Slashdot Mirror


Kazaa And Exportation of U.S. Copyright Laws

Mr. Vidster writes "Interesting article in the NYTimes about the potential issues the U.S. justice system must face when dealing with Sharman Networks and KaZaA. Apparently Sharman and KaZaA have servers in Denmark, source code in Estonia, and the developers live in the Netherlands. How far does the long arm of US copyright law reach?"

159 of 422 comments (clear)

  1. As far as it wants to. by drhairston · · Score: 5, Informative

    Jon Johansen can answer that question for you, and he is only a teengager.

    --
    Dr. Joseph Hairston
    Superintendent, CCBC
    1. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Jon Johansen can answer that question for you, and he is only a teengager.
      I presume you meant teenganger when you misspelled that. The USA will not stand for these Russian mobsters trying to destroy our way of life. One day you let a teenganger go free and the next day he gets recruited into a terrorist organization. Sorry, but certain things must be done to preserve the American way of life on Earth. If one of those things is to kill this renegade teenganger Johansen then so be it. Down with teengangers!

    2. Re:As far as it wants to. by halftrack · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are better examples, Jon Johansen is being prosecuted according to norwegian law. Certain US criminal cases come to mind (like Skylarov.) And some people's (IIRC just like Alan Cox') fear of traveling to the US.

      --
      Look a monkey!
    3. Re:As far as it wants to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US may indeed have a lot of implied power but don't mistake that for the ability to indoctrinate other countries with US law. They enjoy their freedom to have their own laws just as we do here in the US.

      File sharing is not going anywhere folks.. Not with programs out there like Direct Connect, FileShare, Kazaa and need I mention the millions of ftp sites out there?

      These arguments are SO old. I download movies and games.... if they are worth keeping, I buy them and if they are garbage I delete them and never bother again. If not for this process I would not bother to buy anything(as I have done for years because frankly I dont like blowing money on a game and or movie and then hating it).

      What I also find hilarious about the copyright argument... The RIAA says music sales are down due to d/l's of mp3's and the various other formats of music; however, I guess our current state of the economy would have nothing to do with the decrease in sales? I wonder if they compared other times of poor economy with their sales trends if they would be comparable to the downside trend they have been noticing.

      Just a thought. :-)

    4. Re:As far as it wants to. by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 5, Informative

      Being a Norwegian, I must say that I suspect the Johansen prosecution is all about appeasing the USA. We are allied with the USA, and the USA is an important trade partner as well as defence partner.

      If we did not attempt to prosecute Jon Johansen, it would look like we did not care about the views of the USA. Rather, we will try him in a Court of Law using Norwegian Law. Most domestic IT law experts expects Johansen to win. It will be trying for the poor kid, but he will go loose and the USA will be moderately satisfied we at least tried.

      That being said, I believe the WTO agreements are the papers to look for when researching the scope of Intellectual Property law.

      --

      Stop the brainwash

    5. Re:As far as it wants to. by WizardX · · Score: 3, Interesting
    6. Re:As far as it wants to. by thomas.galvin · · Score: 5, Informative

      What I also find hilarious about the copyright argument... The RIAA says music sales are down due to d/l's of mp3's and the various other formats of music; however, I guess our current state of the economy would have nothing to do with the decrease in sales? I wonder if they compared other times of poor economy with their sales trends if they would be comparable to the downside trend they have been noticing.

      I wonder if they compared their situation to other times providers of non-esentiall goods were guilty of price fixing.

    7. Re:As far as it wants to. by uradu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > not to mention Dmitry

      Well, he got nabbed when he set foot on US soil. That's different from US law reaching overseas. I don't know if Russia would have extradited him.

    8. Re:As far as it wants to. by Eppie · · Score: 5, Informative
      Jursidiction is really not that complicated here. If you avail yourself of the benefits of doing business in America, then you are subject to the laws of America. Everybody likes to pretend these are novel issues, but American courts don't find them to be that difficult.

      What follows is a repost of my two-secondprimer on personal jurisdiction on the internet:

      American civil procedure provides for jurisdiction over foreign companies that do business in America. The theory is that if you come to America and avail yourself of our markets, resources, society, labor, and laws, you are bound to obey our laws. This does not mean that you can be sued in New York if you offer goods for sale in China and some American happens to buy them while on vacation in Beijing. It does mean, though, that if you knowingly advertise in America, ship goods to America, or provide services to American clients, you can be sued in America for violating American law.

      On the Internet, this analysis is a little complicated because websites are accessed internationally, and it is difficult to detect what country people are really browsing from. Still, efforts can be made to exclude certain jurisdictions. For example, Lindows.com [lindows.com] used to have a message [google.com] on their website that refusing to do business in Washington state. This is because they were trying to avoid being dragged into court by MSFT in Washington state.

      There is plenty of caselaw on this emerging area of law:

      • A Blue Note jazz club in Missouri was sued by the Blue Note jazz club in New York. A NY court held that the Missouri club's website, though viewable from NY, did not create jurisdiction in NY because the club was a strictly local Missouri operation. (Bensuan Rest. Corp. v. King, 126 F.3d 25)
      • Likewise, Cybersell of Arizona sued Cybersell of Florida for trademark infringement and was denied jurisdiction because Cybersell of Florida was not really offering its services to Arizonans. (Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414)
      • OTOH, Zippo (the company that makes lighters) sued Zippo.com (a company that provided fast news updates) in Pennsylvania. Since Zippo offered its news service to netizens across the land, including PA, they were adjuged to be doing business in PA and thus were amenable to suit.

      As the cases make clear, there is a sliding scale that stretches from (1) passive website relating to local activities to (2) interactive website offering services to anybody across the land. Elcomsoft sounds a lot more like Zippo than it does the Blue Note jazz club in Missouri. If they are offering their services to Americans and offering downloads to Americans, they have to expect that they might be sued by Americans in America.

    9. Re:As far as it wants to. by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wish you Europeans would gird up your loins and tell our president to go fuck himself.

      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    10. Re:As far as it wants to. by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Germans tried, but your Chuck Norris-loving prez didn't quite enjoy that.

      That being said, war on terrorism is widely seen as internationally divisive from a non-US perspective. We feel that the war has not been carried out according to intentions.

      Still, world against the US of A would be in interesting spectacle. You would be severely limited in your options by your access to oil on a medium-term basis.

      --

      Stop the brainwash

    11. Re:As far as it wants to. by dogfart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If you avail yourself of the benefits of doing business in America, then you are subject to the laws of America.

      Given the amount of oil the US imports from Saudi Arabia, it sounds like a good argument could be made for enforcing Saudi laws in the USA. We should expect US citizens to now face lengthy jail terms for possessing copies of Sports Illustrated's swimsuit edition, for possessing and consuming fermented beverages, etc. And don't forget the public executions for things like adultery.

      If we can tell other countries what their laws must be regarding software, then they can expect us to enforce their laws about equally important moral sanctions.

      Fair's fair, right?

      --

      "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

    12. Re:As far as it wants to. by DaytonCIM · · Score: 2

      Rather, we will try him in a Court of Law using Norwegian Law.
      I hope so. The US Justice Department has a funny way of changing it's mind about respecting another country's laws. One minute the Justice Dept says: go ahead, do it yourself. Next thing you know their crying that you are not doing enough, the threat to the US is now greater, and they want to take over.

      WTO agreements are definitely a good source. You may want to check out:
      1) NATO agreements,
      2) INTERPOL agreements and procedures, and
      3) whatever extradition treaties the US may have with Norway.

    13. Re:As far as it wants to. by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the issue of jurisdiction is whether a court has power to try someone. Assuming that they both applied the same rules, our courts probably would not have a problem with foreign courts claiming jurisdiction over Americans who had been operating businesses abroad.

      Enforcing the outcome of a trial OTOH is trickier.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    14. Re:As far as it wants to. by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wish you Europeans would gird up your loins and tell our president to go fuck himself.

      If you vote for Democrat or Republican, you have no right to complain.

      I never vote for either party. I personally vote Libertarian. I have the right to complain when the rest of the shit-wits in the US vote for "The lesser of two evils."

      Now, when more people wake up and stop electing EVIL (lesser or not), maybe the rest of the world won't think we're all so evil.

      When I voted, I was telling both Bush AND Gore to go fuck themselves. What were YOU telling them?

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    15. Re:As far as it wants to. by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mmm yeah, except the Libertarian party is economically conservative....meaning screw you as long as I've got mine, a.k.a. what poor people?

      16% of the US population is living below the poverty line, that's the highest that number has been since 1970. And you want to vote Libertarian so we can elevate that number?

      Nope, as far as the poor are concerned Libertarian and Republican are the same thing.

      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    16. Re:As far as it wants to. by Tassach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, we have plenty of our own oil. We're just saving it for after we've used up everybody else's. Plus, it's cheaper to buy it overseas. They don't have any of those pesky enviornmental protection and worker safety laws to drag profits down.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    17. Re:As far as it wants to. by Skevin · · Score: 4, Funny

      > I presume you meant teenganger when you misspelled that.

      I presume you meant äppleganger when you misspelled that. What's an äppleganger, you ask? Sometimes, parents (especially of Germanic origin) leave their children home alone in front of the PC, only to come home and find some hideously altered travesty (actually a Fey Changeling) sitting in front of a machine that is no longer recognizable as a PC: gone are the beige overtones and sharp corners, only to be replaced with unacceptably nonconformist colors and sweeping, slanting curves. Such an abomination seeks to corrupt all surrounding mortals with ominous mantras such as "Think Different!" or "Switch!". Even the desktop is oft times different (although Gnome users are not as likely the same foreboding disorientation as others). That, my friends, is an äppleganger.
      Our boy Johansen seems to fit the racial profile of the changeling victim, but his computer... I just don't know. Could it be that the Norweigan Police are in cahoots with the sinister Faerie King S'Teef Chobbs and quickly returned the computer, recoginizing it for the instrument of destruction it truly is? Perhaps we have more to fear from these äpplegangers than we truly realize.

      Solomon

      --
      "Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
    18. Re:As far as it wants to. by pumpkinescobarsof2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      im a candian and i feel it's high time YOU (the american people) told YOUR OWN president to go fuck himself.

    19. Re:As far as it wants to. by swb · · Score: 5, Funny

      Libertarians are Republicans that like getting high and watching porn.

      Greens are Democrats that can't get a trade union job or don't work at all.

      Where I live there's almost always some wingnut racist biker running for president. That's who I vote for.

    20. Re:As far as it wants to. by tuxlove · · Score: 3, Informative

      US Copyright law extends as far as the US has influence in the world.

      This has nothing to do with US copyright law and everything to do with international copyright law. I do not defend the RIAA, but feel obliged to note that copyright law is extended *both* directions through international treaty. IANAL, but I at least understand that US copyrights are honored elsewhere, and foreign copyrights are honored in the US. At least in theory, and excluding "pirate" countries and countries without at least a modicum of stability.

      It's truly obnoxious the way the RIAA chooses to defend its copyrights. But the implication that the US is somehow overstepping its bounds by going after pirates outside its borders is ludicrous. These "foreign" countries have *agreed* to protect the copyrights of US entities, just as the US has agreed to protect theirs. It's the RIAA's heavy handed tactics that are the problem, not their belief that they have the right to protect their copyrighted works.

      What's really in question is the legal interpretation of copyrights outside the US with regard to file sharing. To that end, the US can only work within the confines of the legal systems of the countries in question. They may display an excess of testosterone when dealing with the legal systems of these countries, but in the end the say is not that of the US legal system. The DMCA does not apply because it is not recognized internationally.

    21. Re:As far as it wants to. by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nope, as far as the poor are concerned Libertarian and Republican are the same thing.

      There is certainly merit to that argument, and I won't deny that economically, a Libertarian president could do almost exactly the same damage a Republican will do, except there are major differences that matter to me...

      A Libertarian wouldn't take every opportunity to bomb the shit out of other countries...

      A Libertarian would oppose things like the DMCA...

      A Libertarian would work on laws that punish real evil people without trying to take away every last civil right we have left.

      If you don't like the Libertarians, don't don't have to vote for them. But if you can honestly say you LIKE this bullshit "Two Party" system we have, then I think it's safe to assume you don't mind having your rights slowly taken away.

      More important than that, if you ever vote for any one candidate you don't like just to "take votes" from someone you like even less, you're just as guilty as the person who doesn't vote at all.

      If everybody voted for the candidate they truely felt best represented their views, I highly doubt we'd ever see anyone like Bush in office again.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    22. Re:As far as it wants to. by hyphz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Jursidiction is really not that complicated
      > here. If you avail yourself of the benefits of
      > doing business in America, then you are subject
      > to the laws of America.

      But this isn't quite the case. If I'm running a firm in the UK (for example), then I'm subject to the taxes and business laws of the UK. If I get orders from the US, it's harder - not easier - for me to ship them. Do I then have to be considered subject to US law simply because people from the US choose to use my product?

      Or does the fact that I have an Internet presence automatically mean I just want to sell to the US? Ah yes, of course, they're the biggest Internet users so I must have an interest in them if I use the net. (Never mind that there are still more non-Americans using the Net than Americans - they just aren't all in the same country.)

      Hey, how about some ISPs set up a ".nonus" domain which has no routers or hosts in the states?

      The other problem is it's an aberration from standard law. In every other country, and for every other type of illegal material, there's a simple argument: if you import a product from a country where it's legal, but it's illegal in YOUR country, then customs swipe it and kick YOUR ass. That's reasonably fair.

      The precedent followed by this law would imply further things - like, for example, many other countries suing US gun manufacture firms because the guns they make are being exported to countries where they're illegal.

      If Americans don't know about their own DMCA and don't know that they can't legally download or use Kazaa, why should Dutch people be punished for giving them the option, when doing so isn't locally illegal for them?

    23. Re:As far as it wants to. by sjlutz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would, except I'd probably be arrested. I'd tell the rest of the American's that keep voting for our idiot leaders to go fuck themselves, but I'd probably be arrested too. So I'll continue to vote for the person that everyone wants to win, but no-one votes for because he/she won't win.

    24. Re:As far as it wants to. by blibbleblobble · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay. Fair enough. So your website then, the one generating money from adverts. Availing yourself of the french market? Enjoying coming to France and doing business in france? Right. You've lost your freedom to hold nazi views.

      Enjoying coming to Germany and availing yourself of the German market? Excellent. You've lost your right to compare your product with others in adverts.

      Website accessible from Zimbabwe? Sorry, lost your right to critisize the government there. Ditto in Burma and America.

      Availing yourself of the japanese market by benefitting from showing them adverts? Congratulations, you can display child-porn there. Unfortunately, you're still doing business in America, France, Germany, Burma, and Zimbabwe, each of which prohibits it. Moreover, you're doing business in Saudi Arabia, where the penalty is beheading. As you yourself say, policemen in your own country have an obligation to enforce the laws of the country where you do business.

      Any more? If your banner-ad statistics show that you get paid for chineese web-browsers accessing the adverts, you'd better take the christian literature off the site. And of course, any criticism of the chineese government.

      Pretty much the only place you're safe is Russia, because the US police will protect you from Russian law, and Australia, because they're firewalled and can't access the internet.

      Welcome to the free market. Aren't American legal ideas great?

    25. Re:As far as it wants to. by abe+ferlman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, we tried, but his brother runs Florida. What's Canada's excuse? :)

      --
      microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
    26. Re:As far as it wants to. by aebrain · · Score: 2

      Pretty much the only place you're safe is Russia, because the US police will protect you from Russian law, and Australia, because they're firewalled and can't access the internet.
      Firewalled are we? I didn't know that. To prove it, please give a small list of, say, 10 - or even ONE - site that can't be accessed from Oz. Excluding those that involve goats, minors etc.

      You see we may have legislation in effect that says "block all the kiddie porn" but in fact no-one here's come up with a way to do this effectively. Either you don't block what you want to, block what you don't want to, or (usually) both. So no blocks are actually in place that I've been able to find. Of course, I wouldn't know what I can't see, would I? So tell me. Thanks.

      Otherwise I'll consign this to the realms of "Urban Myth".

      --
      Zoe Brain - Rocket Scientist
    27. Re:As far as it wants to. by parliboy · · Score: 2
      Firewalled are we? I didn't know that. To prove it, please give a small list of, say, 10 - or even ONE - site that can't be accessed from Oz. Excluding those that involve goats, minors etc.

      We'd love to, but your government won't tell which sites they blocked.

      --
      "You're never ready, just less unprepared."
    28. Re:As far as it wants to. by M@T · · Score: 2

      Nice spiel...

      Do yourself a favour and replace every mention of America and Americans with France and French, or any other country for that matter. Then see if your comments sound nice and even handed.

      eg.

      . If they are offering their services to Americans and offering downloads to Americans, they have to expect that they might be sued by Americans in America.

      becomes...

      "If they are offering their services to the people of France and offering downloads to the people of France, they have to expect that they might be sued by the French in France."

      Case in point: Yahoo

      --
      'sapientia potestas est'
    29. Re:As far as it wants to. by aebrain · · Score: 2

      The EFA site lists a number of sites blocked by one particular tool, iFilter that was supposedly going to be installed in some schools (as of 1999). One "recommended" by one particular Senator in 1999. A simple keyword searcher, and not a particularly good one. That's it.

      FWIW I had no problem getting to 3 of the 4 sites listed, and the other one isn't being reported as existing by Google.

      But thanks for the attempt... looks like Australia's Internet Blocking isn't anyone's specialist subject. You made as good an attempt at helping me as I could ask for, and my sincere thanks for that. But you're in a minority, it appears that most people don't want to be confused by the facts.

      --
      Zoe Brain - Rocket Scientist
    30. Re:As far as it wants to. by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 2

      Moderation Totals: Flamebait=1, Troll=3, Insightful=4, Funny=1, Overrated=1, Underrated=3, Total=13

      Bwhahaaha

      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    31. Re:As far as it wants to. by Alien+Being · · Score: 2

      I feel your pain. Oh wait, that was the last guy.

    32. Re:As far as it wants to. by Saib0t · · Score: 2
      I wish you Europeans would gird up your loins and tell our president to go fuck himself.
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you find a stick.
      --

      One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
    33. Re:As far as it wants to. by NeMon'ess · · Score: 2

      The age of consent in Japan is 16. I'd say 16 year-olds are still children, but to say in Japan its okay to show child-porn is misleading. Calling it child-porn gets the public thinking about 8 year-old children being victimized. The 16 year-olds are doing so of their own volition, as much as any porn star actually wants to do that for a living. Granted the 16 year-old could be coming to porn from the disgusting pressures and coersion that leads many into prostitution.

    34. Re:As far as it wants to. by purplemonkeydan · · Score: 2

      You see we may have legislation in effect that says "block all the kiddie porn"

      We don't even have that. All the law states is that Australian ISP's can't host X rated content at all, and R rated content must have some sort of access control preventing minors from accessing it.

      They were thinking about attempting to block all X rated content regardless of origin, but luckily someone got half a clue and decided not to bother.

    35. Re:As far as it wants to. by TheCaptain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your not alone. I was thinking pretty much the same thing.

      I don't read here nearly as much these days...the site is full of paranoid rantings and the political commentary of people who are very deeply indoctrinated in their views. The editors are pretty bad about it sometimes too.

      Alot of folks here are truely "open minded" to those who agree with them. That's about it.

      Don't much care whether I get modded up or down. Look at the garbage that gets modded as it is. I don't know if up or down is better anymore.

    36. Re:As far as it wants to. by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 2
      American civil procedure provides for jurisdiction over foreign companies that do business in America. The theory is that if you come to America and avail yourself of our markets, resources, society, labor, and laws, you are bound to obey our laws. This does not mean that you can be sued in New York if you offer goods for sale in China and some American happens to buy them while on vacation in Beijing. It does mean, though, that if you knowingly advertise in America, ship goods to America, or provide services to American clients, you can be sued in America for violating American law.

      I see. So American courts can decide what companies based in France can do on the Internet, but French courts can't decide what American companies can do on the Internet?

      Must be great to be emporers of all the world.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    37. Re:As far as it wants to. by thales · · Score: 2
      "16% of the US population is living below the poverty line, that's the highest that number has been since 1970. And you want to vote Libertarian so we can elevate that number? "


      Liberals will "elevate" the number by changing the "poverity line" when it suits thier political needs, so why worry about it?


      Thanks to liberal number games, the United States has 300 pound "poor people" who own cars, TVs, and steereos, while poor people in Asia and Africa die of starvation in the streets.

      --
      Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
    38. Re:As far as it wants to. by greenrd · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If everybody voted for the candidate they truely felt best represented their views, I highly doubt we'd ever see anyone like Bush in office again.

      That's pretty naive. Do you trust politicians to tell the truth about the policies they will implement or support? Just because someone calls themselves "Libertarian", doesn't mean they really are.

    39. Re:As far as it wants to. by greenrd · · Score: 2
      the site is full of paranoid rantings

      Welcome to the Internet.

      People who sound like they are smoking crack have a tendency to post more and rant more than others, therefore they give a false impression of the spread of views in the Slashdot community.

      Also, by their very nature they stand out more in your mind than "average, OK" comments.

    40. Re:As far as it wants to. by torpor · · Score: 2

      16% of the US population is living below the poverty line, that's the highest that number has been since 1970. And you want to vote Libertarian so we can elevate that number?



      Well, duh!! Of *COURSE* you vote Libertarian given these circumstances. After all, the losers you've voted in so far have done *NOTHING* to stem this figure, in spite of multi-billion dollar investments by both Democrats and Republicans of taxpayer money in aborted social programs which actually *promote* illiteracy and unemployment, not fix 'em.

      Damn, it's so simple. The Libertarians have had *NOTHING* to do with the existing situation, which was created by the Dems/Reps.

      So, vote 'em in. Lets see if they can clean up the mess...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    41. Re:As far as it wants to. by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Consider that the economy takes about 3 years to catch up with the administration, and figure out who was in office in 1999. Poverty climbs primarily during Democrat admins.

      Here is my pocket definition of the two major parties:

      Democrats "solve problems" by throwing someone else's money at 'em, typically by raising taxes (especially taxes that particularly impact the poor, like sales tax) and giving the money to people who don't work (regardless of whether they can't work, or just don't want to).

      Republicans say "Go fix your own damned problems." But at least they don't steal from the poor to *create more poor* via a self-perpetuating welfare state.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    42. Re:As far as it wants to. by RogerWilco · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually most of the world's oil (like 50%) is in Saudi-Arabia, that's why it still get's away with being a despotic monarcy. Because everyone, the USA foremost wants to be friends with the saudi royal family.
      This in turn creates many unhappy saudi have-not's, ready to do terrible deeds to fight those who keep the saudi royal family in power. I mean the 9-11 terrorists here.

      The USA only has some sizable reserves in alaska, most other oil fields have almost been sucked dry, like texas. A clear sign when a field is almost exhausted is that these "nodding machines"
      (I don't know the english name) to get out oil, these is no pressure in the field anymore.
      This is the case in al great american oil fields,
      because they were developed a long time ago.

      totals for the USA and others on
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table81.html
      or google some

      have fun!

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    43. Re:As far as it wants to. by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2

      Mmm yeah, except the Libertarian party is economically conservative....meaning screw you as long as I've got mine, a.k.a. what poor people?

      No, libertarian philosophy only says that it's not the government's job to "help" the poor. Rather, it is up to us to personally help those that need it. The main reason why people don't help one another directly now is that the government has taken it over; subsequently, when someone sees poverty, their first thought is "why isn't the government doing something about that? I pay enough in taxes that there should be NO poverty." If the government wasn't in the charity business, people would be more inclined to help, particularly if they weren't pissing away 50% of their income to taxation.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    44. Re:As far as it wants to. by Eppie · · Score: 2
      Like I said, it's simple. If you choose to sell to Americans, you're subject to suit in America surrounding for matters arising from that sale. You make it sound like when Americans choose to order your product, you have no choice but to ship to them.

      If you have a UK website that caters to everyody on the planet, including Americans, you are subject to suit in America for your torts arising from that site. If, though, you have a site that is directed exclusively at local UK customers, you would not be subject to suit in America.

      As for Kazaa, the issues is not whether or not Kazaa software is contraband. It's not an import/export question. The issue is whether Kazaa, by its actions, is commiting vicarious or contributory copyright infringement. Customs has nothing to do with this question.

      Under US law, what Kazaa is doing is analagous to shooting a bullet over the border. The issue is not whether the bullet is illegal to import. The issue is that the bullet injures people in America. Kazaa can't hide behind the border, and Americans can go after them for what they're doing in America.

    45. Re:As far as it wants to. by Eppie · · Score: 2
      Criminal jursidiction is different. In America, it is basically, however we can grab you. If they can wrestle you to the ground and drag you to America, the American legal system has jurisdiction. Case in point: Manuel Noriega. George Bush (the elder), sent a team to Panama to drive Noriega out of his bunker with bad music. They succeeded and Noriega was brought back to the US. He was tried and convicted of drug trafficking charges.

      As a practical matter, America generally respects borders and doesn't just charge in and arrest people. For example, we Marc Rich was hanging out in Switzerland, but we never arrested him. The reason for this is that other regimes get seriously ticked off when other countries perform military or police actions within their borders. So America only does it when they have permission from the country (which almost never happens-- if the host country is amenable, extradition is the way to go) or when we're going after the rulers of the country (i.e. Panama and Afghanistan).

  2. As far as... by mbogosian · · Score: 2

    How far does the long arm of US copyright law reach?

    As far as the money will take it.

    1. Re:As far as... by unicron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most of the countries in the world will accept our food and our military power, but none will be bought to change their laws. We can feed and protect a country till the end of time, but once we're paying them to punish their people to our wishes, we own them, and not a country on earth would allow that.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    2. Re:As far as... by unicron · · Score: 2

      That's a different story altogether. It's easier to do with a massive operation like that, but when we single someone out from that country for punishment, it's a lot more present. Us paying a country to send in some troops is much easier to hide and ignore than us flying a single person into our country in chains.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    3. Re:As far as... by Afrosheen · · Score: 2

      As if Israel gives a shit what we think these days. "Keep the 6 billion in support coming every year, good ol' US of A, and we'll keep using 75% of that to buy weapons from you guys, per our agreement". By the way, Egypt gets the same deal, albeit a little smaller amount than 6 billion. Ahh...US peace accords. The free ride that fills your pockets with gold and your bases with nice jets.

      Who would argue with a deal like that? 25% of 6 billion is still 1.5 billion to spend on whatever. I think I'll move to Israel and get a $500 dollar check just for being a citizen.. oh wait, the Jewish law is too strict, I can't ever snag that.

    4. Re:As far as... by ed1park · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How does this get rated as 5?

      Does anyone really believe that the US or US corporations have no legislative influence on other countries?

      This is pathetic. Search through slashdot and you'll easily find dozens of articles showing otherwise. Human rights violations from oil companies, diamond industry, cobalt/mineral industry, etc. Don't forget all the countries we've invaded, NAFTA, MFN status etc. And then there's the more subtle influence our country has... CIA supporting anti russian activities in Afghanistan during the cold war, ensuring US friendly Saudi royalty support for oil even though they run despotic governments with countless human rights violations. tip o the ice berg.

      you guys make me sick with your ignorance. blah.

    5. Re:As far as... by Afrosheen · · Score: 2

      Oh that explains why Ariel Sharon, ex-terrorist, feels free to assault the Palestianian HQ of Arafat twice a year and hold him hostage. And that's why during this whole Israeli/Palestinian conflict, there have been around 180 Israeli deaths but over 1600 Palestinians killed. And that's why it's ok to target Palestianian bomb makers when an elementary school is letting out just down the street. BTW the bomb maker escaped with minor injuries.

      Want proof? I did some research for you.

      Sharon's no angel at http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon.html and http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-1/402/402_08_S haronIsTerrorist.shtml

      We fill Israel's pockets at
      http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm and
      http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0152/solom on.ph p and
      http://www.peacenowar.net/Palestine/News/US aids.htm plus there are hundreds more. I could do a paper on this whole thing since there's so much information available.

    6. Re:As far as... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2
      Consider what it's like to be living in a western country, which Israel by all definitions is, having to tolerate the constant possibility the bus you're riding will go up in flames, or the coffee-shop you frequently visit, or just the line at the movies.

      Yes, I have been there too, only the IRA which tried to murder my family was mostly funded by irish-americans.

      By all geographic definitions Israel is in the Middle-East and always will be. Israel is of course tied to the European cultural tradition but it is futile to ignore geography when that is the entire basis of the dispute.

      The problem that underlies this dispute is that as soon as a state declares itself to be the state of people of type X then all people not of type X are at a disadvantage. I am white, Iopposed the South African Appartheid regime for people who are white. If I reject discrimination that puts me at an advantage it is very unlikely I will accept discrimination that puts me at a disadvantage (even if it would advantage my wife and son).

      Israel is using a ploy that the US is very familliar with, they used it to appropriate their own natives. First the government steals land, then the former inhabitants object, eventually becomming violent and then the violence is used as a justification for the original theft.

      Since agreeing to withdraw from the occupied terriories at Oslo Israel has instead doubled the numbe of settlers living there. Your army daily humiliates the arab population and then you come to us for sympathy.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    7. Re:As far as... by unicron · · Score: 2

      You're comparing a guy running a Kazaa server to international terrorists. Quit posting under my thread you stupid fuck. Now.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    8. Re:As far as... by unicron · · Score: 2

      I love people that write off people that bark at them as "trolls"..must really help save those last few brain cells.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    9. Re:As far as... by mpe · · Score: 2

      The problem that underlies this dispute is that as soon as a state declares itself to be the state of people of type X then all people not of type X are at a disadvantage. I am white, Iopposed the South African Appartheid regime for people who are white. If I reject discrimination that puts me at an advantage it is very unlikely I will accept discrimination that puts me at a disadvantage.

      Often things only get done about discrimination when people the discrimination puts at an advantage object to it. Since the people it places at a disadvantage typically lack effective political power.

  3. How far? by mao+che+minh · · Score: 3, Insightful
    As far as those nations let them. The most obvious way to approach the legal issues involved would be to pull a China and deny access to these resources to the American public. There are a number of constitutional and capatilistic (I.E. ownership of lines and resources and how much control the government has over them) factors that would deny such a move by our government, in my opinion. So the next step (if that fails) would be to write up an acceptable set of international laws protecting copyrighted works, and lobbying the hosting nations to sign off on it.

    This will all take some time. Laws concerning information on the internet varies widely between nations, even preventing the United States from prosecuting or suing harmful virus writers in SouthEast Asia. With enough money and promises however, the United States may very well talk nations like Denmark and Thailand into more restrictive and reasonable laws concerning their cyber-space.

  4. Wait until Sadaam gets A-bomb plans off KaZaa by Hairy_Potter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and then Special Forces can go get all the Netherlandish developers as accessories to terrorism. Yeah baby, nothing like a GPS-18 being laser guided onto a tent in Netherlandia to teach some lessons.

  5. Damn, by unicron · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That is a sensitive problem. On one hand, as an American I really want to shake the "world's bully" image we seem to fitting into, yet on the other hand I dont' see the problem with terminating access to outside Kazaa servers, then cracking down on the local ones. You may not be able to punish the guy running the foreign server, but you can limit access to it from within our borders, thereby removing it as an offender. That way, the government has accomplised it's goal(music/software no longer traded through that route) without having to flex nuts at the foreign government in question.

    --
    Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    1. Re:Damn, by (trb001) · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because of the nature of KaZaA, I believe that it's impossible to shut down foreign servers. I'm not overly familiar with how KaZaA works, but how do you shut down something that, in theory, can run on any computer, any port,without making calls to a centralized server, doesn't track transmitted files and can use encrypted communications? That final part invalidates ip-sniffing, and the random ports restricts your port blocking.

      Finally, how do you prosecute someone if you don't know where they are? Eventually (as it sounds like is somewhat the case with KaZaA) someone will write a system like this and then not release their names. Internal version information is enough to keep track of releases and by the time something has been distributed enough to know it's a pest, it's been distributed enough to become a persistant problem.

      --trb

    2. Re:Damn, by unicron · · Score: 2

      No, you did it right.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    3. Re:Damn, by Qrlx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You may not be able to punish the guy running the foreign server, but you can limit access to it from within our borders, thereby removing it as an offender.

      In other words, we should implement our own version of "The Great Firewall of China." Except in America, it will "protect" the citizens from illegal IP rather than, say, Falun Gong websites.

      Who gets to decide what makes it through the "Freedom Shield" or whatever newspeak you'd like to call it? Ashcroft? He won't even dance with his wife because he thinks dancing is immoral! The Copyright Holders of IP? They won't allow anything; the firewall will scan the page for "Ford" or "Friends" or "Star Wars" and deny access, just like BESS does at my girlfriend's school. The web will become useless. Utterly fucking useless.

      Great plan, dipshit.

      Remind me: Why is the government spending my money to protect Sony's IP again? Doesn't Sony have their own lawyers?

    4. Re:Damn, by gorilla · · Score: 2
      On one hand, as an American I really want to shake the "world's bully" image we seem to fitting into

      Perhaps the US should try not doing the "world's bully" actions? The rest of the world is different to the US. As a whole, it likes being different. If a country decides that it wants to do X, and the US says that if it does, then the US will apply pressure on the country, then the US is oging to be seen as a bully.

    5. Re:Damn, by Frobnicator · · Score: 3, Informative
      That's the entire problem with regulation attempts on the Internet. Physical location is unimportant. Except for issues that are generally considered bad by the global population, regulation is a messy issue.

      I've heard it said that almost all the knowledge of the world is available over the Internet, and most of what isn't can be purchased or ordered through the Internet. If so much is available then the regulation of them are pretty insignificant. Examples from my own viewpoint:

      • porn: Global consensus seems to be that it's bad for kids, but adults can choose. The regulation problem is finding a global age when the choice is acceptable. 21? 18? 16? 14? Regulation seems to be within a country or within friendly countries.
      • kiddie-porn: Global consensus seems to be that taking porn pictures of kids will basically ruin their life, so no real complaints when any country crosses international boundaries. Some nations object until their pockets are properly lined with cash.
      • Shipping Drugs, Alchohol & Tobacco: Global consensus seems to vary based on location and national laws. It seems that trade by major groups is acceptable (since they follow laws and are licensed, pay tarrifs, etc) but minor groups are being attacked -- mainly because of tarrifs and not other laws. Regulation seems to be either "friendly companies that pay taxes and basically don't traffic in narcotics" or criminals who bypass the few restrictions in place.
      • IP Theft: The only people who really seem to care are the people having their employee's ideas made available. The individuals who assert their IP rights seem to love the extra exposure, and don't mind being sent around the world as long as their name stays attached.
      • Music & Movies: You don't see India asserting this kind of laws, even though they produce most of the world's feature-length films. That seems to be a US-Only issue, more specific, an issue only with the mega-corps associated with RIAA and MPAA. So when these groups try to get the US to put P2P on the same moral level as kiddie-porn, there are pretty bad reactions.
      So from my view, the only people who want a hand in regulation on the Internet are the governments who are afriad of not getting taxes, and mega-corps who can't sell overpriced goods. There was an interesting piece on PBS some time ago that showed who the megacorps were -- note that these companies are the major entities in the MPAA and RIAA.

      frob.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    6. Re:Damn, by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 2

      If a country decides that it wants to do X, and the US says that if it does, then the US will apply pressure on the country, then the US is oging to be seen as a bully.

      This brings up a question I have had for a while. Assuming that a country doesn't want to follow the US in whatever ideal, what does the US govenment do to pressure that country into submission?
      This is a serious question, I've never quite understood how the US can have that much power with other governments, I can think of the following, but nothing quite works out:
      1. Military power. Sure its massive, but the US wouldn't be stupid enough to start a war with the whole world.
      2. Financial. I know the US hands out monetary support to a number of nations, and could threaten to suspend that aid, but I can't belive that there are many, if any, EU nations that receive support of this kind.
      I just don't see how its done. While I will admit that the US can influence the nations it is sending aid to, by threating to suspend that aid, I can't see this as the only way it gets done. Moreover, I somewhat understand the US not wanting to send money to nations that are not friendly to the US. Though with the budget shortfalls and problems the US has, I question whether or not we should be looking to fix the worlds problems, before getting out our country in order.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    7. Re:Damn, by j-turkey · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This brings up a question I have had for a while. Assuming that a country doesn't want to follow the US in whatever ideal, what does the US govenment do to pressure that country into submission?

      Politics, politics, politics, my friend.

      The US can lean on countries using whatever power it has (it does/will do this). Fact is, the politics of the situation are not the savage, horrible thing that people are whining about, it seems like more of a political/diplomatic reality that has always gone on, that people are recently awaking to. (I'm going to go out on a limb here) It is a realization very similar to the US's young people lashing out because they discover that the "one man, one vote" mantra is bullshit -- its really "one man, one vote...but before that comes lots of campaign financing, handshaking, and lobbying". Its nothing new -- its the way its always worked...people just weren't completely aware...

      The US will use any means at its disposal for leverage, be it foreign aid, tariffs on imports/exports, military power/placement, embargos, control of shipping channels & oil pipelines, land, as well as its powerful positions in the UN. The US is having a related (UN) problem right now with Russia and China. Russia and China have veto power in the UN Security Council, and if the politics aren't played right, they will certainly veto any UN-endorsed action against Iraq. The US was able to gain the support of Russia by negotiating the control and security of the Russian/Iraqi oil fields. Is it an insidous process? I don't think so...I think that its the way the game is played. It just happens that the US gets to play the game with a really good hand (and its not like that great hand was just given to the Americans for nothing, which is what the rest of the world seems to believe).

      Look at any US foreign policy deal in the past two centuries. You will find that there was give and take on all sides, and each country used whatever pressure it could to negotiate whatever deal that was being made.

      --Turkey
      --

      -Turkey

    8. Re:Damn, by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 2

      Thank you, that helps a lot. I hadn't really considered how the UN politics work.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    9. Re:Damn, by blibbleblobble · · Score: 2

      "I dont' see the problem with terminating access to outside Kazaa servers, then cracking down on the local ones."

      The problem is that they're part of the internet infrastructure, and they're involved in distributing protected speech.

      Your analogy would be bombing Interstate-90 to prevent people from speeding on it. Speeding is illegal, and pretty much everyone on that road is speeding. So it would make sense to destroy the road, and you stop all of those crimes. The number of non-infringing uses (people driving at the speed limit) is negligible, just as with KaZaA.

      Doesn't seem so smart when you translate it to the real world?

    10. Re:Damn, by pjrc · · Score: 2
      ... how do you shut down something that, in theory, can run on any computer, any port,without making calls to a centralized server, doesn't track transmitted files and can use encrypted communications? That final part invalidates ip-sniffing, and the random ports restricts your port blocking.

      The fact that it "uses encryption" doesn't somehow make it magically undetectable among a stream of packets belonging to other services. The fact that it "uses random ports" doesn't negate the need to somehow, in a well defined manner, initially learn what "random" port number is being used by some host you want to communicate with.

      Anytime you're going to exchange data with a previously unknown host (to you), you're going to have to exchange encryption keys using some well defined protocol, and you're going to need some known-in-advance manner to begin the communication. You can't just begin blasting encrypted data to random port numbers... you first need to find how what port number the remote host is listening on, and you need to echange keys so it will be able to decrypt your data.

      If someone between you and the remote host foils your key exchange and silently drops those packets you transmitted in an attempt to learn of the remote host in the first place, it's going to put a big chill on your file sharing.

      Or, stated another way....

      You underestimate the POWER of the DARK SIDE.

    11. Re:Damn, by unicron · · Score: 2

      You actually think that the removal of p2p file and music sharing software is an attempt at censorship? I really don't want to get into an argument where you attempt to prove to me your ability to download the latest Eninem album should be a federally protected right, because it's a stupid argument that occurs a dozen times on this site daily. I NEVER said I want to blanket filter the outside world from the network of America, so don't put words in my mouth. Hell, in this example I said to block the ONE server. And you somehow turned that into "Unicron wants to censor the internet rights of everyone in America!". You really need to quit karma-whoring, and in the future, if you want to get into it with me, you have to bring your game up to a whole other level.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    12. Re:Damn, by elandal · · Score: 2

      No, You just cut all routing between USA and the rest of the world. No IP packets flowing means no-one can access the outside-USA evil internet so full of IP violations.. Then You can prosecute anyone who has illegal (in USA) content in the USA-internet, as all packets in the net originate and terminate within USA..

      Of course if /. is hosted in the USA I'll lose that, but then again, it might benefit my employer.. :)

      I think that's how it's done in conventional physical goods case: ban import and/or export. Stop the goods at the border. So, go ahead and stop IP packets at the border, too. I think we Europeans will manage to get over it, and we'll just have to route around damage to get to the rest of the world. Slower, yes, but that'll be corrected with time.

    13. Re:Damn, by (trb001) · · Score: 2

      Anytime you're going to exchange data with a previously unknown host (to you), you're going to have to exchange encryption keys using some well defined protocol, and you're going to need some known-in-advance manner to begin the communication. You can't just begin blasting encrypted data to random port numbers... you first need to find how what port number the remote host is listening on, and you need to echange keys so it will be able to decrypt your data.

      PKI/DES encryption has been a standard for a while now. It works so well because the computing power required to break a single transmission is ridiculous, and the more computing power that's available the large the key is. 128 bit, 512 bit, it can keep going up. It's obviously not impossible to break, but the reason it's used is that in order for someone to break it, they have to spend enough time that by the time they get their answer, the data is useless.

      Exchanging encryption keys doesn't hurt you...your public key for email sits out on a public server for people to download. Web browsers do basically the same thing, only they send the public key in the first packet transmission when doing SSL. Using a method like this, I fail to see how someone is going to decrypt zillions of packets per day going back and forth between client and server.

      My note about random ports wasn't that you "blast" data into any port you want, but merely that you can set up the service to run on any port you want. A simple port scan with a hello message piped into each (under, let's say, 5000 ports) takes around 5 seconds to complete. Firewalls can't block every port (they CAN, but that would seriously cripple productivity) and they can't packet sniff encrypted packets. They can block hosts, but KaZaA, et al, run on multiple hosts.

      The current software hasn't been made capable of doing all these workarounds. Why? Because it doesn't NEED to. When the need arises, the technology is already present. Hopefully the RIAA won't make it necessary, however.

      --trb

    14. Re:Damn, by (trb001) · · Score: 2

      you outlaw encryption and call it 'munitions'

      encryption is a funny thing...how do you know something is encrypted? what's the difference between binary code and encrypted text? or encrypted music? when programs pick up that something is compressed/encrypted, it's usually because the encryption program has left behind a footprint (ie, the ZIP footprint in a zip file). When the time comes that encryption is illegal, REMOVE THE FOOTPRINT. Then you can say it's merely binary data.

      Great book to read that talks briefly about this is 'Shadow of the Hegemon', 6th book in the Ender's Game trilogy. Petra encodes a message in an image by flipping some of the bytes to spell something...Bean found it becuse he noticed a few pixels looked off. The message he found only meant something to him, just as encrypted text only means something to the one who has the cipher.

      --trb

    15. Re:Damn, by greenrd · · Score: 2
      Is it an insidous process?

      Yes, it is. Let me give an example from the last Gulf War:

      The votes of the non-permanent members of the Security Council were crucial... Only Cuba and Yemen held out. Minutes after Yemen voted against the resolution to attack Iraq, a senior American diplomat told the Yemeni ambassador: "That was the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast." Within three days, a US aid programme of $70m to one of the world's poorest countries was stopped. Yemen suddenly had problems with the World Bank and the IMF; and 800,000 Yemeni workers were expelled from Saudi Arabia... The punishment of impoverished countries that opposed the attack was severe. Sudan, in the grip of a famine, was denied a shipment of food aid. None of this was reported at the time. By now, news organisations had one objective: to secure a place close to the US command in Saudi Arabia. At the same time, Amnesty International published a searing account of torture, detention and arbitrary arrest by the Saudi regime. Twenty thousand Yemenis were being deported every day and as many as 800 had been tortured and ill-treated.

      Neither the BBC nor ITN reported a word about this. "It is common knowledge in television," wrote Peter Lennon in the Guardian, "that fear of not being granted visas was the only consideration in withholding coverage of that embarrassing story."

    16. Re:Damn, by j-turkey · · Score: 2

      Woah, woah...back up there a second. That's the politics of the situation. That's how it all works. Did the US need to give foreign aid to Yemen in the first place? Does the US not reserve the right to revoke their foreign aid for any reason?

      I think that there is some feeling that since the US is in such a powerful position, the rest of the world deserves the US's assistance. This kind of thinking is just plain wrong.

      Let's put it in persoective. Hypothetically, let's suppose that for some reason, I'm supporting you financially. Now, let's say that we have a falling out and I find out that you've been talking smack about me behind my back. Am I not allowed to stop hooking you up with a check every month to support your livelyhood? If you owe some money to a loanshark and he's going to break your bones when he doesn't get money...is it my responsibilty because I stopped sending you money? Hell no! Now, how is the Yemen situation in the Gulf War any different?

      I fail to see any logic in your argument, because the US is not mandated (by any stretch of the imagination) to give foreign aid to anyone. The US reserves the right to cancel those dollars at any time, for any reason. Now that includes cessation of foreign aid for a country's UN vote against what the US feels is in its best interests. Period.

      Maybe I'm missing something -- but this seems to be a case of "life is not fair"...but insidous? I seriously doubt it.

      --Turkey
      --

      -Turkey

  6. this far by taxman_10m · · Score: 4, Funny

    The real reason we are going to war with Iraq is because Saddam downloaded Episode II off Kazaa.

    1. Re:this far by kenthorvath · · Score: 3, Funny
      The real reason we are going to war with Iraq is because Saddam downloaded Episode II off Kazaa.

      Actually, it's to prevent Saddam from making a cameo appearance in Episode 3.

  7. The long arm of American law ... by halftrack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... stops at the doorsteps of the US elite.

    --
    Look a monkey!
    1. Re:The long arm of American law ... by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      It's not off-topic ... at least not when seen through the "important persons act", which creates a two-tier legal system in the USA.

      After all, if you're not willing to judge and punish your own people in a consistent and non-discrimitory fashion, what gives yo the right to make any sort of moral judgement on persons and/or groups in other countries, who don't owe any sort of allegience to your country, flag, or constitution?

    2. Re:The long arm of American law ... by mpe · · Score: 2

      Perhaps people would apreciate your insight more if you gave some indication what the hell you're talking about. For example a google seach on "important persons act" still leaves me clueless.

      Maybe the difference between "corporate people" and real people...

  8. Do they have to show up? by Lothar+0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is Sharman Networks oblidged to even show up to court in this country? If they refuse to even acknowledge a lawsuit or an injunction, does this mean that federal agents will be dispatched to Vanadu, Estonia, the Netherlands, and Australia? I think not.

    If they say you're infringing copyright, Sharman, just ignore them.

    --
    "Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
  9. How far does the arm of US copyright law reach? by blackbeaktux · · Score: 2, Funny

    I dunno, but I know the RIAA's tentacles reach deep into Congress' pants.

    1. Re:How far does the arm of US copyright law reach? by clonebarkins · · Score: 2, Funny
      I dunno, but I know the RIAA's tentacles reach deep into Congress' pants.

      One can only imagine what's going on there...

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

  10. Berne Convention by An+El+Haqq · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here, read the

    Berne Convention.

    1. Re:Berne Convention by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

      Thanks, but this is Slashdot. We prefer uninformed soapbox ranting about how things should be rather than learning about how they are. Don't take my word for it, look at the 5 voted ramblings above your post.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  11. Hahahaha by warmcat · · Score: 5, Funny

    ''...And according to a lawyer for the record industry, the programmers in Estonia who once possessed a copy of the program's source code told a judge there last week that they no longer had it, but they would not say where it was.''

    Your honour, we looked down the back of the sofa. We think maybe the dog ate it.

    1. Re:Hahahaha by mttlg · · Score: 2

      Can't the judge just download a copy off Kazaa?

  12. the RIAA may learn... by thepoolguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The juristictional obstructions to the enforcement of the various entities involved in KaZaa, and others should provide a real sanity check for some of the more draconian copyright enforcement laws currently being enforced by the US at the behest of the RIAA.

    Some copyright laws are respected internaltionally, more or less. By this I mean that if a CD pirate is burning copies of commercial CDs and distributing them, the US will ask and work with the sovereign state in which the pirates are operating. The fact that the sovereign state cooperates with the US demonstrates that there is a mutual respect for the given rule, even though the penalties may differ from state to state.

    As the KaZaa example demonstrates, pursuing legal action against them will only work if their host states agree with the position of the US governmant. If they don't then there will be little to no assistance.

    If the RIAA looks at this, they may realize that their lobbying efforts here have not worked as well in the international arena. They may need to rethink their strategy to one which relies less on using the government as their policman and more about providing a good product to the consumers and equitable share to their artists.

    -tpg

  13. grrr by (trb001) · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Okay, I'm a native US born citizen and frankly, this peaves the hell out of me. I can't imagine what it does to people in other countries. The argument seems to be that because US citizens download this software and the company gains some of its revenue from advertisements from US companies/advertising firms, it should be subjected to US law? I fail to see why, or any proof that it should be. What cracks me up is that the judge out in CA is going to determine whether or not he has jurisdiction over the case. Uh, is there a disconnect here?

    At some point, a court somewhere is going to have to determine whether or not manufacturing software that allows the trade of copyrighted materials is legal. If they decide it's illegal, God help them to enforce it. The CDBTPA (or whatever..you know what I mean) is trying really hard to push this through, but it's impossible. As someone's .sig on /. says "The can is open, the worms are everywhere". That's precisely what's happened. You can already copy any type of digital material you want, the future hardware/software being protected won't do any good.

    ...critics have said that banning it would unnecessarily restrict speech and technological innovation...

    Let me halt my rant and play devil's advocate for a moment...restricting speech? This is something that is hurting the anti-DRM movement more than it's helping. A neutral person may likely be swayed over to our side until they hear everything referred to as a freedom of speech restriction. Most people don't consider source code a work of speech, just as they don't consider a music file or other audio source one either. Unless it's spoken (a speech) or written word (book), John Doe isn't going to consider the violation breaking the 1st amendment.

    --trb

    1. Re:grrr by Alsee · · Score: 2

      degrade the image of free speech in general.

      There's no need to defend speech that no one finds objectionable.

      Defending free speech means taking on exactly those cases that "degrade the image of free speech", pornography, communists, racists, politicians, religious zelots, even Nsync fans.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:grrr by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Um, it's pretty straightforward.

      The courts in the Netherlands has said that distributing Kazaa is not illegal. That's where the servers are.

      The court in LA could say it's illegal for those servers to do what they're doing. They may decide that they have jurisdiction because they are communicating with Americans. Punishable by the DMCA, whatever.

      When the folks from Sharman Networks next fly to the US, federal agents could be waiting for them. It'll be up to Holland to decide if extradition treaties apply.

      The jurisdictional problem would be the same if some folks in Holland built a bomb-mailer, and had some Danes set it up for them. The bomb-mailer then sent mail bombs to the US and killed Jack Valenti. The only difference is that those actions are much more clearly illegal. This copyright issue is more vague. It's a matter of degrees.

      We can decide if it's illegal. It involves American people on American soil. We can only pressure other countries to extradite. They might want us to extradite their criminals at some point in the future.

      Don't get me wrong, I do not feel that Sharman/the developers should get messed with. But this is how international law has always worked, and will always work. Furrinners might get upset that the US can apply more pressure than other countries. I'm curious what they might suggest we do to eliminate that problem. They can't *make* us agree to something that isn't in our best interests, and they shouldn't be able to. That would be a at least as warlike than we've ever been.

      Also, you do not make this mistake, but I'd like to bring it up: In my (limited) discussion of US foreign policy with non-US citizens, they'll frequently become angry with me, even when I agree with them. I've been treated like an ignorant cretin by people that were respecting my advice only moments earlier. This came up most often in discussions of the Vietnam War.

      I'm anti-war. My dad was a consciencious (sp?) objector, and would have served prison time rather than kill Vietnamese. It seems like in discussions like this, many people are happy to return to nationalism and assume that members of other countries are necesarily idiots. Again, these are people that both knew and liked me.

      Iduno. I'm moving to Golden Rule when they build it.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    3. Re:grrr by (trb001) · · Score: 2

      There's no need to defend speech that no one finds objectionable.

      I agree and think we should defend any speech out there, we're just talking about what speech includes. MP3 files are not speech, IMHO. They're data. They're copywritable material that can be owned. Speech can't be owned. Nobody can tell me I can't say 'Heinz Ketchup' because that phrase is trademarked, but they can keep me from naming my next ketchup substitue that. Trademarking and copyriting don't restrict free speech. They may restrict the creative process or invention, but not speech...you're still free to *say* what you want and not be jailed.

      Remember, free speech came about because there were (and still are) many places where you couldn't speak out against laws you thought were unjust. In these places, /. would have been unlawful, and Taco would be in jail. Most of the people who are posting to /. have no idea what the lack of free speech really feels like, so they keep grouping more and more things into that category.

      --trb

    4. Re:grrr by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Here's an example I've used re the extended copyright/royalties issue, tho I don't know if it actually penetrates Joe Sixpack's skull:

      Know why restaurants that assault you with noise when they learn it's your birthday NEVER do so by singing "Happy Birthday to You" ??

      Because if they did, they'd have to pay royalties on it, as a "public performance".

      Someone who can figure out where I was going with this before my brain suffered a caffeine deficit, feel free to run with it.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  14. How long before the first Internet-provoked war? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 3, Insightful
    You know, today is the day we Americans hear another "big" moronic speech about some dark-skinned guy who would one day like to build modern weapons, and about how he should die just for wanting to, along with thousands of innocent people who happen to be nearby.

    If a pretext like this is really enough to get a war off the ground, I wonder how long it will be before a US president makes speeches about how we must use force to break up cells of renegade programmers who are writing modern network protocols which result in programs that are "in confict with the interests of America." Or, maybe we will start bombing servers "suspected of sending illegal data to Freenet."

    You don't think this could happen in your lifetime? Ha!

  15. Obligatory NYT note by pacc · · Score: 2

    Go to http://www.majcher.com/nytview.html
    to get rid of free registration.

    It's a free world

  16. You say you are a what? by TamMan2000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a fellow american I am offended that you think we should be shuting down kazaa servers. It is an established principle of the US that we go after the people who break the law, not those that make the tools used to do so, especially if the tools have functions besides the ones that are illegal. When the US decides to ban civilian gun ownership (see also hell freezes over, pigs fly...) THEN we can start to talk about making kazaa illegal.

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    1. Re:You say you are a what? by unicron · · Score: 2

      Kazaa is 99% copyrighted material trading, don't kid yourself. It's for people that want to download mp3's and for people that want to download warez but our too stupid to understand newsgroups. So in this case removing the tool is a valid and sensible option. And in America, we do go after people that make the tools readily available. You don't think a "FREE UZI'S" store in Caprini Green would be ok do you? I mean, they're not killing people, just giving the tools away, right?

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    2. Re:You say you are a what? by KelsoLundeen · · Score: 2
      It's for people that want to download mp3's and for people that want to download warez but our too stupid to understand newsgroups.

      Which brings up an interesting point. Why aren't the RIAA and MPAA going after places like Giganews and UsenetServer and Easynews?

      Why aren't they raising a stink about usenet?

    3. Re:You say you are a what? by unicron · · Score: 2

      The point is an Uzi really doesn't serve any purpose but to smoke people.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    4. Re:You say you are a what? by Afrosheen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually there's nothing in the law that says you have to buy a gun. If guns are given away, no problem, as long as the potential owners are filling out forms and waiting per the Brady Bill. If everything checks out, no problem.

      Free guns argument= irrelevant.

      Tools are tools. Don't think that Adobe gets sued because some kid Photoshops pictures of something he's auctioning on Ebay to get a better price. Don't think that Stanley tools get sued if someone gets bludgeoned to death with a Stanley hammer. Tools that can have multiple purposes are usually not privy to scrutiny. Password-cracking programs and network scanners aren't really considered illegal tools either, because they can be used for checking security leaks/holes.

    5. Re:You say you are a what? by unicron · · Score: 2

      If you think you need an Uzi then it's pretty apparent you've never actually fired a gun, but we're getting off-topic here.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    6. Re:You say you are a what? by unicron · · Score: 2

      No, but if 99% of the people that bought a Stanley hammer bludgeoned their wives, then we'd have something. You can't tell me you don't think that the majority of people using Kazaa our doign things with it that would definately fall under copyright violation laws. Same thing with the Uzi example. Their are a lot of guns in the world, but some of them exist for the soul purpose of killing people. Uzi's make shitty target guns, you can't hunt with them, and obviously they're overkill for home defense, so all that remains is a weapon used to cut people down in the street. Same principle: p2p technology isn't bad by default, but one of it's apps, Kazaa, is nothing more than a warez and mp3 trading software.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    7. Re:You say you are a what? by DrEldarion · · Score: 2

      And the point is that Kazaa really doesn't serve any purpose but to share copyrighted material.

      If you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself.

      -- Dr. Eldarion --

    8. Re:You say you are a what? by Jordy · · Score: 2

      Yes yes, and 99% of people use bongs for smoking pot and not tabacco.

      What you may not realize is 1% is actually quite a big number when you are talking about 60 million users (600,000) or 500 million files (5,000,000.)

      This is why Napster had such a hard time filtering. They had a system that could filter 99% of all copyrighted works accurately, but that last 1% represented a giant gaping hole.

      --
      The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
    9. Re:You say you are a what? by unicron · · Score: 2

      Yeah, that's what I've been saying (shout)in like every fucking reply in this thread(shout).

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    10. Re:You say you are a what? by Idarubicin · · Score: 2
      Kazaa is 99% copyrighted material trading, don't kid yourself...

      So you say we must remove all tools that can distribute illegal material, so all software that in any way uses HTTP, FTP, IRC, MSN, ICQ or AOL protocols must be removed; all of them are/can be used to share copyrighted material.

      Whoa, hang on a minute. I don't think that was what was said. The original poster suggested that the Kazaa network should be shut down because a majority (a very significant majority--the 99% figure may be low) use it to inappropriately distribute copyrighted works.

      Whether I agree with that position or not is something I will save for another post. But it's embarrassing to yourself and insulting to the rest of us to set up a straw man like that ("So you say we must remove all tools...") and pretend you're making a reasoned reply. All you're doing is making the same kneejerk "If they shut down x which is used almost exclusively to further illegal activities, they'll have to shut down w, y, and z, and the rest of the internet because they can also be used for illegal purposes" argument.

      Thanks, we've heard it. Please find a new topic on which to whore karma.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    11. Re:You say you are a what? by trotski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, but if 99% of the people that bought a Stanley hammer bludgeoned their wives, then we'd have something.

      You're re-enforcing the original argument. Hand guns serve no other purpose but killing people (rifels and such can also be used for hunting, but no one hunts with a handgun). Most hand guns are purchased with the intent of killing someone. I mean even if someone purchases a handgun for self-defence, by self-defence they mean to kill someone trying to hurt them. The trouble is that most practical applications for handguns involve illegal activity, after all... self-defence with a handgun is often a crime (excessive force, etcetera.)

      So it can be said that most people purchase a gun with the intent to kill or hurt a person, which in most cases is illegal. Therefore if you make kazaa illegal, you must make guns illegal to keep your argument concistant.

      Theres plenty of examples like this, for example drug parafanelia (bongs, pipes, etc) which is used for illegal purposes 100% of the time but is still legal.

      I guess the point is that it's not a question whether kazaa is used for illegal purposes is not. It's a question of money, and who has it. It has nothing to do with whether the purpose of kazaa is legal or not. If the record industry wasn't calling foul or screaming and crying (like Hilary Rosen for example) about lost profits, the gov't wouldn't waste it's time attacking kazaa.

      Thats my $0.02, whats yours?

      --

      "Entropy is the bad-guy, and he is everywhere"
    12. Re:You say you are a what? by DrEldarion · · Score: 2

      To use the same analogy, I'm sure there are people out there that use an Uzi to hunt deer legally. That doesn't change the fact that the other 99.9% of Uzis are being used to kill people.

      -- Dr. Eldarion --

  17. Xerox stock plummets after copyright legal cases. by thebitninja · · Score: 4, Informative

    As the court room drama around file copying programs continues, photocopier companies relocate to foreign lands to try and protect themselves from copyright infringment. Pen companies worry about the uses to which their products may be put and all photography companies temporarily suspend trading, worried that users may photograph copy protected items. Once the floodgates have been pried open even a crack it's all on!

  18. What if......... by yokem_55 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What if the Internet itself had its own law, independent of the jusridiction of any other state? Would this be at all possible? It could be argued that the internet, since it recognizes no geographical boundaries, and exists in its own "cyber-space" could have its own soveriegnty. Computers connected to the internet would be subject to the "law of the internet" and their owners would be responsible for those computers under "internet law." Users of the Internet could have "citizenship," pay some taxes, vote in "internet-land" elections....why not?

    --
    ...and IN SOVIET RUSSIA, beowulf clusters imagine 1, 2, 3 profit!!!! jokes made out of YOU!!!
    1. Re:What if......... by doorbot.com · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Users of the Internet could have "citizenship," pay some taxes, vote in "internet-land" elections....why not?

      Do you really think that "VOTING BY 31337 Ha><oRs" is "teh win?"

      How about those who actually own the pipes and routers decide?

    2. Re:What if......... by Artagel · · Score: 2

      1) Nobody will ever know.
      2) Nope.
      3) Fish in the ocean do not recognize political boundaries. (I assume you mean the imaginary lines people draw on land and water to divide it up, not the fact that a mountain chain can be a pain in the ass to swim across if you are a fish.) Similarly, fish can be thought of as having their own sovereignty.
      4) Until the "internet" has armed forces to enforce its decisions, it will have to pay attention to the countries with armies. Just like sovereignty is an exclusive power, to have that power sovereignty must exclude other sovereigns. All the internet country has to do is push the others out. Until then, it will have a lot in common with the nation of fishes. Not able to do much about how the countries of the world regulate how they are harvested. Or don't.

    3. Re:What if......... by thomas.galvin · · Score: 2

      Yaah, that's what we need...ICANN with the force of law.

    4. Re:What if......... by BurritoWarrior · · Score: 2

      How about those who actually own the pipes and routers decide?

      You mean those nice fellas over at Worldcom? :-)

  19. Re:To Hell with the US Govt by DSL-Admin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Exactly my point..... Money seems to make everything ok and legal... The more money you bribe and pay off, the more things you can do!!

  20. wired by asv108 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wired had an article about KaZaA's globalization strategy a few weeks ago.

  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. Re:US forces world so suck the ... by User+956 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Unless the world agrees to let the US's copyright laws rule the net, there's a big roadbump... Either the world must agree on some copyright laws (requires new global governance structure), or companies like KaZaa can continue merrily...

    I take it you've never heard of Bush's "U.S. Does whatever it wants" plan?

    All this, and more would be possible, under such a proposal.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  23. American Law by ShwAsasin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    American Law only goes as far as their bombs, which in this world means anywhere...

  24. Why not, indeed? by PhxBlue · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mostly because no existing government would give up their sovereignty willingly.

    And consider that an internet government would be at least as crooked as any other - and who would it answer to when it ran amok with whatever powers it was given?

    --
    !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    1. Re:Why not, indeed? by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 2

      Eh. Counterpoint.EU involves giving up a bit of sovereignty.

      Internet government is an interesting idea for us voters, but I don't see sufficient reasons for governments to give up their sovereignty in this case.

      --

      Stop the brainwash

  25. Re:Why is it... by Frobnicator · · Score: 2
    A better argument was made in the case of copy machines. Better because it doesn't try to convince the public, but it convinced the legislature. That argument is why at my local libraries, each copier has a lable above it saying something about making copies without permission violates section 15 of something. Otherwise it would say "Please visit the Central Office with your written permission to make photocopies. -- And remember: our copy machines don't violate copyright, you do."

    It's not the individuals who are making the stink about it, its the big corporations. The corps and the laws they can get their congresscritters to pass. So write your congresscritter. Also, you would be interested in this bill where Rep. Lofgren basically codifies what you are trying to get across.

    frob.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  26. Re:allways by forkboy · · Score: 2

    You need a solid economy to wage any kind of real war. Don't you play any RTS games? =P

    Our citizens are happier than China's anyway....if we were to get into an extended war with them, they would crack before we did. Most Chinese fear and distrust the government. (whereas only the SMART Americans do)

    --
    This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
  27. Osama by t0qer · · Score: 2

    Guy has a $26 million dollar price tag on his head DOA and we still can't catch him.

    Goes to show the .gov only catches those they REALLY want to catch.

  28. US destroying any goodwill left in the world by Baki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Reading stories like this must make the last few europeans that still generally have sympathetic feelings towards the US 'defect'.

    I recon myself to be one of those. And yes I do know that not every american is to blame for such arrogant and stupid behaviour, but still, I begin to understand why the USA are so much hated in many parts of the world.

    The arrogance and one sidedness (unilateralism) is getting to the point that it is simply unacceptable, also to people who always felt that the US are our allies such as myself.

    The US may think they don't need anyones sympathy, that they can 'rule the world' on their own. That laws of others don't apply to the US, but that US laws are somehow more just and apply anywhere in the world (and if not, such countries must be pressured into modifying their laws under threat of trade boycotts etc). I however think this is a big mistake and gets the US into deeper trouble.

    I know some 'patriotic' people will qualify this as flamebait, but remember whether you agree or not, whether you like it or not, what I write still in very mild terms (coming from a european with over-average sympathetic feelings towards the US) what more than 90% of europeans are feeling by actions like this.

    Criticising other peoples for such 'infidelity' (i.e. being arrogant in the eyes of people with constructive criticism) won't cause such feelings to go away, on the contrary. I don't think it is helpful for the US to loose its last remaining allies in the world.

    1. Re:US destroying any goodwill left in the world by reflector · · Score: 2

      i couldn't possibly agree with you more. i happen to live in the us, and i absolutely despise bush, cheney, ashcroft and rumsfeld (not that the democrats are much better). i do what i can to undermine the authority of the federal government and corporate america, which i consider to be the enemy of humanity, not just the enemy of americans. many of my friends feel the same way as i do.

      if i travel abroad in the near future, i will likely introduce myself as being canadian, i am so sickened and embarassed by what america has become.

    2. Re:US destroying any goodwill left in the world by reflector · · Score: 2

      how is that even relevant? i'm talking about how america is on the decline due to the usurping of power by oil companies and military contractors via bush et al. i'm not comparing america to other countries, just comparing it to what it could and should be.

    3. Re:US destroying any goodwill left in the world by serutan · · Score: 2

      I think you are absolutely correct, and I think it's an indication of the confidence level of those who rule the USA. The more invincible you feel, the easier it is to act like a complete asshole. Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? What are they going to do about it? That, I believe, sums up our foreign policy at this point.

    4. Re:US destroying any goodwill left in the world by Alien+Being · · Score: 2

      Don't blame the U.S. if your own government is willing to adopt our rules.

    5. Re:US destroying any goodwill left in the world by mpe · · Score: 2

      The US may think they don't need anyones sympathy, that they can 'rule the world' on their own.

      The US might be able to preasure individual countries or even bomb weak countries like Afganistan and Iraq into the ground. The problem will come when the US finds itself in conflict with more than one other country, even a transnational alliance.

      That laws of others don't apply to the US, but that US laws are somehow more just and apply anywhere in the world (and if not, such countries must be pressured into modifying their laws under threat of trade boycotts etc). I however think this is a big mistake and gets the US into deeper trouble.

      The US or at least the US government is unlikely to get the message. The signs are there, an attempt to overthrow a South American government failed, countries friendly to the US openly oppose US foreign policy, enemies of a country the US has targeted for destruction offer to stand with that country.

      I know some 'patriotic' people will qualify this as flamebait,

      "patriotic" can mean "my country right or wrong", "my government right or wrong" or in the case of somewhere the US loyalty to the US Constitution. One intersting definition I recently saw is "Being patriotic is being loyal to your country at all times and loyal to your government when it deserves it".

  29. Re:allways by back_pages · · Score: 2
    Most Chinese fear and distrust their government? Are you speaking from an "I've been to China" point of view?

    It's a big place and I'm sure that opinions run the gamut from area to area, but when I was there, the people seemed pretty proud of their system and thought we Americans were quite the novelty. They thought it was great that the occasional tourist comes by, but they were firmly convinced that they were better off without all the evil sinfulness in the States.

    What would really break the Chinese people would be a 2 week vacation to America to see what it's really like over here. Even Hong Kong, with which many of them are familiar, gives only a slight glimpse into what the Western lifestyle is all about.

  30. Significant non-infringing use by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 2

    KaZaA is only a symptom of the "disease" that the [MP,RI]AA considers P2P networks.

    Suppose one of my friends creates a demo tape that he wants to get out into the world to create some buzz. I could very easily publish it on the P2P networks, create a band web site, and hope it takes off. Now, it is perfectly legal (if my friend gave me permission) to use P2P to distribute this music. It would also be significantly cheaper than paying bandwidth charges to a local ISP if I hosted all of those MP3's on the web site.

    So, I've now used technology for a perfectly good and legal activity. So, now I'm supposed to do without because some KaZaA users can't control themselves? If that logic had prevailed in earlier days you wouldn't have a VCR today.

    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
  31. The neverending wars by LoRider · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is with us Americans who are so eager to start these wars that have no end and no possible way of really winning. They just go on and on and on.

    War on drugs.
    War on terrorism.
    War on people who break copyright laws.

    What next? Instead of waging "war" on everything we don't like, why not try and be alittle more creative.

    Since there is no way that the RIAA or MPAA is going to stop people from making copies of their shit, why not embrace the technology?

    How many people would pay for music if the recording industry charged $9 a cd if you could download it off the net or $11 if you wanted a hardcopy along with the ability to download.

    However they do it, if they just made music available to people in various formats on fast servers, people would buy it. Maybe not the average slashdotter, but the average consumer would.

    I am disgusted that the US governement feels it is somehow their responsibility or right to fight these battles for corporate America. Our government is nothing more than an extension of corporate America and has little to do with representing the citizens or protecting freedom.

    --
    LoRider
    1. Re:The neverending wars by mpe · · Score: 2

      What is with us Americans who are so eager to start these wars that have no end and no possible way of really winning. They just go on and on and on.

      Maybe they actually want wars without end. A state of war can be good for big business and can quell political opposition.

  32. Re:To Hell with the US Govt by Soko · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From the parent post:

    Wait..!!! I know why, cause they get paid for every crappy law they make.. and we all know how corrupt and money hungry politicans are!!!!!!

    From your post:

    No, they attack P2P networks because the lobbyists (RIAA, MPAA, Lars Ulrich) have massive amounts of cash.

    So, you say basically the same thing, and yet tell the guy to get off of his ass, stop whining and change the system, or move to a communist or a formerly communist country. IOW, you seem to be willing to accept the status quo of lobbyists buying laws since "that's capitalism - like it, change it or leave it."

    Lesse, we have big media companies lobbying for and getting passed laws that are actually bad for consumers. In order to change this, we need to get the word out to as many voters as possible. Since it's "one person, one vote" as is proper, we need to convince lots and lots of people to fight this. OK, let's use TV air time, magazine ads, etc. In short, we need to use the, er, big media companies...

    Hmmmmmm - how effective will that be ya think? You think big media will say "Sure, shoot me with my own gun, buddy!"?? Right.

    So, what we need are ways to change the law outside of the prevue of those that make - or buy - the law. Hence, Kazaa et. al. are quite happy to allow USAians to choose to step outside the sphere of influence of the US Congress and violate a law of questionalble value to consumers. Seems like Capitalism at it's finest - consumers going to the best price for the best goods, regardless of what the US Congress thinks. As is proper.

    Soko

    --
    "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
  33. If you don't like it, move to [country]. rrrright. by Quietti · · Score: 2, Insightful
    P.S.: if you don't like the country's political climate, then [...] why don't you just move to China or Russia
    Enough with that kind of bullshit, will ya? Just because someone disagrees with the political majority doesn't mean they suddenly feel like leaving their homeland and starting anew in another country.

    United-States is every American's country, whether he or she agrees with the majority on anything at all or not. As such, every American has the right to see its country reflect values they hold dearest. Just because someone does not have enough cash to lobby Washignton does not make them any less deserving of having a country that fullfills their dream.

    The same truth applies to every country. Every citizen has the right to demand from their country to be true to its wishes, even if those wishes are not those of lobby interests or of the political majority. You cannot demand that every person who doesn't agree with the majority leave the country for another one. This is their country too, even if they don't agree with you.

    Besides, there's no telling whether an expatriate will be welcome elsewhere either. Relocation, while it can sometimes have hugely positive aspects, has its share of burdens, such as forever being the unwelcome foreigner who needs yet another work permit and who won't likely ever land citizenship, because he or she came from the wrong country in the first place.

    --
    Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
  34. We can't do anything... by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Until Bush puts KaZaa in the "Axis of Evil", then look out all you P2Pers out there!

  35. Elbonia? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

    Did anyone misread the comment about the source being in Estonia the way I did?

    oops, we lost the source in the mud...

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  36. Preventing domestic access to some non-US servers? by upper · · Score: 2

    Congratulations, you've just reinvented the great firewall of china.

  37. Re:allways by geekoid · · Score: 2

    war with China? We would loose.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  38. Ban imports by mindslip · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why doesn't Bushwhacker just ban imports to the US? (Services as well as tangibles).

    Sure, keep exports going out... The world desparately needs the US to survive, but surely the US is beyond needing anything from the outside world? They barely even know one exists!

    This way, no one could violate US laws outside of the US. Better yet, the US could bully the UN into passing resolutions that enforce US laws globally!

    mindslip

  39. Don't forget.... by Kaz+Riprock · · Score: 2
    Offices in Australia.

    As for the question "how far..?":
    As far as your computer room where you're running the software, if they wanted (assuming you live in the US).

    --
    Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
  40. +5, Interesting? poor /. *sigh* by Doctor+O · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It could be argued that the internet, since it recognizes no geographical boundaries, and exists in its own "cyber-space" could have its own soveriegnty.

    This is complete BS. There is no such thing as "cyber-space", at least where laws are concerned. All the wires and routers, all servers and everyone using the Internet (not to be confused with one of its services called WWW) are *very* real - they're located in the real world.

    When you surf the 'Net, you aren't going someplace else, you're still sitting in front of your screen. When you watch pr0n, you don't use cyber-tissues. When you host MP3s via your DSL line and are located in a country which considers this breaking *local* copyright law, the jurisdiction won't probably see why the files should reside in some higher sphere, because they're right on your hard disk which can be located quite easily unless you decide to shove it up your ass to hide it away from curious investigators. (You might be disappointed though, that the X-Ray camera won't decide not to show the drive for your cyber-space theory either.)

    Seriously, get real. Most of those people whining for "Internet jurisdiction" simply want to break some law or another, mostly copyright. They should rather spend their time using their rights to tell their representatives why the current copyright laws simply won't be able to withstand the possibility to copy anything, anytime. A lot of good thoughts on how a copyright law could feed the artists while making access to digital assets simple and inexpensive already exist. They're even discussed here on a regular basis, and if this isn't enough, Google is your friend (tm).

    --
    Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
  41. Fool proof plan to kill RIAA & DMCA by ahaile · · Score: 2, Funny
    1. Get a list of all teenage kids of congress members
    2. Figure out if any of these kids have traded music on-line
    3. Send the evidence to RIAA, the Justice Department, NY Times, Washington Post, etc.
    4. Sit back and watch the fun

    How many "tough on drugs" senators have flipped when -- whoops! -- a cop finds half a joint in Susie's back seat? Anyone here know if the Bush daughters have any "stolen" mp3s? Wouldn't that be a headline.
  42. when you say "non" you start having accidents by DrSkwid · · Score: 2

    boom!

    In the 1970's the British government blew up a Dublin bar IRA style to try and garner support away from the republican movement.

    I expect the lessons were not missed.

    The French seek a third way around Saddam and suddenly a "terrorist" attack against the French.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:when you say "non" you start having accidents by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Informative

      French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said the probe "will find out exactly what happened" and stressed that "no possibility is ruled out".

      That includes allied coercion.

      It wouldn't be the first time. I don't know why you sound surprised. The Americans are a govt. that imported and sold cocaine to finance covert arms purchases. Remember?

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  43. Re:Only the strong know justice... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2

    Oh, don't get me started on the Iraq thing....

    I feel that it is going to be a despicable "blood for votes" campaign. I believe that the November election's is the only reason that Bush is pushing it so hard.

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  44. We had it on our dad's PC... by wirefarm · · Score: 2

    But the PC was all like Beep beep beep beep beep...
    I was *really* good source code, but then we had to write it again and it wasnt as good.
    It was really a ... ...
    Bummer.

    Cheers,
    Jim

    --
    -- My Weblog.
  45. This is great by greymond · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hope we (america) gets there hands slapped for this. Even though this is a technology issue - it's still a perfect example of how we push "our" views onto other countries.

    I'm almost tempted to go off here about several topics, but I don't want to be a flamebaiter, so i'll end it this way.

    Kazza doesn't physically exist in the US. It wasn't made in the US. If the US didn't want it being used they would block it similar to how China blocks some foreign sites. There is no good reason trying to hold a foreign countries product against our own copyright law.

  46. Quit redefining "poor"... by tlambert · · Score: 4, Funny

    Quit redefining "poor"... use the system header file instead. Thanks.

    #ifndef __POOR_H__
    #define __POOR_H__ 1

    #define WEEKS_PER_YEAR 52
    #define WORK_HOURS_PER_WEEK 40
    #define MINIMUM_WAGE 5.15

    #define IS_POOR(yearly_income) \
    ((yearly_income (MINIMUM_WAGE * \
    WORK_HOURS_PER_WEEK * WEEKS_PER_YEAR) ? 1 : 0)

    #endif /* __POOR_H__ */

    You want to define certain people as poor? You have three manifest constants to work with. All three of them can only be changed with the approval of standards committees. Knock yourself out.

    Notice: Cranking up any of these values to crank up income for the bottom rung is fine... but nothing you do will make them definitionally "poor"... the only thing that can do that is them not working full time.

    FWIW: Most wealthy Libertarians, just like most wealthy Democrats or wealthy Republicans, etc., are all for bribing less well-off people to not steal their stuff. The various political parties just disagree as to what form the bribes should take.

    -- Terry

    1. Re:Quit redefining "poor"... by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's nice Terry, but being able to write C code doesn't disqualify you from being a son of a bitch.

      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    2. Re:Quit redefining "poor"... by tlambert · · Score: 2

      "That's nice Terry, but being able to write C code doesn't disqualify you from being a son of a bitch."

      And pretending that poverty isn't something all political parties define one way or another in order to achieve their goals doesn't make it any less true.

      | poverty: 1 a : the state of one who lacks
      | a usual or socially acceptable amount of
      | money or material possessions

      If it can be defined into existance, it can be defined away.

      -- Terry

  47. RIAA's *real* problem... by tlambert · · Score: 2

    RIAA's *real* problem is going to be that none of these computers have static IP addresses, because the U.S. has hogged the IPv4 space, and isn't very interested in switching over to IPv6 until it can decrupt everything in real time.

    Makes them really hard to block at the routers, without blocking everything. 8-).

    -- Terry

  48. Re:since you talk about angry foreigners... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

    Um, force how? If they want to apply economic pressure to us to do something, that's completely fair. Compromising is fine. When the US signed all it's current economic treaties, none of them were under military duress. (I say that with confidence, but if you'd like to dispute that, please do.) If we threaten to disrupt trade in order to secure an agreement, well... that's our right. Please describe the type of pressure we've used. I wouldn't know about it.

    I'm discussing military force. The UK could not (and would not) say "Give us Most Favored Nation trade status, or we'll go to war with you." Even if we did not have such a substantial military, the rest of the world would come to our aid.

    Anyway. I don't believe that my views are asymmetrical. I'm not a nationalist. "All men were created equal" applies to non-Americans just the same. The circular definition of "in our best interest" is essential. Compromise is often in our best interest.

    So, if you're a furrinner, and you're angry at me... well, you've assumed something.

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  49. It all has to go by puggsincyberspace · · Score: 2, Insightful

    According to the article and the US laws anything that contributes to Copyright violations intentionally or un-intentionally should be stopped. CD-Rom burners and DVD burners, contribute to Copyright violations but I don't see them stopping the production of them (could it be that Sony is one of the biggest manufacturer). If we follow the line down then the whole of the internet must go as it also contributes to Copyright violations and if we didn't have the internet then we wouldn't have file sharing and then the problem will go away. The true fact is that RIAA wants to shut down anything it cant make money from, it's got nothing to do with artists or copyright, it's all about money. If they were smart enough they would work out how to make money from it and all the huu harr would stop. One way I could think of is to let people send in a small amount of money for each song they have on a CD and for return they send out a holographic stick with serial number embedded in it and you stick it to the CD and then that CD is legal. They get their money and you get a CD that you actually want.

    --
    Access Point Live Mapping Access Points with Google
  50. Re:It is an established principle of the US that w by Afrosheen · · Score: 2

    Have you noticed alot of people's opposition to bombing Iraq? There's not a clear-cut reason why we should and the Pres is being so hush hush about it, it's hard (if not impossible) to drum up public support. I saw a girl 10 minutes ago with a 'No War in Iraq' shirt on, and I smiled to myself, realizing there must be some kind of tangible public opposition for a shirt like that to appear.

  51. What KaZaA can do by Scarblac · · Score: 2

    On the front page of their site, have users select which country they're from. Deny access to everyone who selects "United States". There, they've complied with US law.

    Of course, users could lie - but that's a DMCA violation (circumventing a technology used to protect copyrights) and obvious cracking attempt, how could Kazaa ever be held responsible for that? :-).

    --
    I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
  52. Re:US forces world so suck the ... by Scarblac · · Score: 2

    Either the world must agree on some copyright laws

    They do. Ever heard of the Berne convention, that sort of thing? Copyright law is international, based on treaties.

    [...] or companies like KaZaa can continue merrily...

    Of course they can. They do nothing illegal under copyright law. Their users may break the law, but that doesn't mean KaZaa is breaking it. That's what a Dutch court decided, using the existing, international, copyright law.

    What this world needs isn't international laws for this sort of thing, but a United States that doesn't choose to ignore them whenever it pleases them.

    Then, we'll also shoot Kazaa for that stuff like stealing Amazon royalties from charities and other websites. They should hang for that.

    --
    I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
  53. Re:Only the strong know justice... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2

    Good atempt at a troll but it failed. Someday you'll open your eyes and see the political animal for what it is...

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!