Slashdot Mirror
Open Debate Between RIAA VP And DMCA Critic
A GW student writes "The George Washington University's School of Engineering and Applied Science along with the Cyberspace Policy Institute are sponsoring some kind (hasn't really been decided yet) of debate between Stanley Pierre-Louis, Vice President Legal Affairs for the Recording Industry Association of America and Professor James Boyle of Duke Law School. Remember, Prof. Boyle just received an anonymous $1 million to fight the DMCA. The event is open to the public. It will take place on Tuesday October 8 in Washington, DC on GW's campus. The abstract and other details are here. Stick around, and the next day you can go to the Supreme Court to see Lawrence Lessig argue Eldred v. Ashcroft."
It would be good if they would encourage open debate on such subjects before they became la though, but I suppose any law which is bought in the interests of big business is at best one-sided.
This idea was invented by Shampoo.
...the debate should be recorded, mp3 encoded and distributed all over the Internet...
I checked the link regarding the info--does anyone know if the debate will be televised, streamed, radio broadcasted, or transcribed? I'd love to be able to read/hear/watch it somehow.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
A debate and a
Trip to court over two days?
Sounds like a party!
James Boyle's book Shamans, Software and Spleens : Law and the Construction of the Information Society looks like something that I will be getting a hold of. The article mentions a public domain book that I would like to take a look at as well. Anybody got the link?
Prof. Boyle just received an anonymous $1 million to fight the DMCA
Its REALLY nice to see that slashdot sold the members information to spam companies and spent the money some place good! =)
True ravers don't need drugs
I wish I could spend that amount for causes like this...
can't help to think there could be more life- threatening things that could've used it though. If I had 1M to spend on a good cause, this would certainly not have been in my top 10 to consider...
I would assume that there are a few slashdot users out there, who work in different mainstream media outlets. Maybe your in the news department or in tech support. Try and bring this event to the attention of a news director, or reporter. Digital Music is hip and sexy, but the DMCA is invisible. There is what about a 1% penetration in to the American conciousness about it. Sadly nobody cares unless Stone Phillips tells them to. Lets get the word out people.
Under the divine shariah laws of allah we could stone the riaa to death with large rocks.
It was only a matter of time.
unfortunately no GWU students will be there, according to the RIAA, because they are too busy pirating the valuable art of creative powerhouses like brittany spears and shakira.
Despite the appearence of justice for sale, I'd like to thank the anonymous (coward) donor for their contribution. Hopefully, it will help clear the air and let the truth be seen. However, I feel we're preaching to the converted. These issues need to be publicized in a way that reaches the largely non tech public in a way that they can understand the unfair and illegal practices of the recording industry. Hopefully, artists will turn their backs on the cash and speak out for liberty, justice and the pursuit of happiness.
Looks like you got to drag your meat body around instead of using your virtual one to visit the lecture with your game avatar.
[shrug]
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Make sure you say 'hi' to Seth when you are in line all night for tickets ;-)
-- Are you an EFF member yet?
If anyone is curious as to GW's P2P policy, check out the following email which was sent to all students this week.
From: note@gwu.edu
Subject: New KaZaA Application Causes Network Problems
Over the past week, the GW data network has experienced heavy traffic and sporadic problems as a direct result of usage of the new KaZaA Version 2. KaZaA is a popular program used for direct file sharing, usually of media files (music, videos, etc.).
GW's network does not block peer-to-peer applications like Napster, KaZaA and Morpheus in an effort to maintain an open academic environment. However, network administrators do impose some bandwidth shaping on applications such as Napster, KaZaA and Morpheus to lower their priority and keep them from overwhelming all other GW data network traffic.
Unfortunately, the recent release of KaZaA Version 2 is causing network problems. KaZaA v2 is extremely adaptive, and appears to maliciously circumvent all controls and restrictions in place to limit use of bandwidth. As a result, the GW network is being overwhelmed by KaZaA v2 traffic.
Network traffic nearly doubled over the course of a week, overflowing the total capacity. As a result, network latency (the time it takes to return a
response) from GW to our nearest Internet provider increased over 200 times. This led to slowdowns to Webmail, the overall GWMail system and other applications.
ISS network administrators have determined that controls built into KaZaA Version 2 prohibit administrators from imposing bandwidth limitations. As a result, ISS has been forced to impose an overall rate-limit on the student residence halls, which produce the vast majority of KaZaA v2 traffic.
Network bandwidth is a shared common resource. Students who abuse this resource are sapping bandwidth from their peers. Please keep your usage of KaZaA v2 at a minimum and within the legal boundaries.
Please also be aware that KaZaA and other file sharing applications allow other users from around the world to download files *from you*, off of your bandwidth, which adds to the overall load on the GW network. GW strongly recommends that all users disable the file sharing option.
Network administrators and ISS management will continue to explore other solutions and, in the meantime, urge each member of the GW community to do their part in managing this shared resource.
Thank you.
(This message has been sent in accordance with George Washington University mass e-mail policy and procedure. This procedure is available online at http://helpdesk.gwu.edu for review. This message was requested by Information Systems and Services and was approved by the Chief Information Officer.)
Tensions between Free Software and Architectures of Control", which is very informative, as
well as quite funny in parts.
This is exactly what the doctor ordered. As a matter of fact, if this doctor dude kicks that idiot VP's ass in this debate, that (in conjunction with that one congressdude's proposed bill) would bring us TWO steps closer to the destruction of this stupid, RETARDED DMCA.
A man named Boyle, a freedom fighter
He smiled when he challenged a tiger
They televised the fights
Showed consumers have rights
and a Boyle in the face of the tiger.
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
I hope somebody has the presence of mind to WiFi this out, or at least record and share it. I would sure like to listen in. Assuming the RIAA doesn't ban recording.
Everyone knows the RIAA is trying to "protect" the financial security of the music industry. The big selling artists pull in millions for record labels. Less popular artists at least shouldn't lose money for the label given that many artists run under independent labels and still make a decent living. That and a record label is not a government agency; there should be a certain level of efficiency. If executives' salaries are tapping funds, fine, they should be paid less. Either way we need to consider what's behind the collective habits of those that copy music.
One of the biggest problems I see with music copying is that US culture and the music industry have a symbiotic relationship. We crave and pay for entertainment that's snazzy and cool which the industry provides. However, many people don't want to pay for the one hit wonder and the grossly commericialized entertainer (ie Britney, NSync, etc.) since they know they won't listen to the record in 3 months anyway. On the other hand they do want the convenience of hearing the hits they want to hear when they want to hear them. Whether this insatiable demand and need for instant gratification is good is up for debate. On this basis though, the problem is that without a lot of money coming in it is difficult to feed the public more Britney, more NSync, etc. If that's what the public really wants, then they need to pay for it. The old model of deliver obviously doesn't jive with the new trends in demand. What's needed is a new platform and a new way to pay (ie. pay-per-play). Consider a best selling CD. Many people will only listen to every song once while they will listen to one or two of them over and over and over. Very very simply put the industry can calculate the current cost of a record subtract basically the net gain from lower production costs and add the amortized costs of additional infrastructure. The desired result? The public should be able to pay about the same for more accurately what they actually want to hear.
What do I do? Although infrequently, I download songs that I will listen to once or twice. These are generally the Top 40 songs you hear on the radio. I don't know why I listen to them at all. I don't particularly like any of them but whatever. Stuff that I will listen to for a long time (Elliott Smith, Lou Reed, Pearl Jam, etc.) I buy.
sig
Ready on the left, ready on the right, ready on the firing line... Targets!
yellowcat ^_^ ??
This could turn out to be as fair as Gene Ray's demands for a Time Cube debate. "I will give $1,000.00 to any person who can disprove 4 days in each earth rotation." It's hard to argue with illogic supported by illogic and get something remotely cogent. Think presidential debates. Conclusion: garbage in, garbage out.
Anyone renember studying the older debates between anti-slave and free slave supporters, or more recently the debate between communisim and capitalisim. It wasn't long before each side was avoiding debates, or getting into worthless squabbles. It's just a fact of life, sometimes only action can resolve problems.
With both issues, people would cry out, if we could only get along! If we could only communicate! but the problem was not commnication, it was that one side is trying to gain benefit at the expense of others by force or coercion.
The same is true here. There is no equivalancy relationship here. There is no misunderstanding between civilized individuals. There is simply a raw conflict of interest and no amount of debate is going to change that. We should not be debating with them, but within ourselves - what are we going to do about them? How can we break, beat, or contain them?
Im convinced that the only way to do that is by insisting on civil-disobedience of copyright laws whenever possible. It is only then, when we drain them of their revenue stream and power that we will win - otherwise we will just be feeding and strengthening the beast intent on killing us.
Although this is possible, it is certainly not the case. Mp3s are not 'perfect digital copies', yet mp3s are the files that (for the most part) are being ditributed. Perhaps when broadband gives us LAN speeds, we'll see wav files being traded to the point of mp3s. Until then, 'perfect digital copies' (of music) still require access to the origial media. (For most people.)
Most people can still listen to their cassettes and scratchy records and be fine with the imperfections, so mp3s with their ease of storage and portabillity won't be going away anytime soon. People want a convenient way to listen to music, be it 8-tracks, Cds, cassettes, LPs, mp3s, or what-have-you. Wav files aren't that convenient. Yet.
THEY DID LOOSE A SALE Your sale.
Did they? There are lots of songs I hear on the radio or MTV that I kinda like, but not enough to buy them. These are the songs I download. In the "olden days" I wouldn't have purchased it, and I'm not purchasing it now, either, so did they really lose a sale? I've got over 200 CD's in my collection, some were good purchases, some were not, but I've contributed a great deal of money to their industry. I still buy CD's of the artists I really enjoy in order to show my support for them.
But this all just ignores the fact the facts of this case. This is about certain large companies buying people in Congress to pass laws to extend their copyrights so they can continue making money. The creators of these works are long dead, and they didn't have any expectations that their copyright would last this long. Copyright law should not be ex-post facto. The copyright terms at the time you create something should be the copyright terms that apply to your creation.
I know you're a troll, but i can't resist.
THEY DID LOOSE A SALE Your sale. are you then going to go buy what you already own because you know that keeping the copy you have is wrong. BULLSHIT!
You're assuming i would have bought it even if i couldn't download it. It never crossed your mind that if i can't listen to it for free, i am perfectly happy not listening to it at all.
So how exactly did they lose MY sale, if i decided the only price i'm willingto pay to listen to the music is $0.00?
However, I do buy records. Will you argue that the RI has lost a sale because I didn't go out and purchase a new CD? None of that money I spend at thrift stores and garage sales finds its way to artists, labels, or distributors. Yet I get to hear lots of great music for 50 cents an album. Would I have purchased the same album on CD for 9-17 dollars? No.
CDs ARE too expensive. Recent 'Big Label' music is for the most part uninspired and focus group driven. Radio has been taken over by a marketing company. Whether or not you agree with me doesn't change the fact that the RIAA is trying to remove my ability to create and distribute my own music. They are trying to kill first sale rights (allows used cd/record stores.) and fair use (my ability to copy a CD FOR MY OWN USE).
They are extending copyrights far longer than most people live. They are looking out for their OWN interests, yet still want me to eat up the insipid pap they ram down the public's throat.
I make music. So do many others. The RIAA would have it that I would have to go through them (certificates, licencing, copy-restrictions) no matter what I want for the music I create.
To answer your subject's question: "What is wrong with Copyrights?"
Nothing. Copyrights were 'invented' to give an author of a work exclusive use of his/her work for a *limited* amount of time. The copyright would expire after the author had had ample time to make money from their creation. The work would then be placed in the public domain and others could use it as they saw fit. The work could be changed, reworked and released as a wholly new creation. Copyrights prevented someone from taking a work, placing their name on it, and calling it their own. These are the things that copyright was intended for. Your subject and the post that follows are two separate issues.
Copying a CD is not the same as shoplifting a CD. It is the difference between removing a physical item and duplicating a physical item.
(Simile time) The first is like stealing a dollar. The second is counterfeiting a dollar.
I agree that either one denies the author of the work his/her due payment for making the work available. (They didn't have to)
Long winded rant over. Mod to your heart's content.
Wasn't it USC a few weeks ago that outlawed all P2P? In contrast, the GW policy does not seem to have any RIAA fingerprints.
They have not outlawed any of the P2P apps. They are just letting the students know that "GW network is being overwhelmed by KaZaA v2 traffic" and as a result they are issolating the problem down to the residence hall level. Sounds like they are doing what they can to keep the network usable for everyone.
Their email is very informative about the P2P realities in general too. No FUD that I could see.
Kudos to them and their enlightened approach.
I just hope there aren't any fanatics in the crowd. There's a fine line between supporting your cause and driving others away from it, and there are people out there that can't see that line.
At worst, I hope the more sensible people shout down the fanatics that are on the same side.
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
I must concur, but in this case I don't even think it's would be akin to counterfeiting a dollar. Because as you mentioned early on, they wouldn't have gotten your money anyway.
Case in point, I downloaded the Christina Aguillera song Dirty (I know I know, its just so damned catchy, I hate it), I would lop off several of my own apendages before I would throw away my money on one of her CD's, however, that song, for whatever horrific reason, stuck in my head and I like to listen to it. Bear in mind that this is the same song I can pop a tape in the radio and copy off the radio and playback to my hearts contents. But they say that I cannot take this same song, download it in MP3, and listen to it that way....why????
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
Have you seen the video for it? BOOOOIIIIINNNNGGGGGG!
Siva Vaidhyanathan, whom I interviewed for Slashdot (uncut text of the interview is available over here), debated Fritz Attaway of the MPAA (not the RIAA) for NPR's Justice Talking. That debate is ...hearable?... over here .
Enjoy.
-- haaz.
Will there be a transcript made of this?
I would love to attend but seeing as air fare from Australia is a little costly...
If someone knows wether an official transcript will be made, please post it up.
Either that, or record (audio) the thing and put it in your Kazaa folder. Ironic - yes. Effective - you bet. Would I want a copy - hell, I'd pay for one. (but not much - see airfare above)
Create music
However draining their revenue is one of their biggest lies, we should not believe that sharing actually causes the harm they'd like us to believe it causes. Consider what Lawrence Lessig said in a recent speech about sharing online. He had just outlined some of the tactics the large copyright holders propose using against those that share in response to the "harm" caused by sharing (taking down computers over a network was the chief example he gave which he called "digital vigilantism").
I'm going to use his point to serve a different need in this conversation: it would appear that sharing a lot doesn't actually hurt their sales much. When virtually unrestricted sharing was going on the revenue from sales did not drop much.
Another problem with this approach is the harm it creates for a good cause. By purposefully going against the law you are helping the large copyright holders win by making their argument for them. Violating copyright can be a criminal act in the US and prison is unpleasant. Lawrence Lessig addressed this point directly on /. not too long ago. Heed his words in the speech and in his books: we have right on our side but it alone is insufficient to win. We have the better arguments. But we need to get the people whipped up about it. Don't wait for Lessig to win in the upcoming Supreme Court case.
How many of you contribute by dispelling myths about sharing via your local community radio and TV stations? I'm working at my local community radio station to do just that. There is already a fellow there working on a show with similar aims so I am joining him by interviewing interesting people and contributing to his show. I also do guest spots on other people's shows to tell people about the Free Software movement, the pernicious US patent system, and the struggle for what Siva Vaidhyanathan (in his excellent book "Copyrights and Copywrongs") calls "thin" copyright. I encourage all of you to get off your computer chairs and do the same thing--please note I am not talking about setting up yet another webcast. The people we need to speak to listen to AM and FM radio and watch TV. For this purpose, webcasting is a good augmentation of, not a replacement for, traditional media.
When it comes to "feeding and strengthening the beast", keep that in mind when the next Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or Star Trek movie comes out. Keep that in mind when you're pricing a laptop computer or fancy display and you are dazzled by Sony's high-resolution LCD laptop screens. Keep that in mind and buy used major-label CDs or borrow them from the local library instead of buying them new. Your purchases have ethical consequences.
There are better things to do with that money. As Lessig asks later in the aforementioned speech, "How many [of you] have given to EFF more money than you give to your local telecom to give you shitty DSL service?". These movies, computers, CDs, and fancy Internet connections are distributed or managed by the corporations which work very hard to take away your freedom to use extant technology to share information freely. They want to own our culture and rent it to us on very restrictive terms. And so far too many of the people who know most about the problem have done too little to stop our loss of freedom.
So please donate to the EFF. Writing fancy software isn't going to help you when corporations that hate you control the routers your software must communicate through. This is a political problem that requires immediate political action. Supporting EFF is an easy way to help.
Digital Citizen
However draining their revenue is one of their biggest lies, we should not believe that sharing actually causes the harm they'd like us to believe it causes.
I was thinking more of revenues that come from stock options and financing that couldn't be justified to investors unless they have a monopoly on distribution. Even so, I still think that they're a tiny number of artists that wouldn't make out so good (eg Madona) - if the system was fair.
Another problem with this approach is the harm it creates for a good cause. By purposefully going against the law you are helping the large copyright holders win by making their argument for them. Violating copyright can be a criminal act in the US and prison is unpleasant. Lawrence Lessig addressed this point directly on
I saw that, and I think Lessing is wrong. Look, if we encouraged going arround destroying property or buildings etc
Finally, I'm glad you mentioned things like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings - I like these movies too, and I appreciate having them in my life - but the simple fact is that if they went away our cost of living would still be the same, our cost of groceries would still be too, our quality of life would likely be filled with other just as meaningfll forms of entertainment. You can't say the same about the DMCA - it could have a drastic effect on every technology applied to our everyday lives, in a way that is costfull and very inconvenient.
We're so used to being bombarded with hype and crap - that sometimes we just think that's the way it is in a free market system. Bull, it is because copyrights unnaturally skew it that way at the expense of more meaningfull research and knowledge. But a free market system is not about markets, or business, but freedom. When you have the right freedoms than economic strength will come naturally. In fact, you can see this with Linux - how the commercial world fought it all they way, but market forces overwhelmed them and are forcing their hands anyhow.
You can't take it becaus when you get it via MP3 the artist gets no (sp) royalties. When the radio plays it she gets a small sum each time it is aired or did you not realize that radios pay for the music they give you for free.
Same AC who started the thread by the way
When the radio plays it she gets a small sum each time it is aired or did you not realize that radios pay for the music they give you for free.
But when someone tapes it off the radio, and then plays it over and over, the artist gets...? It's no different than downloading it. The original person/radio pays for it.
Well, it seems mr Coward is angry!
I'll just say that when we argue over "Did they lose a sale" or not, it's not a question of "Are you going to buy the CD you've just downloaded". Not at all. In my case for example, I think the Napster period got me to buy more CDs than I would have bought otherwise.
I explain. When downloading 96kbps MP3 over napster, I certainly never hoped to have a "CD quality" music. the whole point of that was to download tons of stuff for the sake of trying it. Then I discovered a lot of new artists and I actually bought some CDs I would never have bought otherwise. In this sense I think having installed Napster on my PC made my buy more CDs...
And for the cookies, please, don't be afraid, storing 50 bytes of plain text on your hard drive will not run you out of space.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
And how does the artist get paid when I buy a used record? Should that be illegal?
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.