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."
Some interesting comments in here...
It seems that Mr. Oppenheim likes to contradict himself. Observe:
He says: "By the way, the term "file swapping" is inaccurate. Nobody is swapping, people are making copies.", but later in the same paragraph says "Just as we would never agree that it is right to steal someone's clothes or furniture, it is not right to steal music." I think his second assumption is safe to make, but if he worded it in a way that was consistent with his earlier comment, would it still be as universally accepted? Sure people would protest if you stole their furniture, but would anybody see it as wrong if you copied their furniture? He's right about people breaking the law, but he should at least get his story straight.
I also thought this was interesting:
"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."
Sure, store owners should be allowed to prosecute shoplifters, but they have to catch them in the act. 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. The question really should be "Why should copyright holders have more rights than somebody who owns clothing or televisions and tries to sell them?"
It seems that even when the RIAA is right (people really are breaking the law and infringing the rights offered to their members by copyright) their propaganda is more important to them than their real and legally defensible position.
Right here on Slashdot.
...as I use it to grab a lot of stuff. It would be a real pisser if they recognised what it could do to them and shut it down before it was (technically and mind share wise) ready to go underground.
Beep beep.
So freenet is an ethical dilemma? Next thing you know, we won't have our right of free speech!
Oh wait, nevermind....
"it (Freenet) is no more of a threat than any of the popular P2P services."
The tone of that statement seems to imply that P2P is not a threat to the RIAA... which seems contrary to their entire defense.
I have to say, the Freenet guy came across very well in that debate since he was able to flow between humor and fact. The RIAA really needs to hire some PR people that don't seem so angry all the time. As long as they keep up this approach to PR, the more the public is going to go against them.
It's not stupid. It's advanced.
I think Clarke really hits the nail on the head when he says:
"Just as the motor car replaced the horse and cart, so will the Internet replace most of the roles performed by today's recording industry."
The whole RIAA rant is useless because the RIAA is on its way to obsolesence. They can hip and holler all they want, but in 15 years they won't even exist. Even the legal system and/or Congress won't be able to protect them for long - we live in a capitalist society, and in the end efficiency rules.
smd4985
Do car companies sue you when you share your car with other people by giving people a lift? Do car companies require each person you give a ride to, to pay a license fee?
I hate the fact that if we are going to treat information as physical property, that unlike real physical property, in which the person who buys it truely owns it, when it comes to information theres a double standard, the person who buys it actually is paying to listen to it, and its in a very strict fashion
In my opinion no company has a right to tell you how to use something you paid for.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Are there any networks where illegal activity is not exercised?
I can not think of any right now. Is that a sign that the laws are wrong or that we are wrong? I would say that the laws are wrong, I actually enjoy pirating, it is great when you do not have anything to do. Just start a 800 Mb download and the afternoon is saved. Praise piracy!
So what gives you the right to take that music, and create a copy of it, and give, or sell, that copy to someone else? C'mon - that BS and you (ought) to know it.
Now if they try to tell me that I can't create a copy of a CD for personal use - whole different story.
"But we decide which is right, and which is an illusion"
Several years ago I bought a lot of CD's. Cranberries, Aerosmith, Queen, Alanis Morrisette, etc. Over the years the disks have gotten scratched/broken/otherwise unusable.
Since it's the RIAA's alegation that I'm not buying music, I'm only buying a disk and acompaning license to play the music on the disk, I have paid legitimately for a licence to that music, so when the disk became unusable I retrieved my validly licensed content from the only available source, Napster.
Blank CD's cost a quarter. If the RIAA had supplied me with an avenue to obtain a replacement copy of my damaged media I would have had no need for a file sharing service. Without them I would have had to pay for a second license (in which case one would assume that since I own two licences I could make enough copies to match the number of licenses I've obtained).
Even Microsoft has a replacement media program. If your disks are damaged in some way and unusable you can send them to Redmond and they'll ship you another copy.
as you will see, buying a CD in the store is NOT a "licensing" purchase, you sign no license agreement. IT's not about a license.. it's about COPYRIGHT LAW.
Copyright law gives you some freedoms with the work you just purchased. You are not required to keep your proof of purchase around forever, sorry
we're not talking about corporate software licensing here, we're talking about buying cds and records in the store, which is a standard, normal sale...
I repeat, there is no license agreement... implied or otherwise. The only reason you cannot make copies of the product you bought and sell them to others is because copyright law says you can't, as you aren't the holder of the copyright.
Let me repeat that. I don't have to keep my receipts around. I can make a copy of a CD I bought, and throw the original in the garbage. I'm not breaking some law.
Interestingly, if the Bible was subject to the same draconian, everlasting copyright laws we have in the US, nobody would remember Christianity today!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I have been saying this for years now, The music industry had its wake up call years ago that people WANT digital delivery of music. They have failed and failed repeatedly to bring such a system. Finally, Apple has taken a step in the right direction. It has been shown that people will sacrifice quality for convenience (witness the unbounded success of lossy algorithms such as mp3 and ogg).
.flac file than download a crap ass mp3.
I may be alone, but i believe that people would spend considerable money to download music. First, the price must be right. 99 cents for a song sounds pretty damn good to me. 50 cents sounds even better.
As a lifelong music collector with over 50 crates of vinyl albums (no idea how many that is) and at least 100 gigabytes of mp3's, I can say that If such a system was in place, I would gladly pay to purchase digital music. I am not trying to cheat the system when I download music, I am trying to avoid ripping the vinyl that I have purchased. Vinyl must be ripped in real time. I could never rip my whole collection. It is just impossible.
My parents would pay for downloaded music. My sister would pay for downloaded music. My friends would.....
RIAA why are you wasting time going after these people. Present the world with a legitimate alternative and draw the line between criminals and law abiding downloaders.
Piracy hasn't hurt microsoft one bit. There will always be pirates and theives. You are not trying to sell product to them. The lord knows that I would rather pay for a
Yet here we are, 5 years down the road from napster, and a computer company has taken the initiative that the music industry is frighened to death of.
This is just further evidence that no matter how great the art form is, the BUSINESS of music SUCKS!
In the immortal words of Q-Tip
Industry Rule #5080 : Record company people are shady.
music lover since 1969
There are holes in both sides' arguments.
If Freenet thinks its main role is going to be making nice things happen in China, and saving pregnant teens, he's either the most naive technologist who ever stepped into the sun, or he wins the Eddie Haskell award.
If the RIAA thinks they can find everyone, they're just as naive. They do have the law on their side on the face of it - and I would rather they find a way to pay-and-get in a modern fashion than bullying the world out of bad habits.
The videotape/VCR analogy loses here because you have to ship tapes around and make them in real time - it is economically obnoxious to do so, so everyone has a vcr, everyone tapes off the air / time shift views and virtually nobody ships tapes around to from their homes to anyone who wants it. The rental system does what we need in that regard.
So far, Apple's got it about as right as anyone has - we'll see if people actually will support it though - in this way the whole how-do-i-get-digital-music thing is rather like 'the prisoners' dilemma' - cooperate/gain a little and everyone gets someting - default, steal, cheat, or get greedy, and everyon gets screwed.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
The main flaw in your arguement is that you believe industry will work together. The desires of bandwidth providers and the entertainment industry are directly opposed to each other. File sharing sells bandwidth. It is the killer application of broadband. Just pay your $40 a month and get all the music (and eventually movies) you could ever want for free! The broadband providers have to rely on word of mouth for this for legal reasons but would love to be able to go with the Apple rip/mix/burn (err pirate/burn?) slogan.
The recording industry has every sign of being a dying industry trying everything it can to milk out a few more years of profit before collapsing into a state noone would recognize. Suing individuals is a horrid idea that will not help sell their music.
As far as actually being able to keep bandwidth down, it is a horrible idea that will make the US fall farther behind the Asian markets in economic terms. If you have to kill the entertainment industry in order to allow people the bandwidth to do interesting things on the internet, so be it. The US will eventually have the bandwidth the Koreans enjoy, just hope for all our sakes that it doesnt take too long or we will lose our status as the economic powerhouse of the world.
Excuse me, but...hypothetically (don't try this at home kids) I go to a CD store and buy the top CD for cash. Then I come home, rip it using (take your pick) direct digital rip, analogue hole, special software to bypass copy-protection, take your pick, and place the results out on all 57 or so P2P networks. You can't miss that it's out there and rapidly proliferating faster than you can trace.
How does any watermark in existance trace that mass produced piece of silver plastic back to me?
I didn't even mention that I cut this baby lose using the local WiFi hotspot while enjoying an extra large cup of coffee with endless free refills.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
While I have not read the document in its entirety, I would like to draw your attention to a particular portion:I have yet to find an analysis of what works are covered under this Act. However, it would appear that all works whose creators are compensated by this fund are eligible for home copying. It truly is a royalty that you pay when you buy "Audio" CD-Rs.