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."

Comments

The RIAA is in over its head

[Zork the Almighty]

I think the RIAA is in over its head, again. "At the end of the day, we believe we can find infringers regardless of what network they use to try to cloak their illegal activity." HA HA HA HA HA.

Re:The RIAA is in over its head

[ajs]

I see your point, but I think he's right. I think it's obvious that watermarks are going to be a big part of the music distribution system soon (if they aren't already). Sure, Felton has proved that you can remove a watermark that you know about, but the RIAA's memebers aren't going to tell you about it, and they'll place a few kinds of watermarks on each song if they're smart.

Once you rip and distribute, you create a trail, and all the RIAA needs is a few high-profile cases that take Freenet users and run them through the wash for distributing songs.

However, the RIAA is doomed, and there's a simple reason. When we get to the juncture that it's reasonable for my DVD player, CD player, etc to be played REMOTELY by another rendering device (amplifier, TV, etc) then the RIAA is going to have to very carefully define their terms. I don't think they're going to be able to stop Joe Teen from sharing a new CD with everyone in his school. I also don't think that their business model will survive a 2-10x shrinkage when that becomes reasonable for your average non-technical teen.

Can you imagine "hey, Joe can I borrow the new XDestroyWindow CD?" "Oh, sure Jim it's in my streaming collection, log in any time."

Yeah, that's gonna hurt....

Re:The RIAA is in over its head

[Cyclometh]

Not relevant; the RIAA isn't the arbiter of what makes sense or not. It's not appropriate to voice an opinion - that P2P is primarily for illegal activities - and use that as a justification for outlawing it. As an analogy, handguns (as in pistols) are primarily designed for one purpose- killing people. They're not very useful for other applications (most of the time), although some people like to hunt with them, and so on. Target shooting is also something people do with them. However, the primary purpose of a handgun is to provide a convenient means of killing or maiming another human being. On the basis of that argument, should handguns be illegal? I don't think so personally, but the analogy is valid.

Re:The RIAA is in over its head

[the_2nd_coming]

is there a city where there is nothing illigal going on?

is there a Bar where there is never anything illegal going on (at some point)

is there a neighborhood that nothing illegal is going on?

no. no. no.

so why should we get rid of on-line privacy just because the real world is reflected on line.

Re:The RIAA is in over its head

[TotallyUseless]

If you are going to metallica concerts, festival or not, you deserve a lot more than a frisking, unless they frisked you from the inside out. Mod me down all you want, but as long as we keep pumping them our green, the assholes will control the game. Vote with your dollars, not your comments on slashdot.

Plain and simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

freenets don't trade music, people do.

The RIAA is right to be worried

[Raindance]

If a legal structure such as copyright isn't enforceable, it might as well not be part of our legal system, and indeed will be thrown out.

I think often people too often focus on law and morality in a vacuum and forget that, to a large degree, *might makes right* in our society. To some degree our legal system attempts to fairly distribute power in society (often with 'fairly' defined by those who already have power), but it operates under fairly tight constraints on what sort of distribution of power is enforceable. Freenet is huge for the long-term prospects of copyright laws; if Freenet survives they will be forced to radically change in the upcoming years.

Shady dealings

[axlrosen]

Clarke: Matt seems to misunderstand Judge Posner's quote. Posner was referring to those involved in the likely "shady dealings"--not the creators of the tools they are using. To use his own analogy, the manufacturers of a mask used in a bank robbery are certainly not responsible for the criminal behavior of the bank robbers. This notion was reaffirmed by Judge (Stephen) Wilson earlier this year in his ruling in the Grokster case as it pertains to P2P networks saying, "Grokster and Streamcast are not significantly different from companies that sell home video recorders or copy machines, both of which can be and are used to infringe copyrights."

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. You could make a similar statement for VCR and copy machine manufacturers.

I think Freenet's a really cool technical problem, and I'd get involved in it, except for these kinds of problems. Even with all its positive uses, the idea of working on what turns out to be an ideal tool for distributing kiddie-porn just gives me the willies. I personally don't feel comfortable in this gray area of providing complete anonymity. A system that had the same benefits of distributed publishing (to avoid the Slashdot effect) without the encryption, I'd be interested in contributing to.

Re:Shady dealings

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

You might use it appropriately and not be doing anything illegal whatsoever, but the mere use of things like PGP can get you on a list of people to watch. Unfortunately in today's social climate, people are willing to sacrifice civil rights for security and government agencies are taking as much rope as you want to hand them. So by not using PGP, you don't end up unfairly held without trial. I don't think anyone would suggest that just because you use PGP, you're transmitting nuclear secrets, but the possibility exists.

For instance, the RIAA views anyone who uses Kazaa as a criminal who is breaking the law - regardless of whether they are or aren't. Without the legal backing, people are forced to take punishment from the RIAA (example: the kid at RPI that made the search engine). It's not easy being a civil rights leader and standing up for your rights. So I guess, long story short - those people currently logged into Kazaa downloading public domain works like how_to_uncap_your_cable_modem.txt are akin to Rosa Parks and other freedom riders of the past generation.

Re:Shady dealings

[guacamolefoo]

To me, a tool is a tool, and I'll use if it's appropriate, regardless of how someone else might use it. People are good and bad, tools are not.

I have no beef with your assertion, but the courts do. Certain "tools" or property do create a presumption of criminal activity. An easy one is cocaine -- possession of it (under almost any circumstances) is itself a crime, whether your goal is nefarious (pleasure use) or "good" (pain relief). Possession of a bomb (which you might simply use to blow out stumps) is another example.

Thieves tools (and not just in Neverwinter Nights) create a presumption that you are engaged in criminal activity. Possession of certain "smart cards" (such as those used by Directv) also puts you at risk, even though you may have a perfectly legitimate use (which you will have to document in order to avoid prosecution).

Again, your view is not an illegitimate one, but the fact is that, from a legal standpoint, it is an incorrect and potentially dangerous one. Software is not unlike these other items I mentioned above, and there is no reason that I can see that would prevent legislation from making possession of a software (or hardware) tool illegal. DeCSS, or BackOrifice, or snort could all be made illegal.

Wise policy? I think not. Is there some rule preventing this from being an actual enforceable law (that possession of these items, without actual use, would be a crime)? No.

GF.

Re:Shady dealings

[guacamolefoo]

Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed post. I think you are right about the distinction between clearly defined impermissible objects and those which may be used for a variety of purposes.

The question that raises, and this is what I think you were after though you didn't come out and say it, is whether software can ever be anything but a general purpose tool (a "screwdriver" in your example). In other words, can possession of software constitute a strict-liability offense?

I think that the answer to that is yes. Clearly, this is not determinative in all cases, however. If a strict liability statute is set up for certain types of software, I think that there will still have to be questions about what is on that list and why, and the courts will get involved.

Let's use (as an example) DeCSS. I think that a legislature could very easily enact a statute that authorizes an Attorney General, for instance, to regulate certain types of programs. The delegation of the oversight of permissible/impermissible would allow the fluctuating world of software to be met by a flexible oversight framework, or at least moreso than a strictly legislative oversight (e.g. "Unauthorized programs that decode DVDs are illegal, see regulations" vs. "DeCSS is illegal").

Nevertheless, such a framework would not prevent the courts from having to make inquiries along more general lines. For instance, if a "possession of software" statute did exist, and a new virus emerged and the writer used GCC to compile it, is GCC an illegal software tool? It would depend on the interpretation by the courts, more likely than not. Even the OS could be implicated, potentially.

All these questions and hypotheticals have ignored the free speech issues that would need to be addressed. Code does not equal speech all the time, but might it equal speech under the facts and circumstances of a case? Sure. Vagueness/overbreadth would likewise be an issue.

I think in the end, there will likely be two areas that legislatures will take. The first is the absolute outlawing of certain "known to be harmful" applications, and there will be firestorms everytime someone tries to add a new application or type of program to the verboten list. There will also be generalized statutes where use of software may heighten the offense.

I suspect that software is ultimately going to receive very similar treatment compared to guns. "Virus" or "virus writing" programs might be machine guns, available only to those with licenses. Encryption or portscanning tools might be available (officially) on limited bases. Monster Truck Madness XIV, fortunately, will be available to everyone (provided that they can pay, of course).

Software will present more difficulties than guns in the context of regulation -- software is easier and easier to conceal (try finding my USB keychain drive) and replicate, unlike a gun. On the other hand, possession and/or use of certain types of software to commit a crime may end up "aggravating" crimes for purposes of sentencing.

I am not happy that this is the future I see, but I can see how it could happen. I also do not see any protections in place constiutionally that guarantee that it cannot happen. Freenet, PGP, DeCSS, etc. Software is going to be a target more and more. "Free" hardware could end up being a target (region free DVD players, chipped game consoles, non-DRM computers, etc.).

Keep your outrage white-hot, /.ers, there will be plenty of challenges in the future.

GF.

Re:Shady dealings

[c]

Actually, Ian was paraphrasing Judge Posner.

Ian's stance seems pretty darn clear and unambiguous. Freenet and its ilk are tools allowing free and anonymous speech even against large and organized adversaries. These goals and the goals of corporations and misguided governments are mutually exclusive.

He didn't really argue strongly about good or bad, other than to say that Freenet is better than guns and such. I suppose it's implied that he believes the freedom is good and any controls over freedom are bad.

c.

This is actually interesting...

[SuperDuG]

The whole point of peer-to-peer is to share files with others. Just like the whole point of a car is to drive it. Let's "roll" with this analogy for a bit:

There are millions of driving related accidents and homicides that take place every year across the world. Bank robbers, car theives, and demolition derbies cause the cars to be used for reasons other than they were originally intended.

My question: Where are the lawsuits against GM and other car manufacturers for providing tools of crime? Why aren't we going after the root of all evil, the car manufacturers? Why is it that we still see cars all over the planet?

Just think about it ...

Re:This is actually interesting...

[Glamdrlng]

For that matter, isn't carpooling a crime?

Carpooling results in less wear-and-tear on your vehicle, thus resulting in lost or delayed sales for the automotive industry. Plus, it means you use less gas, thus stealing money from Shell, Exxon, BP, etc.

It's only when you compare copyright laws to any other type of business ad nauseam that you can see how truly fux0red the system is.

Re:This is actually interesting...

[angle_slam]

Stupid analogy. There are many uses of cars that are legitimate. In fact, the vast majority of uses of cars are legitimate. That is not true with P2P trading. While Kazaa, et al. CAN be used for legitimate purposes, everyone knows that 90+% of material on Kazaa are not legitimate.

There is no theft of music involved.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Just as we would never agree that it is right to steal someone's clothes or furniture, it is not right to steal music.""

It was impossible to steal anything with Napster. It is impossible to steal anything with Kazaa and Freenet. You'd think he'd know the definitions of words better.

Speaking of rights.

[HanzoSan]

"
"Why should copyright holders, who as owners of intellectual property, have fewer rights than somebody who owns televisions or clothing and attempts to sell them? Clearly everyone would agree that the television and clothing retailers should be able to investigate and prosecute shoplifters.""

Why should the owner of a TV have more rights than the owner of a CD?

Copyright owners shouldnt own the information, they should own the right to profit from it.

Just like the TV maker doesnt own the TV once they sell it to you, they own the rights to sell that TV and profit from it.

What I dont like is the fact that as we buy information we dont truely own it, yet when we buy physical objects we own them. This makes no sense to me, I say if we buy music we should be able to do whatever we want with it.

Re:Speaking of rights.

[Gleef]

Kenja asserts:

But you DONT buy music. You buy a license to use it.

The most recent music CD I purchased came with no license, nor did I need one. At least in the United States, first sale doctorine says that when I purchase a copyrighted product (eg. a book, or a CD), I own the physical product, and have a right to enjoy the use of it, and resell it as I see fit. The copyright holder has no right to limit my quiet enjoyment of my purchase.

Copyright Law restricts my right to make and distribute copies of the work, and derivative works. If I wish to do something with my CD that would be in violation of Copyright Law, then and only then I would need to obtain a license from the copyright holder.

There is no legal basis for an implied license with a CD/Book/DVD, nor is there any need for one.

Computer software is different, because you almost always have to copy software at least once to make use of it (from the media to the computer). It's also different, because software (both shrinkwrap and Free) is traditionally shipped with a license in some form you can see and read. So, basically, if you see a license, you (may or arguably may not, that's a different issue though) have a license; if you don't see one, you definately don't have one.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. The above is not legal advice. Eat your greens.

Re:Speaking of rights.

[HanzoSan]

No ones talking about selling MP3s. See thats what you dont understand, the RIAA's business model is dead, the RIAA is not needed anymore. PERIOD.

Kazaa, Grokster, Napster and all these other services can PROFIT, thats right PROFIT off of us sharing mp3s.

Musicians can get a share of the PROFIT, and get paid for their work.

Whos missing here? Happy consumers, happy musicians, wait, no RIAA influence!

Thats the key.

Re:Propaganda over rationality.

[Evil Adrian]

Nobody should be forced to produce a receipt for their stuff weeks later because the store thinks they're short an item and they have a security camera shot of you looking at it.

Your argument is idiotic. Your argument mentions circumstantial evidence, i.e. an item is missing, and they have a video of you looking at it, but no video of you taking the item out of the store.

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. Yes, your original CD might have been consumed in a fire or stepped upon, but that is very unlikely all things considered, so if you want to run a discussion about how better to prove licenses, fine, but your argument lacks any thought or depth.

Re:Good job they don't consider freenet a threat..

[IthnkImParanoid]

They do recognize it as a threat, but they can't say "Freenet is the most dangerous P2P app out there, because it protects the user's anonymity! If everyone used it, we'd be in even bigger trouble!" because then everybody would start using it, and they really would be in bigger trouble. The RIAA shill describe Freenet as "clunky" to the average user more than once in that interview. He's simply trying to keep any average Joe's reading that article from making the switch from KaZaa.

Funniest Quote:

[ih8apple]

Funniest Quote:

RIAA's Oppenheim: "How does this have anything to do with corporations? This has to do with artists and creators"

Yeah, Right... Last time I checked, the RIAA web site stated that it "is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry", not the artist community.

Re:Funniest Quote:

[CrazyDuke]

It's thier version of the "think of the children!" red herring argument.

Legal and moral...

[pubjames]

discussing whether it's "legal [and moral] to create and use Freenet"

Of course it should be legal to use freenet.

There must be a distinction made between making acts illegal because they are bad and making things illegal because they can be used to do bad acts.

Driving very fast is dangerous and can kill. That does not mean we should make cars illegal. That would be ridiculous because cars are useful and can also be used for good/useful acts. It also does not mean that cars should be technically capped so that they can't go fast. The existance of laws against the act of fast/dangerous driving should be enough.

We get onto more morally interesting ground with this argument with guns. According to my argument, surely guns should not be banned because the existance of laws against shooting people should be enough? My argument to that would be simple - guns can't really do anything useful other than kill and main, so in the case of guns it is reasonable to ban the technology. Does that mean that it is reasonable to ban DeCSS, as that can only really usefully be used for illegal purposes?

Damn, now I've confused myself. I'm just going to lie down for a few minutes...

Re:Legal and moral...

[Steve B]

guns can't really do anything useful other than kill and main

I'd say that it's pretty damn useful to "kill and maim" someone who intends to kill or maim you, and will certainly succeed in doing so if it's a simple contest of muscles.

Re:Legal and moral...

[Jerf]

guns can't really do anything useful other than kill and main, so in the case of guns it is reasonable to ban the technology.

"kill and maim" is not the intrinsically immoral things you seem to be making them out to be. Few people would say that "killing" a deer with the intent of eating it is immoral. (Such people do exist, yes, but I think "few" is an adequate description of their numbers.) Few people would say that killing or maiming someone attacking you or your children is immoral. (Again, people who think you have a moral imperative to never be violent, even in the face of violence, exist, but even fewer of them really mean it when push comes to shove, and the ones that do tend to die off.)

Getting married has made me think a lot more about carrying a concealed weapon; the prospect of seeing someone attack my wife while I could do nothing about it turns my stomach, whereas self-defense never seemed quite important enough. I think if I ever have children that will tip me over the edge and I will definately start carrying. The odds are slim but the consequences of not being ready are life-changing. (Not that it's a guarentee in any direction, but owning a gun definately affects the odds in my favor.)

In case you can't tell, I'm male; this must be those "hunter/provider/protecter" genes kicking in.

And thats whats wrong.

[HanzoSan]

In the physical world, you buy the physical object and you own that object.

Why should music be any different? Why the hell should we buy licenses to use music in the way they tell us to, we dont really own shit do we? I think its wrong. I mean ok when people buy music on CD you can say you were selling the CD and not the music, fine.

But when music companies literally sell an Mp3, which is pure music in its digital form, what right do they have to tell us what we can and cannot do with that mp3? We paid for the mp3 right?

Its these double standards that piss users off.

Re:And thats whats wrong.

[Misch]

Second, when you share music, its no different than sharing your car, your TV, or anything else you physically own.

When you share your car or your TV, you no longer have posession of the car or TV. Unlike audio, when you send a file to someone, you still have the original and are not denied the ability to use it.

Re:And thats whats wrong.

[Suidae]

Why does everyone want to make a point by starting 'sharing music/vidoes/programs/ebooks is like...'?

Data duplication is fundamentally different from physical goods. The system of laws societies have built up around production and distribution of physical goods simply is not suitable for applying to information that can be duplicated with standard consumer equipment.

The sooner people realize this and find an economically and socially viable solution, the better off humanity will be. As long as people are locked into thinking of information in terms of physical media (eg, a CD instead of music) we'll be stuck with an information economy that spends resources on things that are generally unproductive (copy prevention schemes and lawyers).

Eventually we are going to start making steps toward the general assembler, where regular people at home have a device that can create from raw materials and software nearly anything we need. No one will buy objects made of plastic, glass or metal, these objects will simply be made on demand. New kinds of things will be defined simply with a data file that one could share with ones friends. Electronics won't be far behind simple mechanical devices. Forget buying an MP3 player, just borrow the definition file from a friend and print your own, in whatever color you like.

Imagine what it would be like if large corporations cripple these kinds of technologies with DRM. Thats exactly whats happening now with music and video.

Yes, governments need to protect the rights of content creators, but they also need to be aware of what will eventually be possible with technology in the near and no-so-near future, and plan their course through history as appropriate. Governments exist partially because individuals tend to do what is best for themselves right now, not what will be good for people three or four generations down the line.

Preaching to the choir

[SamNmaX]

I know this point comes up countless times, but just because something can send files doesn't make it illegal. If anything, Freenet is less of a threat than both FTP and HTTP for sending around MP3s/videos, as it was not particularly designed to send large files. FTP and HTTP aren't illegal, so why should Freenet be? There is no reason any file sharing system should be illegal unless it's intent is for piracy (which is why Napster got in trouble, due to the emails floating around about that fact. Why aimster got in trouble, I still don't understand and I hope they win on appeal).

Oppenheim seems to suggest that Freenet is just as much a threat as any file sharing tool, no matter the fact that it's "clunky". I've always thought that the best the RIAA can hope for is to make this kind of music piracy clunky, as there will always be some sort of file sending service and copy protection can always be broken (audio-in to audion out). The RIAA and the music industry need to come up with realistic view of the world, before they lose all their sales to services like Kazaa.

Re:Propaganda over rationality.

[garcia]

It's my choice to buy the CD, convert it to MP3 (or whatever format I chose), and then destroy the original.

It's not up to me to prove that I bought the CD in the first place, it's up to the RIAA to prove that I didn't.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Now, if they catch me downloading music off the 'Net that is ILLEGAL and come into my computer and find other music then I would assume it's my responsibility to prove myself innocent.

What they want to do is exactly the opposite. They want to come into my computer w/o proof or a warrant (which in most cases would show they had proof I did something wrong) and look at what I have and then ask questions later.

That's what's wrong with the RIAA.

Re:Bye Bye Dinosaurs!

[sig cop]

we live in a capitalist society, and in the end efficiency rules.

Shouldn't that be "we live in a capitalist society, and in the end, the owners of the capiatal rule"?

grin/duck/run

My One Remaing P2P Question:

[Ieshan]

Suppose I have a friend over for dinner and I'm listening to a burned copy of a CD I legally own. It's playing over the stereo in the kitchen.

I get up and leave the room, needing to go check on the burgers on the grill. My friend is the only one listening to the music.

Is this copyright infringement, because my friend is listening to a copied CD that I'm willingly playing for him? I've made an authorized copy and I'm playing it for a friend - that's all I've done so far.

Suppose we take it a step farther. My friend really likes the band, and he swipes the CD while I'm not looking. I don't notice because I was too busy fiddling with the burgers, and he switches on the radio in it's place. Am I guilty of copyright infringement because my friend's taken my CD, or is he guilty of theft from me, for which I'm certainly not going to prosecute if I ever find out, or is my friend guilty of copyright infringement, taking a legal copy of a CD from me?

I'm lost on where the copyright infringement happens in this situation. If it happens while my friend is listening to my music, virtually every CD owner everywhere is guilty of copyright. If I'm guilty when my friend takes my CD, *I* become guilty of copyright infringement for the sins of my friend; and if my friend is guilty when he takes my CD, then he's going to be the most heavily prosecuted thief in the world: when's the last time a shoplifted was prosecuted for illegal possession of a copyrighted work?

If there's NO copyright infringement at all in this situation, then what happens if I set up my computer to transfer files, I've got legal copies on my computer, and someone else takes them without me having given explicit permission?

Re:Freenet is awesome

[MikeFM]

My main bitches against freenet are #1 it's written in Java and quite honestly it performs like shit on every system I've tried it on and #2 the freenet developers have some sort of thing against anybody having very many files shared (even if they legally own them all).

The first problem is easy to fix just by developing other clients. I don't really see it as a problem if the dev client is written in Java.. which certainly has some benefits. The second issue is what made me lose interest in freenet. They total refused to make any effort towards making it easier (or possible?) to share large groups of files. Not only that but they made plain that they didn't think anybody should put so many files on freenet.

stealing bibles?

[lordcorusa]

The RIAA representative feels very strongly that people should not steal anything, be it songs, movies, chairs, etc...

However, at one point in the debate, he mentions that some people distribute the Bible on Freenet and dismisses that saying, "we can all get that from the motel we most recently visited..."

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but those Gideons Bibles found in motels are supposed to stay in the motels, right? I always thought that you were not supposed to take them. Now I know that many people do take them, but isn't that considered stealing? So didn't the RIAA representative just suggest that we should all steal Bibles from our local motels rather than get them online from Freenet?

Re:stealing bibles?

[Arslan ibn Da'ud]

So didn't the RIAA representative just suggest that we should all steal Bibles from our local motels rather than get them online from Freenet?

Hm, that's a really good analogy.

I'm sure if you stole a bible from a motel (personally I'd sooner lift a _book of Mormon_ from a Marriot myself :), the motel *could* choose to perse^H^H^Hprosecute you.

Or maybe they would decide that their church is the better for it, and they will fervently pray that you study it. And come to a service and drop $ in the plate :)

So maybe stealing bibles is like stealing sales brochures...it does more good than harm. And maybe....just *maybe*....copying music is the same?

Hmm........naaaaw, couldn't be.

The Missed Point

[Dark Paladin]

From what I've seen, Freenet is not about "trading files". Oh, that's a part of it, to be sure, and perhaps what it's built around.

But Freenet is about freedom of information. How many times did Clarke have to repeat that? It's a way for a person in China to be able to say to someone else "Maybe it's just me, but our government is less a socialistic ideal and more a dictatorship." It's a way for a teenager to say "I think I'm pregnant, but where I live I'll be stigmatized if I have an abortion, or even look for one - what information is there for me?" It's even a way for a programmer to say "You know, I've got this idea for a cryptography system, but some people in certain businesses might sue me if I even talk about it (whether it's legal or not) - so here's a way to present the information without getting myself in trouble."

That is what Freenet is about - not trading music, or movies, or the like. Yes, it can be used like that - the same way a car can be used to run someone over. Last time I checked, though, most people are just using their cars to get stuff Point A to Point B.

I think the gentleman from the RIAA either didn't get the point - or didn't care (and I believe the latter). In his mind, privacy is not important - though I'd agree with Mr. Clarke. Anonymous exchange of information is important in a democracy. It allows people to speak without fear of reprisal. Without it, people would be terrified to vote for fear their enemies would hunt them down and chop off their limbs. (I had a roommate who was so irritated that Clinton the first time, he wanted to go down the street and beat up people he discovered had voted for him. I was grateful for "secret ballots" at this time.

Eh - but that's just my take. I could be wrong.

Debate the right word?

[Mr. Fred Smoothie]

It was interesting to see how completely both parties talked past each other here, and how their biases almost completely blinded them to the other's arguments.

Clarke clearly does not care about illegal use of his system due to an obvious religious zeal for free and anonymous speech (which, as an American it's hard to disagree with).

Oppenheim, on the other hand, completelely (and obviously willfully) ignores the idea that the debate is about anything other than the protection of IP rights; Corporate control of government and free speech aren't even issues worth discussing to the RIAA (gee, wonder why?).

Still, though I'd hardly call this a debate, it's nice that someone beside the directly involved parties still cares enough about these issues to present both sides.

Open Q on speach rights in relation to artical

[saitoh]

Matt made a nice analogy early on (well, I thought it was nice even if I dont like the outcome) of how bank robbers cant scream about privacy when their masks came off as they understood (in theory) what they were getting into, and the same goes for p2p nodes who are sharing illegal material and have been notified via the TOA from their ISP that they will be ratted out if there is a request. I dont agree with it, but its an interesting analogy.

Now my question is, how can trading mp3s of R.Kelly and Britany Spears be considered free speach (which was the argument that Clarke used in the second question for freenet's existance)? Step aside from the mentality of "I want to get free music" and "the RIAA is full of $hit and we need to undermind them as much as possible" and consider how is this justified as free speach? If they are going to win, it has potential to be with that.

Last but not least, if freenet has a basis to stand on free speach being protectable over mp3 copyright infrengement (not theft Matt... the US Courts dont see it as theft), then the argument *could* turn towards Phil Zimmerman and how PGP came under fire in the mid 90s which I believe was for similar reasons.

Stealing

[mao che minh]

Again with the inane bickering over the words "stealing" and "theft". The word "theft" is more identifiable, more accurate in many people's minds*, and sounds worse.

Not everyone likes to break out a dictionary and reveal every technical aspect of a word. When generalizing, it is easier to say "you are stealing music" then "you are infringing upon this record label's copyrights by downloading copied music". When most people think of stealing, they think of people taking stuff that isn't theirs. They don't worry about the technical aspects of actually depriving someone else of physical property. I.E. they aren't nerdy like you, and hence will not take the time to break out a dictionary to see if the use of the word "stealing" is absolutely the most correct word to be used when explaining music theft.

When music theieves try to attack the technicality of the RIAA's rhetoric, such as trying to say that the word "stealing" isn't correct, they end up looking like a kid that got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and is trying to manipulate words and circumstance to somehow make himself look either innocent or "less guilty". This behavior reveals to judges and intelligent people just what kind of a person they are dealing with.

You shouldn't steal music. It's illegal. It deprives the RIAA their rightful profits. It doesn't matter if "the RIAA sucks dude, and they made a lot of money of the artists, so what's a few MP3's to them!?!". I don't endorse Microsoft's tactics, so I don't buy their products. I don't pirate their software either, because I'm a law abiding person, and not a petty thief.

Re:Stealing

[Gulik]

When music theieves try to attack the technicality of the RIAA's rhetoric, such as trying to say that the word "stealing" isn't correct, they end up looking like a kid that got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and is trying to manipulate words and circumstance to somehow make himself look either innocent or "less guilty". This behavior reveals to judges and intelligent people just what kind of a person they are dealing with.

The point here, and the reason it keeps getting brought up, is that this isn't some kind of hair-splitting quibble -- the word ``theft'' means something, and that something is all but completely unrelated to copyright infringement. The people who wave their hands and ignore this central and obvious fact are not, I'm sorry to inform you, the intelligent ones.

Re:Stealing

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't worry about the technical aspects of actually depriving someone else of physical property.

Yes, they do care about that! Depriving someone else of property is not a "technical aspect" of the idea of "stealing", its the main point of the idea of "stealing".

The whole moral outrage of stealing is empathizing with the poor victim who now has no {car/computer/whatever} and needs to {go somewhere/receive important email/whatever} and can't do what he needs to and now also has to fork over even more of his hard earned cash to replace his stuff before he can go on with his life.

There are, however, a few people who (very, VERY WRONGLY) get hung up on the other side of the equation and worry that someone has gotten something for nothing (if you care about that, you are so WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!). It is very important to wipe out this meme and remind people that it is the loss of something that makes stealing wrong, not the gaining by someone else.

Re:Stealing

[MightyYar]

I think the point is that people don't want to be called thieves when they have done nothing morally wrong. It is one thing to be called a thief when you have actually deprived someone of something. To be called a thief when no such incident has occured is pretty insulting.

Yes, it is illegal to download copyrighted music. Since when does "law" = "what's right"? Speeding is also against the law. Find me a person that doesn't exceed the speed limit by 5 MPH! Does that make the person morally wrong?

I think it should be illegal to profit off of someone else's hard work and creativity. However, using that work in a way that brings me no monetary gain should be considered fair use.

I'm going to go whistle "Zippity Do Dah" now and pay no royalties!

Re:Stealing

[jnana]

Just because some people are sometimes sloppy with language, it doesn't mean that we should not try to be precise. Sloppy language leads to sloppy thought, and this is exactly what the RIAA wants.

The only reason that (illegally) 'copying' music has come to be called 'stealing' music is because of the RIAA's deliberate manipulations of language. Six years ago, everybody would have referred to it as copying, which it is, so it is not too much to ask people to use the correct verb.

If you want to reflect that it is illegal, call it "illegal copying" (since some copying is legal (for backup), while some copying is illegal).

It is not only nerds that care about language not being abused and sloppy thought.

What you think we dont know its illegal?

[HanzoSan]

So what, sharing is still right.

When a speaker transmits sound to a group of people at a party, its illegal!

None of them own the CD and paid for these songs.

Is it right? Yes its right to share music. Its just illegal.

You share TV as well, and I dont hear anyone debating if thats right or wrong because the TV companies arent suing everyone left and right. If TV companies installed cameras in your home and fined you every time more than one person was in front of your TV, you'd think it was right because its the law. The law is always right to people like you.

Openheimr = idiot & liar

[dh003i]

Openheimer claims that P2P can't be used for political speech?

What about someone who types in Xenu? That sure as hell isn't available online (not without alot of hastle from clambake).

Not sure, but I believe that P2P networks could easily be configured to allow for searching the text of documents.

Oh yea, he claims that there is little potential for non-infringing use and that there is little non-infringing use, and most of it infringes music copyright? Bullshit. I had my entire hard-drive offering on Kazaa. Guess what the most common upload items were? Anything and everythingg rated triple-X.

Oh yea, there happens to be these guys called Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach. Beethoven -- some 200 pieces. Mozart -- some 600. Bach -- some 1,200 pieces. That's a hell of alot of very popular non-infringing music (all of which is better than the best of the modern crap that you can get now).

Aside from that, Openheimer continued to fail to meet on the playing field. He always tried to make this interview about P2P apps like Kazaa. It was about FreeNode, not Kazaa. FreeNode is particularly designed for anonymous communication, not file-sharing...until it gets a search engine that's relatively fast, it will be poor for file-sharing.

Re:Openheimr = idiot & liar

[WebMasterJoe]

Oh yea, there happens to be these guys called Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach. Beethoven -- some 200 pieces. Mozart -- some 600. Bach -- some 1,200 pieces. That's a hell of alot of very popular non-infringing music (all of which is better than the best of the modern crap that you can get now).

Excellent point. I want to add to that a little, too - RIAA types keep telling us that if artists can't make music, then they won't create. Have you ever met a real artist who felt this way? Those artists you mentioned didn't create their art so that they could be rich - in their times, music was not a real career. They created because they were driven to create, and they were never promised huge sacks of gold coins. Yet they created hundreds of works.

Fast forward to today, and go to an open-mic night at a jazz club. Do these people make money? No. Are they artists who love to create? Absolutely. I firmly believe that the lack of financial incentive is what keeps music good - those who are driven by their own desire to create typically create better music than a professional songwriter who spends the work week writing what he/she thinks will appeal to the largest demographic. And while the former explores and provokes, the latter strives to spit out exactly what Joe Consumer, aged 21-34, is used to listening to on his favorite ClearChannel radio station.

I happen to be one of the musicians who is driven to create. I've spent far more than I've made, and it will probably stay that way for the rest of my life, but it hasn't stopped me yet. I made about $100 in royalties from a song recorded in 1995. My current band has mp3's freely available on our website (see the sig) and we would rather play a low-paying/free gig than not play at all. The art is the incentive, not the $0.14/album royalties that the RIAA pays its "recording artists." But the RIAA is only thinking about the executives and the Pop Star Factories that are only in it for the paychecks.

You did NOT just ask that

[thepler]

from the article...

Oppenheim: ... Why should copyright holders, who as owners of intellectual property, have fewer rights than somebody who owns televisions or clothing and attempts to sell them? ...

Um, because televisions and clothing are physical property, and physical property is different than intellectual property. Otherwise it all would just be called property, wouldn't it?

Re:Thats what I dont ageee with.

[ichimunki]

Dear Dimwit #654864, using a lot of capital letters does not make your argument better. Also, red-baiting is so 1950's. Would you get over it already? Copyright is governmental interference in the free market-- much closer to Communism than any filesharing. It says so right there in the U.S. Constitution: "to promote". That's the Founding Fathers saying, "the free market is insufficient in this case, so let's legislate in favor of authors/inventors/publishers/whatever."

Consider this from the other direction

[be-fan]

Instead of focusing on the fact that 99.9% of Freenet's traffic is illegal music and porn, look at it from the other direction. Is there any other system out there that allows people to anonymously communicate with millions of people worldwide. If the answer is no, then it is unjustifiable to take away a system that has such obviously huge potential benifets for freedom of speech without providing an alternative.

Re:Really, Mr. Oppenheimer?

[Waffle Iron]

With Freenet, you *can't* go after filesharers, because you don't know who the filesharers are? What are you going to to do?

There is a very simple fix that will make all P2P networks useless. Industry and government will get together and come up with a plan to cap all residential broadband upstream bitrates to the low kilobit/sec range (uncapped service might be offered for say $50/month extra; very few will buy it). Educational institutes will be pressured to do the same on student accounts. Businesses will gladly crack down on employee P2P usage. Result: P2P dries up quickly.

Since this is a win/win situation for every party except the individual end user, I'm predicting we'll see these limits in place within 5 years.

Which just proves...

[siskbc]

...that all sides use self-serving logic. Blame the tool or the user? Well, if you're a good democrat, you blame gunmakers in addition to users, but not file-sharing systems. On the contrary, if you're a good conservative, you blame file-sharers and the systems, but not gunmakers.

Of course, I realize there are a bunch of libertarians around here who want their guns and file-sharing. ;)

Re:The RIAA advocates stealing Bibles?

[alteran]

"Or do those motel Bibles really say you can take them home if you want?"

Yes, they DO say you can take them if you want. That's what the Gideons do -- provide free Bibles in the hope that you'll actually read them. The Gideons were way into "information wants to be free" long before Free Software / Open Source.

Re:Show me this right, show me the law.

[ichimunki]

You're not making life easier for the filesharing crowd, you know. You really ought to cut down on the caffeine and slow down the pace of your postings in these threads.

Playing music at a private non-commercial party is no more illegal than having some friends over to watch a prerecorded movie. Those are both private performances that are allowed because copyright law only forbids public performances.

And on that score, public performances, at least for music, are covered under a compulsory license. Which means that any song ever produced, I have the right to perform it in public without any permission from the copyright holder, as long as I pay the compulsory license fee. Which, BTW, is paid to the groups ASCAP and BMI, not the RIAA.

As for online sharing, you need to be more specific with examples of the type of abuse you're concerned about for anyone to have a reasonable discussion of same. Obviously there are a number of places we might look at where the copyright law has gone beyond its initial intent and instead granted a sort of homestead-style property right to ideas. Obviously the ever-expanding scope and strength of copyright erodes our natural rights in our property and to free speech, but do you really expect to convince anyone of that with hyperbole and misstatements of fact?

They forget to ask themselves...

[Soluxx]

The artists and music companies have gotten so wrapped up in fighting piracy that they have forgotten to ask themselves *why* people would not want to pay for music...

We all have seen the stereotypical musician on the street playing for donations. In times past, that was the norm; an entertainer would entertain and people would compensate them for it out of the goodness of their hearts (and maybe a bit of social/peer pressure). Have entertainers nowadays gotten so powerful and so full of themselves that they believe that everyone should be *required* to compensate them? If so, why should anyone be required to compensate them? If I'm not entertained, I don't want to pay money.

What artists and companies need to realize is that people *do* compensate them out of the goodness of their hearts. I buy CD's from bands I've known and liked even if I've never heard the CD yet... I do that to support the band. I go to their overpriced concerts where I'm a mile away to stand around and watch them play crappy versions of their CD's (no, not every musician is like that, but a vast majority are). If someone offered me a videotape of their concert, I wouldn't take it over going to see them, even though it would be just about the same thing. That's because I feel like I'm getting something and giving something when I go to a concert.

Basically what I'm getting at is that people would buy CD's to compensate artists if the RIAA and the more vocal artists would lay off. Peer/social pressure can work wonders.

So Waste and Direct Connect are legal.

[HanzoSan]

Because both Waste and Direct Connect would be considered private performances.

So if people were to use these services, such as Waste, it would be impossible to sue them right? Its a private performance.

Heres the key problem, Distribution.

[HanzoSan]

Why does the RIAA limit our ability to distribute? Because they know they wont be needed if we become the distributor.

This isnt about Artists or Consumers, its about the RIAA protecting their business. P2P is distribution, free distribubtion. The RIAA however wants control over distribution.

I'm not saying we should have a right to sell mp3s we didnt make, I'm saying we the people should distribute music, and musicians can profit from this in a number of ways.

Why do we need the RIAA to buy copyrights from musicians, distribute musicians music, and then make all the money from CD sales, when we can distribute the music, the musicians can keep the profits, and we can gain enhanced fair use rights.

Bible-stealer

[DrFrob]

Oppenheim: Or, I have heard that the Bible gets distributed on these networks. Apart from the fact that we can all get that from the motel we most recently visited

And taking a Bible from the motel would be called .....

Re:Propaganda over rationality.

[Xerithane]

What makes you think that everybody reading this cnet article (or even this slashdot comment) has comprable knowledge to Matt Oppenheim, or even to myself? (I have taken graduate level U.S. copyright law classes, which most people have not, and it's Mr. Oppenheim's job to be knowledgable on this subject.)

If Oppenheim needs an analogy to make his point, he doesn't understand his point clear enough to make it. If he thoroughly and correctly understands both parties stances, and is trying to win the debate he wouldn't need to use an analogy. Analogies are good for trying to explain something new to someone that hasn't been around and the concept hasn't been around.

I don't think there is anyone in the US who doesn't have knowledge of copying music in some form. Hence, it doesn't need an analogy. Trying to use one just makes your point look weak, as it did with him. If someone copies your furniture, you wouldn't care (unless you are an elitist asshole.) If someone steals your furniture, you do care. I've yet to see an analogy that actually works correctly, especially in regards to P2P.

Does correcting somebody else's analogy also brand you as stupid under your rule?

I didn't say stupid. I said you are incapable of making your desired point.

What basis do you have making that argument, especially considering that making a valid analogy requires understandng and insight into the topic? (No insight required for incorrect analogies of course)

Show me a correct analogy, and I'll show you someone who understands their argument. I've never seen a correct analogy used in argument. Analogies are to arguments as Hemlock is to Aristotle.

(For the nit-pickers, Socrates was sentenced to death via drinking hemlock, Aristotle is believe to take his own life by drinking hemlock.)

The sound of inevitability

[tanguyr]

Whilst most of the comments thus far have lambasted Matt Oppenheim and/or the RIAA the best bit of the article was what Ian Clarke had to say... and the fact that he is talking in the present tense. Freenet is here: it works today. It will probably (IMHO) be the "next big thing in P2P" if and when the RIAA finally gets rid of KaZaa et al. This is no big surprise: we've all gotten used to the idea that shutting down P2P services is like playing whack a mole. Peer to peer file sharing - whether you consider it "free speach" or "theft" is here and it's not going anywhere. Either the RIAA (and other copyright owners) learn to work within this reality or somebody else will. Remember that we're all descended from small funny looking furrballs that displaced a whole bunch of big lizards.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
- Mahatma Ghandi, In Philosophy /t

A few things eh?

[mindstrm]

Just a bit of a differnet look.
The problem with this whole file sharing music p2p blah blah fiasco is that, well, the logistics surrounding "copying" were very different when copyright law was drafted. This here is a whole other situation.

I think we can all agree, more or less on a few things.

1) You can't just look at the act of copying anymore, to determine if something is morally correct or not. My web browser caching stuff, or my making a backup of my own stuff and putting it in a safe place, nobody with any common sense would tell me that it should be illegal, or that I'm harmful to society for doing it.

2) I should be able to let my buddy listen to my music, regardless of whether that mechanism involves a "copy" or not.

3) I should NOT be allowed to give away or sell copies of my music so that others don't have to purchase music, ever.

So.. the problem is we have no way to really define what's allowed and what's not.. digital makes it so easy to move music around, that we can't just look at 'copies' or 'streaming -vs- non streaming' or whatever.. we have to look at someone's overall actions. Perhaps, like some, sorry to say, drug laws, it should depend on the amount of copyrighted material you are trafficking in. Personal use woudl be a valid defence. Perhaps we should ban IP altogether, and go for purely technical solutions. I'm for the other.. having strong laws, and open technology.

Watch for the moral high ground, you might trip

[indros13]

I did want to offer a comment on your post regarding the RIAA. I think you are right that the social disregard for copyright on filesharing programs indicates a sea change in the way copyright and the internet will have to be handled. The RIAA needs to find a better way to respond to filesharing to respect popular demand and the constraints of copyright. However bad their current legal actions are, though, I believe they still have the moral high ground on music sharing.

Regardless of the injustice in overpriced CDs, the restrictive album format, and the challenge of actually hearing a song BEFORE you buy it, copyright law is still fairly clear. You may be able to make a backup copy, you can give your hardcopy to a friend as a loan. You can't however, take what isn't yours, even if there doesn't appear to be any deprivation on the part of the artist or RIAA for doing so.

I say this as a person who willfully participates in the moral morass of filesharing and has acted immorally. I think it's an important distinction to make, though, since trying to claim the high ground of civil disobedience risks cheapening things like the civil rights movement by making the "theft" of some Smashmouth akin to Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott. I may agree with everything said about the RIAA and the disgrace they bring to the music industry, but it doesn't make my pirated copy of "Allstar" any more morally legit.

It's not about the copyrights, stupid!

[Angry Pixie]

Maybe it's the vodka shots and margueritas coursing through my system, but these are some of the most convoluted posts I have read yet on Slashdot. I'm not sure I follow any of the arguments these posters are making.

A person with intellectual property rights does not have more/less rights than a person with physical property rights. Copying furniture and clothes???? Cheap knock-offs have long existed in the marketplace. Ask any woman on a budget. What makes digital music different from tangible physical products is that music can be distributed electronically far more easily and cheaply than clothes or television sets. Therefore, copyright violations for music tend to be far more pervasive.

Let's not wax poetic about how the musicians own their music. This is not generally true unless that musician is a powerhouse who wrote, produced, financed, and distributed the album independently of a third-party. Let us not forget, even Paul McCartney had to pay royalties to Michael Jackson in order to perform Beatles songs Paul himself wrote.

If the RIAA or a member company owns the music, it does have a right to say "screw you." You broke your CD, buy a new one. Sony won't give you a new TV just because you threw your scratched up the screen or broke the tuner.

Anyone who things he has a write to own, copy, and distribute someone else's work product without compensating them in a way they agree to is a fool. And a fool can argue all day long about legitimate uses of file-sharing, but the fact is, he himself won't likely buy anything he can't steal online.

That being said, this doesn't make the RIAA 100% right. Most people on both sides of the issue are misunderstanding the issue, the agenda, and what's at stake. This include the idiots over at EFF who recently put a hack of a lawyer on talking heads new program to defend file-sharing with a foolish arrogant, "it's here to stay, just accept it."

The real issue isn't copyrights, it's consumption rights; specifically, the effect of consumption rights on revenue streams from consumption licensing. The RIAA's agenda is to control the method by which you, the possessor of a legally purchased CD, consumes the product. This is how RIAA can ensure it makes a profit each time the music is consumed. The RIAA wants you only to play your CD on a *licensed* CD playback device (DVD player, Walkman, stereo, car stereo) so only you and a few others can consume it at any given time. Remember, the RIAA doesn't want you playing those CDs in public forums without first obtaining a license and paying royalties. The RIAA does not want you to consume your CD vitually, using MP3.com's murdered streaming music service or by using MP3/WMA backups. The RIAA doesn't want you using your CDROM and PC as a stereo. They want you to buy the stereo. The RIAA doesn't want you to make digital copies of your CDs for any purpose unless you first buy a *licensed* expensive Philips CD burner stereo component. This is one reason why the RIAA supports a CD format that can't be copied. If the use of technologies like file-sharing and lossless file-encoding formats reaches critical mass, there might be less need to purchase all those extra hardware components. The RIAA as a result losses revenues.

Similarly, the MPAA only wants you to consume your DVD using licensed DVD hardware. If Linux developers aren't willing to pay licensing fees (which would be prohibitively astronomical if you refuse to pass the cost down to your customers), there won't be legal DVD support on Linux with MPAA's backing. DVD burners cost a lot because of licensing fees and liability issues, not because the technology is exceptionally whiz-bang.

Stealing Bibles

[Hairy Dude]

I have heard that the Bible gets distributed on these networks. Apart from the fact that we can all get that from the motel we most recently visited, there are plenty of legitimate sites that distribute the Bible online.

Here we can see that Oppenheimer has completely missed the point. Someone in a Muslim theocracy might not be able to order a Bible online, if the government has set up a national firewall that blocks that site. Freenet is designed so that people can get a copy of the Bible even in a country where the Bible is illegal.