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.
...if the value of the work exceeds $1,000. Violations are punishable by one year in prison, or if the value tops $2,500, "not more than five years" in prison.
I guess this means that we can copy Crossroads (Britney Spears movie).. no way that was worth $1000
If the RIAA keeps attacking ISPs like this, especially the big ones who are obviously resisting, it may be their demise. Sure, the RIAA has a lot of money, enough to buy people off and pass legislation but the amount of money they can devote to this pales in comparison to the amount of money the ISPs can spend.
Brazil has decided you're cute.
All they're doing is making themselves look even more like the assholes they sure seem to be... Their whole way of dealing with file sharing will go down in history as one of the biggest P.R. debacles of all time. The really scary thing is that these are (suppositely) smart, educated people. Why then do they act like a bunch of scared school children then? I just don't get it. Will someone please explain it to me - like I was a six year old?
is usenet the solution to p2p networks? shhhh, but why aren't the RIAA and MPAA going after giganews, easynews, etc?
Anything you say will be held against you.
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
"The DOJ announced that they are planning to prosecute filesharers under the The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act."
This bill is actually entitled Make'em Stop, Period--No Electronic Theft (MS.NET).
The majority of Americans want to free music. They want to share.
The majority of Americans do not see digital piracy as theft. The majority of Americans also do not see picking flowers at a public park as theft, or sneaking a grape at the supermarket. The majority of Americans drank alcohol before the legal age. Technically, we should all be in prison, but these minor crimes don't really hurt anybody, and so they are overlooked. Why, then, is the DOJ going after file sharers?
Isn't this a fucking democracy? Why is the majority submitting to laws made by the whims of the same companies that release O-Town records and other toxins into the environment? Why am I the only one sending daily letters to his Senator, that Clinton bitch, begging for support for our digital lifestyle?
I don't want to go to jail for pirating the new Pearl Jam or Queens of the Stone Age albums. I bought them anyway, but since I didn't clean them from my WinMX serving directory, i'm technically abetting piracy. This laxness could get me 5 years in a federal "pump me in the ass" prison, and that is wrong. I don't think I deserve it. I don't think my crime is that bad. I don't think that I'm depriving anyone of actual property or actual money they might have actually made, and I don't think the majority would argue with me.
So why are we letting it happen?
Hey freaks: now you're ju
This quote from the anti-piracy PSAs in movie theatres article is way to save the children for my taste:
"downloading movies instead of buying a ticket or a video would hurt the industry's behind-the-scenes workers, including makeup artists and custodians"
Now I am not advocating theft of their property - what I am upset about is the rampant attempts by media to skew your opinions on a subject with emotional connections. Iknow I know... its *always* been happening - but these days it is so much worse than it ever was before - as the causes that the media is used to convey information for are more and more plastic and manufactured.
the media is continually trying to sway public opinion through emotional manipulation. Putting you in a position where if you dont agree with the opinion or dont have the emotions they want you to then you're automatically a terrorist - or hate the children etc....
(I know I am not articulating this as well as I would like... but I think that you get the point) I am just so tired of the slant that is put on all the information out there. Is there no place that I can get information - generic and straight forward without the emotinal buzzwords and hyperbole??
"Apparently some theaters are consenting to run anti-piracy ads before movies."
My city's big theater already has a poster on their ticket booths saying 'Pirates Not Allowed...blah blah blah...MPAA' with a picture of a pirate.
Our plan is to go into the theater with a video camera and one of us dressed as a pirate and yell out "Arrr...thats discrimation".
Hehe...just something to do to toy with those coporate bitches.
forget it.
Was anyone else a little miffed at the chart to the right of the Washington Post article which seemed to imply that increasing blank CD sales were the cause of the leveling off of CD sales? Could it *possibly* be that blank CD sales rose so much higher because blank CD's were being sold at commodity prices? Now a good number of those blanks may very well have been for pirating, but I'll bet a good number of them were for software backups, saving personal photos, and other legitimate uses.
Music CD's, OTOH, have remained at the same stinking price (for the most part) for the last 5 years. Want to sell more of something when the demand/market share ISN'T increasing? Do you want to actually slow piracy? Charge a reasonable amount for a product that's in LESS demand! These guys just can't seem to understand that the CD buying market itself is not the same as it was 25 years ago -- thers is just too much supply for the demand.
Hmmm, I hope someone puts it up on KaZaa or else I might never see it....
I know this has been pointed out before, but isn't the whole point that they go after copyright infringers and not the software makers that produce napster and kazaa?
Now, granted, they are doing both. But we can't bitch when the government is going to prosecute the people who are infringing on copyrights. Just because the RIAA is involved, and the term DMCA has been used, does not mean that what is going on is wrong. Say what you will about "but the RIAA is EVIL!", it doesn't make infridging on their copyrights right (as in anywhere close to legal), and they and the justice department has every right to take people who do to court.
Now, you may also have issues about current copyright law. Granted, it isn't very good, but if you want the copyright law changed then bitch about the copyright law to your congressmen or representative. Don't take a stand on this issue, as far as they are concerned everyone who trades music on the net is a criminal, and you can do nothing about that. Convince them that the copyright law is way to long, many of our problems would go away if we could reduce it to something sane like 10-15 years.
And for all of those "we'll make a better system based on trust to trade music files" but don't want to play the political game, you are idiots. Who do you think they are going to prosecute? You and everyone else who uses that system. The only fight we have is in politics, there is no technical solution to this problem. As much as you would like to think you'll win this battle whipping up some code in C, you are going to find there is nothing you can code that will keep the handcuffs off of your hands.
</rant>
" Chernin argued that piracy will not only hurt creators of original content but also consumers if movie studios lose so many ticket sales that they begin cutting expenses. He said online piracy does not seem to have the same stigma as shoplifting.
m l
Chernin also decried efforts to download copies of the latest Star Wars installment. About 10 million people tried to download "Star Wars: Episode II -- Attack of the Clones" and "Spider-Man" in the weekend after its release, and 4 million succeeded, he said. "
It just struck me as odd that the two movies the guy is talking about made just a little bit of money. from http://movies.yahoo.com/boxoffice-alltime/rank.ht
#5 Spider-Man $403,820,726
#13 Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones $298,843,836
where you can get arrested for listening to music.
Is it just me, or has this gone too far. It's time to break out some good old vigilateism on these control freaks. Time to organize.
Gee... Hollywood isn't having a terrible year this year because they release stuff like xXx and Spy Kids 2...nope... it has to be the media pirates...
At different points in the United States, the majority also thought that Women shouldn't be able to vote. Not too long later, a majority of the US thought that segregation was legal, and that discrimination was fine. However, the governemnt stepped in and determined that, in these cases (and many, many more) the majority of the US was wrong. We live in a democracy, but we are not ruled by a mob.
In other words, we listen to the majority but protect the individual from that same majority. We have copyright laws for a good reason, and they should be protected.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
In related news the RIAA has begun a lawsuit against anyone with the sensory organs known as 'ears' and the throat muscles and tissue responsible for sound creation (refered to herein in as the 'voice box').
This combination allows millions to 'listen' to any music and then replay it back by 'singing' the song. This will allow thousands to hear songs without purchasing them. The ramifications on the CD industry by these criminals is completely real, and must be stopped, according to the RIAA.
The lawsuit is believed to exclude deaf-mutes, though they are being examined for the ability to feel vibrations and possible replay them by tapping the rythm out on any surface available.
No Electronic Theft Act. Ok.
Here's the definition of theft:
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position ; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
Emphasis mine. That should be easy; no file sharing programs remove files from RIAA hard drives. Problem solved!
Uniform enforcement, on the other hand, or even the widely-publicized appearance of uniform enforcement, brings the issues out of the geek ghetto to where the voting public confronts it.
Best thing that could happen would be for the RIAA to file criminal charges against Aunt Martha for letting her friends copy her Burl Ives recordings.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Am I the only one that sees the obvious connections between what the RIAA/MPAA are doing and the actions of Communist despots?...For that matter, has anybody noticed how much Jack Valenti looks like Chairman Mao? Or how much Hillary Rosen looks like Josef Stalin?
I don't recall either of those people as Communist despots. They were despots, but they dropped the "Communism" act right quick once they had a stranglehold on things. Pick up a history book. It'll do you some good. For that matter, read the Communist Manifesto. It's not as scary as your McCarthy-addled parents obviously taught you.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Anyway, I think that they are using a wrong approach to tell people that software or any other piracy is a bad thing. Currently, it seems that they just wish to publish the capture of the big fished. What I suggest, is that they would nail a couple of "innocent" senior citizens with one pirate CD instead. Anyone, who is not nowadays thought as a pirate but still has one or two illegal copies will do. That should make people think.
Meanwhile, they should ofcourse nail the big ones too, but these joe average cases are the ones that should be passed to media, I think.
The most frightening thing about all of this is how the corporate copyright holders are redefining the definitions used in the laws.
It's obvious that these laws were passed with the intent of punishing people who copy and sell copyrighted material for financial gain, meaning money. But they are so scared by Peer to Peer sharing that they have simply redefined "financial gain" to cover any exchange of anything by anybody.
People have a deep urge to share. "I'll give you a copy of mine if you give me a copy of yours" is not motivated by financial gain.
But now a law that was designed to prosecute the guy who runs off a 1000 copies of Photoshop and sells them through the mail is being used to make a criminal out of me, my kids and virtually everybody I know.
Chernin argued that piracy will not only hurt creators of original content but also consumers if movie studios lose so many ticket sales that they begin cutting expenses.
Well well. While the rest of us are cutting our expenses and companies are going bankrupt left and right, the darling movie industry can't seem to even comprehend the concept.
I'll start to feel sorry for the movie industry when they actually lose money for a few years in a row. Actually I won't feel sorry at all, I'll feel like the theory of evolution has just been validated.
The RIAA has bludgeoned its way into a critical issue here. The subpoena provisions only apply to material covered by 17 US 512(c), material on a service provider's system or network at the direction of users. The question, then, is whether or not a system owned by the user of an ISP is on that ISP's network or not.
My take on it is that it's like the phone system; anything upstream of the NIB belongs to the phone company and is on their network, anything downstream is on the user's network. This works for DSL and dialup, and a similar line could be drawn for cable. Unfortunately, it's quite possible that a sufficently incentivized court could decide that by using an ISP, you are putting your computer on THEIR network, and thus 512(c) applies.
This would be very bad, not just because of the subpoena clause. This would allow 512(c) takedown notices of items stored on your own machine. Host your own website with material the RIAA doesn't like? If it's on YOUR network, 512(a) absolutely protects your ISP from any monetary liability regardless of any takedown notices, and against injunctions in most cases. They'd have to sue you directly to get results.
But if the courts rule that your website is on your ISPs network, they can send a 512(c)(3) takedown notice, and your ISP would have to either cut your website off immediately or risk liability.
When the corporations are the ones writing the laws... whats the point of following them?
Unfortunately, the government is now the enemy of the people, the only option is civil disobedience (that is, not changing the habits we have such as copying cd's for our own person use which used to be perfectly legal)
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
The labels are also supporting a bill, now under consideration in Congress, that would make it legal to "impair the operation of peer-to-peer" networks, such as LimeWire. That could be done, for example, by overloading file-sharing services with so many requests that they slow to a crawl.
And does Congress realize that this will also affect everyone up and down the line, including the backbones, the ISPs, and other users on the same nodes in cable broadband systems?
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
Apparently, John Ashcroft has ordered the building of enough prisons to incarcerate the entire US population.
Does that mean they plan to put all Americans in jail and start a prison-labour based economy?
This space left intentionally blank.
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?
Yeah! After all, we ALL know that it's OK to steal from people if they have more money than you. The bastards!
If you're going to make a point about whether something is right or wrong, it doesn't help your case to bring out irrelevent facts about how rich someone is. Right is right, and wrong is wrong.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
"It seems Listen4ever has performed a disappearing act. If it stays offline, the RIAA will withdraw its suit later today."
I always thought a good Slashdotting would smack the RIAA in the eye, never thought it'd happen this way though.
I guess going after the WorldCom and Enron executives who
....
perpetrated massive fraud and theft on their shareholders,
employees, and customers is just too hard for the DOJ. It's
much easier to surf the internet for tunes, subpoena an ISP for
personal records (thereby avoiding doing any work), and bust a
14 year-old kid who can't afford a new CD since his Dad was
was swindled out of his job and pension by the economic
damage resulting from widespread, unprosecuted corporate fraud.
A troll?
Moderation in everything, including moderation.
Where does this guy get off quoting that 10 million people tried to download Episode two in the first weekend? That's a mighty bold statement. I'd like to see Chernin back it up with some facts or supporting evidence. How did he log or track all these attempts? How does he know that 4 million were successful.
It is in fact Some Wild Ass Guess (SWAG). He like the rest of the RIAA droids pull these numbers out of their ass and Congress is accepting them at face value. It's pure bull!
It's as ridiculous as it would be for Linus to stand up and say that 5 billion people attempted to install Linux and 3 billion were successful, making his operating system the most widely used in the world. How would he possibly know?
"All this smacks of desperation," says Eric Garland, president of BigChampagne, a company hired by major labels to measure online file-sharing traffic. "When you've got a consumer movement of this magnitude, when tens of millions of people say, 'I think CD copying is cool and I'm within my rights to do it,' it gets to the point where you have to say uncle and build a business model around it rather than fight it."
You'd think they'd get it eventually, but I guess some people never will.
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."
This isn't flamebait. I hate the RIAA/MPAA and will continue to do what I can to prevent them from castrating technology to the point where its just another content delivery system.
That being said, is prosectuting end users for copyright violation bad in itself?
The absurd technological measures that they are proposing to "protect" their content will have far reaching and long lasting implication on what we can do with our hardware (whether or not I ever load file sharing software or "consume" any of their content).
Prosecuting someone who shares a bunch of teeny-pop (who is probably a minor) seems to be a much less damaging use of their money.
So let me get this straight. Because they are supposedly losing money to file sharing (which lets say they are) they've had to ditch artists, slash budgets for tours and videos, and reissue music out of their back catalogues.
Now, consider the recent trends in music with many many really crappy bands being made by the record companies for the record companies (think N'Sync, Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, etc.) and also a number of not really all that good bands getting publicized to death. Now think about some of the music in their back catalogues (Pink Floyd, The Who, The Doors, Steve Miller Band, Santana, The Eagles, Billy Joel, Eric Clapton, Phil Collins, Bruce Springsteen, etc.. etc.. etc...).
Is the fact that people would rather buy good music than the crap the RIAA has been forcing down peoples' throats so surprising to the RIAA? Hell, if anything the supposed lost revenues seem to have made an improvement!
The Ten Commandments of the RIAA:
1. Thou shalt have no entertainment before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any device by which thou mighst render my copyright protection ineffective.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of Britney Spears in vain, for I will not hold him guiltless who disrespects her.
4. Honor Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti, that thy days of entertaining thyself might be long and pleasurable.
5. Thou shalt not download MP3s.
6. Thou shalt pay inflated prices for thine CDs.
7. Thou shalt pay unto me a tax for the blank media which thou acquirest, compensating me for heathen pirates.
8. Thou shalst allow me to search thine computer at my fancy, to ensure that you are virgin from illicitude.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's MP3 collection, lest ye be tempted to download MP3s from him.
10. Thou shalt not seek out alternatives to me, for I am the one true RIAA.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
One where the authorities are powerless to stop those things that they hate, and where they couldn't identify those using it?
I've been thinking about something like this, ever since reading William's Otherland. In it, there is a virtual reality network only accessible to the hackers of the world, by invitation only. Completely non-technical, not to mention VR, but it started me thinking about how you could go about something like this.
If you care to hear more about this, read my work in progress page about it...
WARNING: I do tend to rant a bit, so it's not exactly prim and proper.
There were already plenty of tools for enforcing copyrights. Why do we suddenly need a whole new raft of laws because of the Internet?
If the companies really want to go after major P2P nodes then they can do the legwork and file a civil lawsuit just like they did against the guy cranking out VHS tapes in his garage.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
It's even wierder, because if you explore the law in more detail, distribution is very clearly later specified in punishments. I'm not sure, but I believe this law says that receipt is a crime, but unpunishable. Strange.
C//
The ultimate goal is to retire the so-called "Red Book" CD standard that was developed in 1980 by Sony and Phillips, and which is embedded in nearly every recorded compact disc sold today.
I own a 200 disc DVD/CD changer made by Sony. I have nothing but good things to say about this product, as it plays CD, CD-Rs, and DVDs quite well. It has one minor issue though: it won't play anything but Red Book compliant CDs. For example, I have to burn copies of all the CDs I buy that use the new "Enhanced CD" format in order to use them in this player. The replacement cost for this product is US$800. The exact player I own is still for sale in the US. Anyone want to venture a guess as to whether Sony will be liable if they deliberately make this product obsolete and fail to warn potential consumers?
I have no incentive to replace this player if it is made obsolete by the RIAA. Whatever anti-piracy technology they create will be cracked and then I'd be forced to replace it again with the next anti-piracy-compliant music technology. No thanks.
Both attempts to control technology in general and the draconian NET act penalties should be rejected in favor of this sort of rational and just approach.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I would to remind everyone that it is the 10 year aniversary of Ruby Ridge. The U.S. Government can and will take your P2P software away if it wants and if you resist...you are dead!!!
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
I honestly have to wonder whether the music industry paid to put propaganda on the front page of The Washington Post, because David Segal has been around long enough to know better than to write a piece like "A New Tactic in the Download War" (8/21/02).
Segal repeatedly points to falling sales of CDs and implies that piracy is the cause:
"The record labels have been spurred to action by figures they find terrifying: The number of 'units shipped' -- CDs sent to record stores or directly to consumers -- fell by more than 6 percent last year, and it's widely expected to fall 6 to 10 percent more by the end of 2002. Those drops are already hitting the industry hard. Labels are laying off employees, ditching artists, slashing budgets for tours and videos, and combing their back catalogues for reissues that cost almost nothing to release."
Yet he neglects to mention that every industry has been hit hard and is laying off people -- even the news media. If CD sales fell 6 percent last year, I'd say the music industry is doing extremely well, because the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell about 9 percent in that same period (including the post-9-11 recovery).
Segal goes on to say sales are "widely expected to fall 6 to 10 percent more by the end of 2002." Guess what? The Dow has fallen over 10 percent since the beginning of the year, on top of last year's 9 percent loss, and the economy is widely expected to get worse. Could it be that people are spending less money on trivial things like CDs because they have less money in their pockets? Or because their retirement savings have been wiped out? We would all like to be patriotic and buy an album a day, but one must have priorities. At least until CDs become edible and wholesome.
"There's evidence, though, that Americans are spending more time than ever listening to CDs," Segal continues.
What is Segal's evidence?
"Market surveys suggest that more blank CDs (CD-Rs) than recorded CDs are now sold in the United States."
Perhaps Segal could explain how an increase in CD-R sales constitutes evidence "that Americans are spending more time than ever listening to CDs."
CD-Rs are also facilitate fair-use activities. The 40-something who has just discovered CD-Rs decides to put his deteriorating record collection on CDs so he can listen to them for years to come. The 20-something creates a custom mix of his favorite songs from several CDs so he doesn't have to take his eyes off the road to change discs on his way to work.
CD-Rs are also used to archive data. We live in an age where the data repositories we depend on, from the computers in our homes to the physical documents in the World Trade Center, are no longer safe. They can disappear in an instant when anything from a software glitch to a terrorist attack occurs. It stands to reason that people look to the CD format to archive their tax documents, emails, family photos, scans of their kids' artwork and anything else that's important to them.
What mother couldn't turn up enough content to fill a spindle-full of CD-Rs a month? And as she realizes the potential for storing memories and documents, she begins to collect even more. She takes more digital photos and more video of her family. She starts scanning in old family photos and scanning the catalogues for a moderately-priced DVD-R burner because she needs more space.
CD-Rs are also quickly replacing the floppy disk. Floppy disks wear out, they are susceptible to magnetic fields, they don't mail very well, they're slow, and they only hold 1.4 megabytes of data. A DSL user can download 1.4 megabytes of data from the Internet faster than he can read 1.4 megabytes of data from his own floppy drive. CD-Rs will not wear out in your lifetime (unless you microwave them), they are impervious to magnetic fields, AOL has proven that you can transport them in many creative, inexpensive ways, they offer fast data transfer rates and they hold at least 650 megabytes of data. There is also evidence of a growing market for CD-Rs to be used as frisbees, travel mirrors, cetrifuge shrapnel and kid-safe Chinese throwing stars.
However, Segal's "evidence" proves nothing about American listening trends.
Segal also mentions the music industry's support of a bill that would make it legal to "impair the operation of peer-to-peer" networks and follows it up with a quote from RIAA chairwoman Hilary Rosen in which she announces that the industry has a "history" of being "generous with consumers," and that it is simply looking to enforce its existing rights.
Segal tries to present the appearance of a balanaced story by noting that the bill's "strategy has generated plenty of skepticism." This is true. However, the only skepticism he cites is the industry concern that "foolproof locks... don't exist in the digital realm."
He neglects to mention the larger concern: that the wording of the supported bill would make it legal for the music industry to attack any network it "suspects" may contain pirated files. It allows big business to engage in unrestrained vigilante justice on the digital frontier with the kind of attacks that have brought down major Internet services like Yahoo and ETrade in the past. These attacks are currently federal crimes, for good reason. The bill would give the music industry the legal authority to shut down any service on the Internet indefinitely, without a court order or subsequent review. The Washington Post may want to bear this in mind the next time it publishes an unfavorable review of a music album.
This shoddy journalism smacks of the kind of factually incorrect propaganda corporations distribute in their press releases.
Segal's article fits well with the music industry's propaganda campaign. At a time when the bill is being considered in Congress, a front-page story in the only Washington paper that ends up in every Congressman and Senator's office highlighting the alleged need for legislation to save the industry and combat lawlessness is worth its weight in gold.
I find it exceptionally difficult to believe that the music industry could "buy" this story. I also find it hard to believe that a seasoned reporter like Segal could be lazy enough to write this article and that a front-page story would not undergo the scrutiny necessary to uncover its deep holes and steep slant. The most plausible explanation I can find is that The Post is so genuinely concerned about the implications of the bill it wants to secure its place on the industry's alleged "generous" side.
Then I wanted to move some DVDs into a form I could actually watch on a plane (pda), cause my laptop screen is too big for cattle class and I find that even owning such a tool would make me a felon...
And now I reflect on how the DoJ wants to make these bold statements, but when it comes to protecting me from
1) having my software cracked and put up on a foreign site (along with a lot of other victims)
2) having my 401K raped (actually I don't invest in tech, but I still got nailed due to overall market misery)
they could care less about me or any other average citizen other than when some entrenched interest thinks we need to have something else taken away from us.
I come to the sad conclusion that the government that governs me does not in any way shape or form represent me or my interests. It's getting worse every day, and the common consensus at this time from the system to the average slashdot reader is that we're criminals, and anything done to us is perfectly fine, but anything we do is inherently bad.
Methinks the time for massive digital civil disobediance is upon us. Since we're all already guilty before the fact, since it's perfectly OK to assume we're bad and act accordingly with zero proof, who the hell wants to be hung for a sheep. Time to be a wolf, I say.
Prosecuting file sharers will definitely cause many to stop sharing. Why risk these ridiculous penalties. So, we can have off-shore servers; these will be cut off if things continue as they have. Other tech solutions can be legislated to death as well.
Most understand that it is the business model that is dying, not music (though some of the shit out there...). All businesses strive for a Monopoly. Most of the time they find it better to divide the territory among the survivors in an ologopoly. An ologopoly is much the same as a monopoly except to stay busy, the MBAs trade a few points of market share back and forth, and they wait patiently for the mistake that will crumble the other, so they can take credit and get a few million more options.
Seems like the real conflict is 'how does one achieve economy of scale without granting so much power to the faceless company that the customer becomes an afterthought to the real money made through manipulating the Stock market?'
Thoughts?
It would be good if the File Sharing software had a feature that allowed users to lookup who their representatives were and let them know how they voted on legislation that affected the P2P technology. The software should provide a brief summary of the legislation and how it would hurt what I'm currently doing.
If politicians get the idea that millions of people who use such software will know if their representatives are screwing them, it could be deterrent.
Maybe some sort of e-mail feature can be built in that allows you with the press of a button to send a message to your representative that you intend to vote against them in the next election if they vote to approve some legislation.
People will most likely not act on their threat, but politicians won't necessarily know that.
>The DOJ announced that they are planning to prosecute filesharers under the The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act.
All the more reason for people to help the Freenet project by writing code for it. Freenet is designed to protect the identity of the people who make files available, the people who download them, and even the location of the servers the files are stored on.
From the bit on the anti-piracy warning:"These are people's livelihoods at stake. It's not just a bunch of fat-cat Hollywood people," Well it is fat-cats, but it isn't JUST fat-cats.
On a different note, I'm kinda sad the RIAA dropped it's suit against the ISPs. I was looking forward to finding out if AT&T would fight the RIAA if they thought they had to protect their common carrier status, and if the RIAA had bitten off more than it could chew. It could have been interesting. Then again, its more likely that AT&T would have just settled quietly, and that would have been sad.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
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!
Given all the over-the-top histrionics about the RIAA, I'm a little surprised about not hearing much from people who actually make a living selling entertainment? Is the RIAA right? Is file sharing costing you money? Perhaps you make most of your money from concerts and clubs, and see file sharing as just one more way to get new fans? Or, maybe you make your money from CD sales, and see it as a real threat?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
copyright laws don't fall into the category of laws you are describing (laws which were created to protect individuals from the majority mob).
Copyright laws were put in place purely and simply for the good of the public.
Lord Macaulay, in his famous 1841 speech before the house of commons, succinctly summarized the reasoning behind copyright laws in the English speaking world:
The advantages arising from a system of copyright are obvious. It is desirable that we should have a supply of good books; we cannot have such a supply unless men of letters are liberally remunerated; and the least objectionable way of remunerating them is by means of copyright.
The preamble of Article 1, Section 8 of the US constitution also states the purpose of the copyright and patent powers (if not their scope):
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Copyright does not protect authors, it creates a bargain between the public and authors whereby the public refrains for a period from unlicensed copying his works in return for his producing those works. The idea of natural rights to intellectual property have been around for some time, but they are not the basis of copyright, nor have they ever carried much weight until now.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Red Hat's next distribution will probably be available in a month or two. So this is as good a time as any to ask everyone to make the ISOs available on as many file sharing networks as possible.
I had put up 7.3 on Gnutella with limitied success. A few people downloaded some chunks.
If RH 8.0 (or whatever) gets spread around, not only will we have saved the mirrors from several days of hell, but also demonstrated very clearly a legitimate use for these networks.
Thank you for your support.
"The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
What happens when someone finally builds a machine that allows you to duplicate simple objects?
We will we not allow a device this fantastic to exist?
That would suck.
MjM
I never mod down...
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
So I read that the music companies are now pumping out faulty versions of popular file sharing tracks to consume people's bandwidth. This kind of simple technological sabotage has a limited shelf life and an air of desperation about it. The street finds its own solutions, as the cyberpunks are wont to say, and within a short space of time I expect to see a new generation of file sharing applications emerge that have the notion of weighted trust built into them. Something like EBay's trust system combined with a "PageRank"-like weighting, but anonymous, and based on community "votes" for the legitimacy (or not) of checksum-verified, datestamped tracks. Perhaps using public keys created exclusively for that purpose. All the required technology bits and pieces are already out there so it's just a matter of time.
Da Blog
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?
If there is ONE person that has downloaded a song without paying for it, the industry has been damaged by EXACTLY that one song. QED.
I phrased this wrong. I should have said:
If there is ONE person that has downloaded a song without paying for it that would have bought it if they hadn't been able to download it, the industry has been damaged by EXACTLY that one song. QED.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
While you make some good points, there is one significant change that we've not evaluated in depth yet.
By the DOJ trying to apply the NET law, the cost of protecting the copyrights is being shifted from the copyright holders to the Federal government, i.e. to the taxpayers. In contrast, a trademark infringement case requires the trademark holder to file suit and press for action. There is a significant difference between a civil violation and a criminal offense.
Apparently, this is justified by the 'vital' role IP play in the US economy. An interesting question to consider is: WHY is the copyright holders is such a privileged positions vis-a-vis the other IP holders? Does the FBI help Coca Cola protect its brand? Does the DOJ investigate patent infrinements??
So that's the MPAA's secret strategy!
Drive DeCSS off the 'net by making so many bad movies that nobody will ever want to use it.
I mean, sure, downloading and burning a 650M DiVX of "Battlefield Earth" beats subsidizing the Cult of $cientology by watching the movie on DVD. But simply smashing a blank CD-ROM with a hammer and giving your an enema with the shards beats both options, and the enema doesn't waste 650M of bandwidth.
According to this BBC News article "The average (increase in box office recipts) across 21 European countries was 76%".
Are they saying that sharing copyrighted files in the US is *THAT* bad?
Or are they just FUD dumping
The significance didn't sink in the first time I read it. : "permits a copyright owner to send a subpoena ordering a 'service provider' to turn over information about a subscriber. It is not necessary to file a lawsuit to take advantage of the DMCA's expedited subpoena process. "
I wonder what the requirements are to use this expedited subpoena. I suppose it is written so that only large corporations may take advantage of it. But if it isn't, imagine being able to go to an ISP and say "I think this guy at your IP address is breaking my copyright and I need to know who he is." the next time some llama stabs you in the back or rips you off in Everquest or whatever. Boy, that is a law that sure is written to be abused.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
You hit the nail on the head. "No, we can't be expected to minimize costs to improve profits! You should pay us more!" Telling statement on their part.
Perhaps the checksums of files could become an integral part of gnutella, so that spoofed files show up as "different" even though the filesize is the same. But, I guess then clients would be hacked to provide spoofed checksums, so then the clients would need to be checksummed... :^)
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
let's punish the music industry for stealing the artist's money...
Absolutely nothing is stolen from the artist. Nobody puts a gun to their head to sign a contract. Nothing stops them from starting their own record company.
let's punish the theaters for stealing our money claiming we are paying to see the movie. if that were true, why would they make us watch all those ads before the movie?
Because the ads subsidize the ticket price. Or maybe you can tell me exactly where you were promised that you would see no ads? If there were no ads, there would be higher ticket prices.
let's punish those who become rich off other people's work. they don't earn the money, they indirectly steal it out of the working man's pocket.
Guess what? Contrary to popular belief, it's the organizers of society who are the most valuable in society, not the "workers". If you didn't have the people who organized record companies, artists would sit around all day playing their guitar and bedding chicks at night, and you would never hear them. You think the average artist has the skill to put together a mass distribution mechanism? Ha! fat chance based on the artists I know.
or... let's just sit here, throw our lives away in low paying jobs, and feed the fat.
People are paid EXACTLY what they are monetarily worth. And that's based on supply and demand. Always has, always will. If you want more money, then be more in demand, or in shorter supply. Or not. It's up to you, but don't whine because some people are more monetarily valuable than you.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Travis Daub notes of his download of Moby's "We are all made of Stars" "It was just 20 seconds of the song, repeated over and over," (from the Wash Post article)
Actually, that's the whole song.
"
people they come together
people they fall apart
no one can stop us now
'cause we are all made of stars
"
Repeat as desired...
What? I cannot distribute works I own? As in owning the actual copyright like the guy said? That is crap-- you do not know what you are talking about. The entire purpose of copyright law is to entitle the copyright owner to control the distribution of his/her works. A person that owns the copyright to a work is free to distribute that work or tell others they are allowed to distribute the work.
If I create a song or movie, it is perfectly legal for me to distribute it on a p2p network--just like it is legal for me to distribute it via the web, a CD, a CD-ROM disk, a DVD disk, or even written on my underpants. Next you'll be saying I can't write something down and "distribute" the note to a friend because that note is automaticly copyrighted under the Berne Convention.
That CD prices aren't determined by the normal laws of a free market. If you take something like, say, computers where more or less one is an acceptable substitute for another than yes, the price will find it's ideal point. The problem is that CDs do not compete with eachother since each offers a unique experience (well ok, that's debatable with pop music). At any rate it is possable, and I would even say likely that the rcodrd companies are NOT charging the ideal amount of money. I believe that if they dropped the price, they would start selling enough more as to make more money (remember the whole elasticity of demand curves from econ 101).
Yes it is.
Which part? I think you might be reading the Bible by mistake.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
No one will care until this whole mess is left, wheezing, flayed and bleeding, on everyone's front steps. No mother will care until her son is dragged to jail for downloading a CD.
If these folks want to get hard and dirty, we'll see if they survive the Gotterdammerung they kick up. Let's have them get all jokey-pseudo-government on us, and see how far it gets them.
In the meanwhile, please carry on as you always have. That, at base, is its own justification.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
I'll take issue with that.
A capitalist takes money, and uses that money to produce something consumers want. Consumers buy the product, giving the capitalist a return on his investment.
Contrast this with what's going on with RIAA vs. the consumer.
The consumer has said, time and time again, that he/she wants MP3s without copy protection created from sources without copy protection.
But RIAA does not want to sell what the consumer wants. They're only willing to use their capital to produce and (attempt to) sell things consumers don't want (DRM-crippled streaming services). Seeing this fail, they then use their capital to buy laws that will put anyone else in jail for the crime of providing what consumers want.
Now, I've got lots of words I can use to describe that sort of behavior. "Filthy" is on that list of words, but "Capitalist" sure as hell isn't.
How convenient it is to look on the past and shame people for the way things were. Slavery wasn't anything new, nor was misogyny, nor was segregation. There's still a caste system in many parts of the world.
None of these things were changed until a majority decided that they were wrong. It took a majority to decide to grant women the vote. It took a majority to pass the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960's.
Individuals are not to be 'protected' by copyright laws; they are to be rewarded for contributing to the public good. What individual is protected by having the image of a cartoon mouse still under copyright? Only if you believe in the legal fallacy of the 'corporation as a person' can you infer this.
Given that your username begins with 'Marx' (which I assume is reference to Karl Marx, but if not, skip this sentence) I find that possibility... amusing.
Yes, I'm sure that some human being somewhere has been protected by copyright. But how is it not tyrannical to remove the rights of millions for that one, heretofore nonexistant, individual?
With the exceptions of Dr. Dre (who is more a representative of the recording industry than an artist. Has he done an album since "The Chronic"?) and Metallica (who have unusual contracts, in that they own much of their own work), most artists seem to favor at least sampling of their works.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
What is something horrible happened, if someone *gasp* wrote a virus to infect a computer... a virus that shared all .mp3 files on a port on the P2P network.
RIAA: We want to bust you for sharing your Meatloaf(TM) "Bat Out Of Hell(TM)" song.
YOU: I was infected with the Windows.P2P.FluffyBunny.Share virus, not my fault.
It is NOT A LAW that you MUST HAVE ANTIVIRUS RUNNING! With this virus running around, you are now a VICTIM. Any thoughts? Proggies, talk to me!
This issue could have been put to rest a long time ago, but lately, I've been thinking that somehow, both sides enjoy this sordid, mutually dysfunctional association. On one hand, you have the RIAA, which repeatedly cries fowl in response to consumers who steal their content. They seek increasingly repressive laws that govern how, how often, and at what cost, we can listen to or watch our chosen entertainment. On the other hand, we have the consumers who repeatedly justify their acts of theft, citing unreasonable practices by the RIAA with respect to quality, price, and control. Yet, the consumers continue to unload huge piles of money into the pockets of the very corporations they criticize.
When are consumers going to realize that the only real control they can exercise over the RIAA will come through heir ability to shove their wallet back into their pocket the next time they're thinking about forking over their hard-earned money to buy a CD, DVD, or video? Stealing does nothing to solve the problem - it only makes things worse. As long people continue to engage in copyright infringement (theft of content), the RIAA can justify its actions (whether these actions are reasonable is another question altogether). Consumers can speak much more loudly and much more clearly if they ditch this crack habit, tell the RIAA to keep their content, and either save their money, or spend it on something with a greater ROI.
Perhaps what thay have been deprived of is the right to absolute control over the way the products of their imagination may be consumed. While I think reasonable copyright laws should protect an artist's right to some control over distribution, that isn't what current laws do at all, and these people (whose actual connection to the work is little more than a contractual fiction), are pushing for even more abusive laws. The right they claim to be deprived of is not their right at all, at least not in a society with reasonable interpretations of intellectual property, which perhaps ours is not.
<RANT TYPE="wild offtopic pseudo-psychoanalytical speculation">
</RANT>On another note, the **AA can't have it both ways in their interpretation of what "theft" is. Either I am buying the DVD or I am buying the "right to watch it." If I am not buying a DVD but only buying the right to watch it (in a certain techno/social context - but let's leave that discussion aside for the moment), then when a thief steals the DVD I should get it replaced free, right? The usual argument in response is that the copyright owner should not bear the cost of theft against me. But the thief only stole the actual DVD, not the right to watch it! As far as the law is concerned, at least as they interpret it, the thief's viewing the actual DVD is still illegal, and mine viewing a "pirated" copy is entirely legal, since I have purchased from the media company the right to watch that movie.
...I took to playing the drums. Don't like commercial software?...write your own code. Don't like commercialized schlock albums?...make your own music.
Or do all of the above from elsewhere in the world until the Americans sort their mess up.
I believe Joe and Mary GeneralPublic will be very angry when straight-A Johnny GeneralPublic II gets ten years in jail for sharing those N'Sync songs. Joe and Mary might even consider start voting, and in anti-RIAA candidates.
Money, as a means of exchange, has stayed around for a very long time. Do you really expect the entertainment industry would continue if they couldn't make any money? If you think successful artists don't like all that money coming in, dream on....
All this self-serving noise about the so-called "right" to steal copywritten material is only going to prompt more legal restrictions on the Internet.
So, thanks a lot, guys, for messing it up for everyone just because your selfish.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
And it could be argued that this is what is driving the thorn in the media industry's side - the Black Market. Inflated prices, questionable quality, hobbled products, and antiquated marketing and distribution methods are just some of the issues that have created a rich environment for copyright violation and even actual commercial trade in counterfeit / pirated products.
The RIAA and MPAA may not like the market conditions before them... but additional legal action will not make it go away. Over the last decade (or two), the environment has changed. If they are truely suffering - and let's not forget that is highly suspect - it is their own failure to the market.
Of course... this completely ignores other issues. Perhapse the real issue is not the market but control. But that's an entirely different topic.
Want to talk about market demands, ok let's do it. Currently the demand for music in a consumable form is very very very very very high. Now, let's draw some graphs so you can see what I'm talking about. Take out a piece of paper and draw a set of axis. Lable the x axis quantity and lable the y axis price. Now law of supply and demand tells us that consumer demand is downsloaping, so draw a downsloping line in the graph. Supply is upsloping. So you should have a grph that looks like an X. Now, somewhere above where the 2 graphs cross, draw a horizontal line. This represents the $16 price floor that there appears to be for CDs. Now, where that horizontal line crosses the two graphs. Note the quantity (x axis) that are being supplied and the quantity being demanded. Notice how there is less demand at that price? Do you see why the RIAA is loosing money? Now, look at the graph where the price == 0 (right on the X axis) notice all the demand, but notice that obviously the RIAA can't produce at that point. Now, see where supply and demand cross. We call that the equilibrium price. If the RIAA wants to dampen and nullify the effects of piracy (note I did not say eliminate that is IMPOSSIBLE) then all they have to do is let the price fall untill they are making normal profits (economic term meaning making ends meet) with out loosing money. That would be the equilibrium price. The reason they won't do this is because at equilibrium, they don't make economic profit, or "money with which to line one's pockets". That's market demand for you, it works for consumers and businesses, not just consumers.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
NET only includes electronic 'theft'. Is this because they wanted to use the word 'electronic', so they could make the cool name 'NET'? What about fibre-optics - if i transferr data through a fibre optic cable then thats isolating the 2 electronic circuits...
Why is copying bits considered theft?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
From the title of the ZDNet article. "RIAA asks court to expose pirate"
So what, theft AND indecent exposure?
I'm suprised they didn't link to this article:
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-954651.html
"The vast potential of broadband has so far benefited nobody as clearly as it's benefited downloaders of pornography and pirates of digital content"
Chernin, the president of the owner of the Fox corporation, decries the Net's lack of morals. Isn't that delicious?
"The truth is that anyone unwilling to condemn outright theft by digital means is either amoral or wholly self-serving."
Irony meter going off the scale!
Make no mistake about it, this is a culture war with trillions of dollars at stake. It is becoming more and more clear that Hollywood isn't just being greedy, they actively hate and fear the Internet. They would destroy everything we have built rather than adapt to reality.
expect similarly vast amounts of money. If Scott McNealy left Sun, most of Sun's major customers would probably still trust the hardware, software and services
Then maybe the Sun stockholders should fire him or reduce his pay from the 3-5 million dollars hes getting per year.
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
So.... Junior posts to KaZaa, and Daddy's home computer is seized and torched? Oh, that's nice.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
One of the few sensible posts about this issue in a long time (and that includes mine).
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
You are denying artists the right to earn a living. There's no precedent that all creative people are willing to work for free. While we're at it, who's going to pay for all the infrastrucuture that's distributing all this free, utopian, art? Who's going to pay the actors? The stage crew? Who's going to build the theaters? Who's going to pay for the paper used to print books? Who's going make musical instruments?
The open source analogy doesn't wash, either. The open source movement wouldn't exist without a commercial OS called Unix. Torvalds wrote one kernel for one OS, and he followed the path set by Unix. The BSD's are derived from Unix code that someone was paid to write. The Gnu folks have contributed most of the other core pieces, a gret part of it written before Linux appeared on the scene. That doesn't bode well ss a model for a wide and varied range of artistic efforts. There's been very little innovative software coming out of open source. Yes, the concept is innovative, but most of the software is derivative. And, none of that was possible without an Internet that someone else pays for.
While I think you have a naive and unsophisticated notion of what it means to be a professional creative person (it means earning a living selling your art), eventually the law will change to accommodate itself to new technology. In the meantime, the law is the law, and possessing technology that enables you to do something doesn't always make it legal.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Of course it's lost revenue, because all the times you saw it on your computer were times you didn't see it in the theater!
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Not all property is physical
It should be, otherwise it is unnatural and is at odds with personal liberty. What if some alien from Andromeda suddenly shows up and arrests everybody on earth for infringing on their intellectual property? We'd be royally pissed and we'd kick its freaking arse back to its home planet!
Let's face it, if you cannot put a fence around it or put chains on it, it does not belong to you. Makes no difference whether it is ideas, writings, software, movies, music or what have you. Once you've released it, like the air, it belongs to nobody and everybody.
The point is this: If the entertainment industry (and book authors, screenwriters, artists, inventors, etc...) don't want to see their work copied by others, they should not release it to the public in a form that can be copied. They should release their work only in closed theaters, concert halls, and other private venues. Inventors should keep their ideas secret or be the first to exploit it.
Don't trample on our personal freedom with your fascist, selfish and anti-social intellectual property laws. After all we benefit freely from the ideas and inventions of others. Let's put some back for a change.
Don't distribute works you don't own the copyright for.
How is it possible to write a song without infringing on an existing copyright? There exist fewer than 50,000 possible melodies in the Western musical scale. So how do I check that the song I just wrote isn't "substantially similar" to some song that was played on the radio 10 years ago?
Will I retire or break 10K?
If I create a song or movie, it is perfectly legal for me to distribute it on a p2p network
Not necessarily. If a song you wrote is "substantially similar" to an existing song, the copyright owner of the existing song may have grounds for legal action. How does a fellow make sure that the melodies in your song aren't the same as any other song released in the last 95 years?
Will I retire or break 10K?
The copyright on the song "Happy Birthday" is owned by Warner-Chappell, the music publishing division of AOL Time Warner. Because the song was first published on or after January 1, 1923, it falls under perpetual copyright on the installment plan (19-year extension in 1978, 20-year extension in 1998, who knows what in 2018).
[ Read More ]
Will I retire or break 10K?
I wish there was some kind of P2P network to only offer legal content
Performers not supported by RIAA labels do not have access to RIAA A&R and thus do not have access to songwriters. They must write their own songs. But problem: Just about all possible melodies are taken. So how again can such "legal content" exist?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Then come marketing and promotion costs -- perhaps the most expensive part of the music business today. They include increasingly expensive video clips, public relations, tour support, marketing campaigns, and promotion to get the songs played on the radio. For example, when you hear a song played on the radio -- that didn't just happen! Labels make investments in artists by paying for both the production and the promotion of the album, and promotion is very expensive. New technology such as the Internet offers new ways for artists to reach music fans, but it still requires that some entity, whether it is a traditional label or another kind of company, market and promote that artist so that fans are aware of new releases.
Hmmmm. Two ways for the public to hear the music for free. P2P sharing or this very expensive promotion to get the songs played on the radio. Seems like maybe RIAA is complaining about being squeezed out of a very lucrative racket.
The Jews never create anything. They are the parasites who wedge themselves between the producer and the consumer.
Yes, you're right!
Thank God der Furher understood what a sham that "Jewish Science" is, and got rid of all the Jew scientists and their Communist friends!
I mean, what good would Einstein or Fermi have done for Germany? It's not like they could have built an atomic bomb or anything.
Oh. Whoops.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
There is a difference between the NYTimes and Washingtonpost registrations:
The Post uses third-party cookies, potentially sharing your personal information and newspaper reading habits, with data from other sites.
This is, in my opion, a greater threat to privacy, especially as inferences about one's politics can be made from what news stories one is interested in.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
I suspect it's pretty simple: Slashdot editors, commendably, don't want to post a lot of links to articles that can't be accessed by whomever is reading the Slashdot story.
Registration sites can only be acessed by those registered, and then only by those willing/able to store cookies or whatever otehr authentication mechanism the registration-only site requires.
I'm generally not going to be willing to register at some site to read a single article. Certainly not if it's not free, but realize that the time required to register, and the parting with personal information, are also real costs.
The New York Times is something of an exception, because a) it's a "newspaper of record" b) it has a large and good science section, compared to other newspapers, and c) registration is free and not too onerous. So Slashdot editors expect that some larger proportion of Slashdot readers may already have NYTimes registrations.
The Washington Post's registration policy is more onerous, as it uses third-party cookies, increasing the chance of privacy being undermined, and making it simply harder to access for those of us who manage cookies. (In fact, I've not been able to register with washingtonpost.com, even with cookies down; presumably it tries to do fancy javascript, which I also block.)
Simple analogy: it would also be just impolite to link to articles that required a browser extensiion -- like Flash -- to view, as many Slashdot readers would have to decide beteen foregoing the article or installing some plugin about which they might have performance or privacy concerns.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
...and public radio is reporting that the RIAA will drop their suit against listen4ever.com, since it's, uh, gone.
Well, of course it's gone. It appeared on Slashdot's front page, didn't it?
I doubt, therefore I may be.
The RIAA doesn't get excited if you tape off the radio. The reason is that if you like the song, you'll buy the CD so you can hear every nuance on your stereo system.
MP3s have been shown to be similarly effective promotional tools. (I'm working with an indie artist, and we will be distributing MP3s in as many directions as the RIAA has left to us.
CDs are the product, NOT MP3s and not tracks played on FM Radio.
People will not buy a record without hearing at least some of the songs on it.
People will pay for full quality. For lower quality just good enough to tell if it's worth buying, the MP3 or FM radio song is perfect.
To expect us to pay for either the MP3 or the FM tune is to expect us to pay the musician or label's promotional costs upfront even if we don't know if it's worth buying or not.
The record industry's objection to MP3 as a promotional tool is that anybody can play.
Sony can upload MP3 to a P2P network or an Internet radio station for $0.00, and if people like it, they'll buy it. They have absolutely no problem with this.
I can do the same, and their knowing that is why they're trying to unplug every method of getting music to the public via the Net they don't have monopoly control over.
This isn't about piracy.
Would you pay to hear music on FM radio? Is a 128K MP3 worth the same as an uncompressed CD audio track? Neither will I. Does RIAA really think 128K MP3 audio is a real product they can make money off? If they did, they would have done a far better job with their industry MP3 distribution.
While making money off MP3s isn't impossible, the people who do this must remember that the service is NOT about selling MP3s, it's about selling access to pre-sorted / pre-classified tracks so the user can get a chance to sample the kind of music she likes before buying the album, and without spending hours every day trying to find a band that plays the kind of music she likes.
The best solution to the problem would be to create new law that provides for mandatory licensing of the sort that exists for broadcast radio for MP3s(or OGG or whatever) with quality compable to that of FM radio, with anyone broadcasting it paying the same royalties as is paid for use of FM. What an Internet broadcaster would be paying for is a stock in trade, while each song is without commercial value in and of itself, a collection big enough to make 24/7/365 streaming reasonable means that you can get a listening audience, which is of commercial value. Of course, the major Internet Radio stations were already doing this. The idea here is to provide a legal shelter for broadcasters. Protecting an RIAA label monopoly on access to the public is not a proper objective of public policy to anybody buy the Congress-shitbags 0wn3d by the major labels...
Go to 256K MP3 and one has something almost indistinguishable from the original, which means one is selling a musician's stock in trade, to do that without the owner's consent is piracy.
The whines about MP3 piracy causing losses to major record labels are about using the Feds to enforce a monopoly over what we are allowed to hear.
If YOU join in the whining, you're what Lenin called a "useful idiot", carrying the can for organizations who are neither your friends nor that of musicians.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Read the comment about monopoly......
Lets say I'm the worlds best drain cleaner, i can clean drains like no-one else and enjoy it.
All the local (100miles around) drains are owned by a big company that requires I sign my soul over if I wan't a job.
Now I could setup my own drain company, but I'm good at cleaning drains, not running companies.
I could work for the independant drain company that works a couple of blocks but I think I'm much better than that.(I'm the best drain cleaner in the world).
So my choices are,
Move away to somewhere where the big drain company has no nasty clauses.
Work for the big drain company and sell my soul
Work for the small drain company and not get the recognission I deserve.
Get a different job and be unhappy for the rest of my life.
Which one would you pick?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I think that the government should intervene before this line...
'People perceive that the recording studios are the only way to make it in the music industry.'
Theres a couple of ways they could do this,
1: Teach all kids to think of everyone as a lieing cheating bastard until they can proven otherwise.
2: Have a general morality schooling.
the problem is that no one would go for 1 and it's just stupid the problem with 2 is that the powermongers would impose there 'truth justice and the american way'(sic)'sudo christian' morality on everyone which is what the caused the 'when I grow up I'm going to be a big holywood star' problem in the first palce.
The only thing that can be done is to bring up your kids in a liberal way and try to inform evryone about what's going on, though taking away the morphine drip might be a tricky thing to do?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
That's like saying all possible DNA sequences have been created. IDIC: Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.
In melodies, there is not an infinite sequence of notes to choose from. Had you read the article I linked to, you would have discovered that a songwriter can get taken to court for matching four notes of an existing melody, which is fewer than infinity.
No, the real problem is that music artists are getting lazier and less creative.
I have written software to test that hypothesis, by generating random sequences of note intervals, and you know what they sounded like? Copyrighted pop songs from the 1950s through the 1990s.
Will I retire or break 10K?
>> f I can get a copy of a work through the internet and there are no costs associated with me getting it, then it should be free. That is the fair and efficient way to organize society.
If a create my own CD and give it away free on the Internet as the sole means of distribution, how am I supposed to recoup my costs and make a profit?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
And a good communist always bases his arguments on class warfare!
It's just best to place michael in the "No, I don't ever want to see articles from this moron" group.
From now on, I will "encode" the real filenames of all my files using a cipher that uses song titles from RIAA protected artists.
As a result, when I put my perfectly legal files up for sharing, the RIAA lawyers will undoubtedly see them and try to sue me for copyright violation.
It seems like I could then turn around and sue them for attempting to bypass my copy-protection by reading the filenames (which are my chosen cipher) -- using the DMCA, as well as wrongful prosecution, since my files are NOT illegal warez.
That is true, but we still want to hear our band's new songs
The ability to hear your band's new songs is trivial considering the overall ramifications - your favorite bands are as much a part of the problem as the RIAA itself. The whole system is a morass of mutually-dependent dysfunction.
I'm not going to stop listening to ALL my favorite bands to get this done. Asking the world to do that is pretty ridiculous.
I'm not suggesting that anyone stop listening to their favorite bands, but I am suggesting that they stop buying (and stealing) any future releases until the RIAA adopts a more consumer-friendly way of doing business. What's rediculous is the notion that people can't muster enough self-discipline to do this for the short period of time it might take to manifest some real change. Gotta have that crack, I guess.
You're comparing apples to oranges. The act of borrowing (from the library or a friend) and the act of acquiring (legitimate purchase or theft) are completely different. After all is said and done, there is still just one copy of the book, and the book, along with any intrinsic value, remains with the book. The only way you can equate your example with the current practice of stealing digital content, is if everyone who read the book, copied it. In all seriousness, how often do you think this happens?
Yeah, and the EPA can put you in jail because you emit too much carbon dioxide. Countless companies can sue you because just by sending that message to slashdot, you infringed upon hundreds of patents--many of them invalid.
If you are forced to settle a frivolous lawsuit because you do not have the money to defend yourself in court, <cliche>then the IP terrorists have already won.</cliche>
Yes, there are some stupid judges out there
Not only are copyright owners able to shop for a favorable judge, but other judges often have to follow their precedent under the rules of the common law.
If you are so worried about this issue, then why don't you start your own organization. You can call it "Falsely Usurped Copyright Musician Endowment." ;-)
I wonder if the EFF could help out on this.
I also noticed you conveniently cut off my sentance at p2p. The other methods of delivery I mentioned would still have the same risk.
I understand that. I cut off the sentence after the first method you happened to mention. Had you mentioned MP3.com first, I would have cut it off after that.
Should the public get wind of such crap
The American public gets much of its news from television, and all of the major for-profit broadcast television networks except for NBC are owned by motion picture studios, who do not wish to inform the public of the expansions of their monopolies. (AOL owns CNN, the WB Network, and Warner Bros. Pictures; Viacom owns CBS, UPN, and Paramount Pictures; Disney owns ABC and Touchstone Pictures; News Corp. owns Fox Network, Fox News Channel, and Fox Searchlight Pictures. NBC's news operation is a joint venture with Microsoft Corporation.) Note that they ran no stories when the Bono Act or the DMCA was passed.
And your sig about "an 800 pound cartoon elephant" applies beautifully to the asymmetry of power between big corporate copyright owning plaintiffs and small individual coincidentally infringing defendants.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The placement and content of your post certainly indicated that the anon. cowturd was right in saying people don't own the copyright to works they create. Maybe you should take a look at the Copyright Office's website
That wasn't exactly what I meant. What I meant was that a person may not own the copyright to a work he claims to have created because he did not actually create the entire work; he copied substantial portions (four notes) from another work. I don't want to leave plaintiffs any room to maneuver because I don't have any money for legal representation.
and getting Nazi laws passed
What's a "Nazi law"? There are no National Socialists in the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate.
absurd little technicalities that were used 80 years ago.
But has Congress repealed such technicalities, such as four notes equaling substantial copying? If not, the precedent remains on the case-law books.
Will I retire or break 10K?