Slashdot Mirror
Freenet Creator Debates RIAA
smd4985 writes "Over at CNET News.com, there's a good coverage of a debate between Ian Clarke of Freenet and Matt Oppenheim of the RIAA." In discussing whether it's "legal and moral to create and use Freenet", which is "a radically decentralized network of file-sharing nodes tied together with strong encryption", the RIAA's Oppenheim suggests: "Other than the fact that most infringers do not like to use Freenet because it is too clunky for them to get their quick hit of free music, it is no more of a threat than any of the popular P2P services."
Other than the fact that most infringers do not like to use Freenet because it is too clunky for them to get their quick hit of free music, it is no more of a threat than any of the popular P2P services.
Really, Mr. Oppenheim? I don't think you understand exactly *how well* Freenet preserves anonymity. It is *impossible* to tell where any given file is coming from over Freenet, due to the fact that data is scattered and encyrpted across the network.
With Freenet, you *can't* go after filesharers, because you don't know who the filesharers are? What are you going to to do? Take every single freenet node to court?
You'd most certainly lose that battle, Mr. Oppenheim. Just like the courts ruled that Kazaa could not be taken down because it has legimitate, uses, so to does this apply to Freenet.
And if you succeed in scaring people off the gnutella and kazaa, this is just where the hard core will turn: Freenet and distributed systems like it.
Give it up, Mr. Oppenheim. Your days of controlling music distribution are numbered.
We, the citizens of the Internet, will prevail.
My journal has hot
Well that's still not a perfect analogy. For example, if the company added a feature to the ski mask that made it harder to pull off, and advertised this feature for use in bank robberies, they'd probably be held liable for its use in a robbery. Or if they didn't advertise it, but did know that the new feature's overwhelming use would be in bank robberies, then they might also be liable.
I doubt it. An anlagous case involving the Tec-9 gun (hard to get fingerprints from and some other features which were allegedly used to promote sales to questionable people) was tossed:
CBS News - Gun Lawsuit Misses Target
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
No. You buy a disc that contains music. There is no license except those that come from the copyright laws.
This doesn't apply to material that requires a license. If you have the material, and you don't have a license, you have broken the fucking law. In the case of music, if you have the mp3's, and you don't have the CD or tape or whatever media you bought it on, chances are you pirated it.
Your use of the word "fucking" doesn't make your point any more relevant. Why should the RIAA get to demand proof that you've paid them whenever they desire, but the clothing store not be granted the same right? If they catch you sharing files, obviously you're breaking the law and they should go after you. Other than that the only thing they should be allowed to do is to go crying to their mommies. They should have the same rights as everybody else, and that's it.
The bogus concept of software EULAs has confused you.
Copyright has nothing to do with a "licence" to own or use a copy of a work. Copyright involves a licence to copy a work - a right to copy, thus the name.
When there's no copying involved, there is no copyright issue. There's no copying and no licence involved when you purchase a CD from your local record store. (Software EULAs are based on the ridiculous notion that loading a program into memory is "copying". I don't think this has ever been upheld.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
The IRS asks you to provide receipts as proof of deductions or claims that you are making to change your tax liability.
They could care less what you are buying or if you bought it or not, they only care when you are claiming it towards your taxes.
They can use a visual inspection of your home as an attempt to prove that you may be underdeclaring your income (say you report an income of $25,000/year but have two Ferrari's in your front driveway that are registered in your name) but they can't simply order you to produce a receipt on any old purchase that you may have made.
DRM does NOT protect copyrights. DRM protects copy restrictions. Why? Well look at CSS as the case of DRM-light. It keeps the normal person from viewing out-of-region material or using non-approved viewers. It doesn't do a thing to stop the technically savvy copier/user.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
But that's because you are buying a license when you buy software. You can read the terms of the license and decide whether or not you agree with the license. With CDs, there is no license. You buy a CD and you receive the contents of the CD. You have fair use rights to create personal copies, but are otherwise limited in your ability to distribute, perform publicly, create derivative works, and copy. The limitations are in the copyright statutes.