be damn hard to prove that you have distribute works for 180 days whose total value is more than $999.99US.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Don't get me wrong.. I think the movie and record comapnies should all jump off the highest building they own, but stranger things have happened when they start using their money and suing the average defensless Joe.
I figure they could state it in two different manners
1 - If you had the movie stored on your system and also had a p2p program of any type installed - they could say that sales losses where diretly effected by your sharing of the movie.
or
2 - They could state that if you copied the movie (especially if on DVD), and bypassed their.. umm.. 'security' measures, that you most likely shared that process with others. Thereby cutting into their profits.
Either way the movie and recording companies will continue to strong arm the public until the complete foundation falls apart at the seems. And when it does it will creat a mini-anarchy of a turning point in all of this.
Until then, I suggest that we continue to fight and argue and hold on tight for the ride.
Never try to beat a professional at his own game!
For those that just want to avoid the p2p networks, and instead serve their collection to themselves and to their friends, I humbly offer my software Andromeda, which can be used to stream MP3's and other files. It runs on a web server with PHP or ASP, and works on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X. If you want to control your own media archive, it might do the trick.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
I know everyone's got a point of view on this matter, ranging from "all information should be free at birth" to "all information should be controlled and tolled".
My view is best expressed by first clearing up the confusion about nomenclature.
"Copyright"
I think Fair Use includes the ability to make copies, so I don't buy Jack Valenti's argument that making a copy of a DVD is, or should be, illegal.
Also, there are too many cases where the free flow of information can be unduly inhibited by onerous technical burdens just to protect the current business models of RIAA and MPAA members.
I think they should rename the concept "CopyCharge".
Owners of the current copyrights should have the exclusive right to distribute for charge.
Of course that includes money. But also, in all fairness, I think it should include Napster-like barter exchanges where "if I give you access to X copyrighted material then you give me access to Y copyrighted material".
I think everyone should respect copyright ownership in that way.
Thus, I don't have any problems with them prosecuting people who actually distribute copies of material for compensation when they don't own the "copycharge" right.
I do have a problem with heavy handed tactics where the flow of all digital information is restricted just because of some lawbreakers. It's just like crowbars. Yes, they can be used as burglary tools, but they're also quite useful in many other circumstances.
Yes, please, by all means prosecute actual burglars. No, under no circumstances, should you outlaw tools. That's why I view NET as great, but other laws such as DMCA and CB.... as abominations.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Yeah, I was one of the "thieves" that downloaded Attack of the Clones the day after its release, denying the movie industry of its precious profits.
Oops! I forgot to mention that I waited in line 3 hours to see it on opening midnight, and that I saw it 3 more times, including once on a digital screen. That's $40 for tickets (NYC prices). Yeah, MPAA, that download was one hell of a "lost sale."
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
I wish there was some kind of P2P network to only offer legal content, so that I'd be able to stay away from the crud promoted by the RIAA and its partners. Imagine being able to download gigabytes of completely legal music, which is already available out there but not so easy to find - or tell apart from the mainstream music. If you have a thousand hours of music, are you still really compelled to buy Britney's latest?