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."
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.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
freenets don't trade music, people do.
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.
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.
Right here on Slashdot.
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.
Not customers, infringers. Guess we lost the right to a name too...
So now people who download illegal MP3s are crack junkies?
"Man... I'm jonesin' for my latest fix of Metallica... gimme the good stuff!"
IAALS.
...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.
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 ...
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
I have to say, I don't really like freenet now, but there are still some very very cool ideas in it that I think we'll see evolving into something more practical over the next few years, maybe by the guys at freenet, but maybe not. Personally I have great respect for Ian Clarke for having the guts to start in on a project this large and also for the fact that it's resulted in a product which is right now useful in its own right even if it's not as good as it could(/will?) be.
So freenet is an ethical dilemma? Next thing you know, we won't have our right of free speech!
Oh wait, nevermind....
"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.
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
"
"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.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
"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.
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.
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
I think Mr Oppenheim could surpass his previous accomplishments by making Freenet available to the Open Source developer
Oppenheim is the Sr. Vice President for the RIAA's Business and Legal Afairs.. how do you figure he could surpass his previous accomplishments by doing this?
Karma Horing while on crack?
---
If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.
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
News.com: Is it moral to create a general-purpose, anonymity-preserving tool--a file-swapping system that can be used for good (publishing political tracts) and ill (trading copyrighted music)?
Clarke: If it is moral to make guns, knives or anything else that can be used for both good and ill, then it is certainly moral to create something which tries to guarantee a freedom that is essential to democracy.
Doesn't it seem a little silly to divide everything in the world into exactly 3 categories: those that can only be used for good, those that can only be used for bad, and those that could be used for either? Doesn't it make sense to say that there are some things that are much more often used for good than for bad (e.g. knives), so they're fine? And some, such as guns, where the trade-off is a lot more questionable? (So in most countries they are significantly regulated.)
Freenet may eventually contain a political treatise from the oppressed citizens of a dictatorship, but it will probably contain copyrighted songs, movies, porn, etc. by a factor of a hundred thousand to one. Supporting anonymous political speech is more good than illegal copying is bad, but by a factor of 100,000?
"The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
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
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.
Why do I h8 apple?
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...
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.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
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.
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?
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?
The preceding comments reflect the author's personal opinion and are public domain, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
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.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
If I were a storeowner, I can keep an eye, literally, on all my merchandise
You must have some really messed up eyesight. How do you deal with all those eyes lying around?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
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.
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.
We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
"News.com: Do corporations right now have too much power to investigate alleged copyright infringement online? Where should the line be drawn?"
"Oppenheim: How does this have anything to do with corporations? This has to do with artists and creators. Artists and creators, like anybody else who creates something, should have the right to sell what they create..."
Correct me if I am wrong, but the artists are not the ones running around suing people.
If you don't stop reading this right now you owe me $1,000. Send check or money order too...
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.
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.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
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.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
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.
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.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
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
As for political speech, it also makes no sense. How would anyone search for political speech on a P2P network? Would you look for "democratic ideals as they pertained to the Bush tax cut"? For people that want to distribute political speech online, there are plenty of Usenet groups and chat rooms for them to use. The facts here simply do not support the theory that these networks are being used for "general purposes."
Ah I can tell someone has never used Freenet. The majority of content in Freenet is not really searchable, it's more of a blog-based environment. Freenet won't even release a tool to search it. A 3rd party had to. I think Matt has been using a bit too much KazAa if he thinks every P2P network has a little search bar on the side, with options for Audio and Video...
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
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."
I do not have a signature
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.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Question 1
Freenet: Thoughtful, valid answer
RIAA: It helps people steal music
Question 2
Freenet: Thoughtful, valid answer
RIAA: It helps people steal music, won't someone please think of the poor starving artists.
Question 3
Freenet: Thoughtful, valid answer
RIAA: It helps people steal music, but the term fileswapping is incorrect because they aren't swapping, they're in fact COPYING the music, and of course copying=stealing.
Question 4
Freenet: Thoughtful, valid answer amounting to "The RIAA's business model is fuxx0red and they will go away soon enough."
RIAA: He's STEALING OUR POOR ARTISTS' MUSIC, QUICK, ARREST HIM!!! WHY IS NOBODY LISTENING?!?!?!?!
Yes, I may have taken the liberty of condensing it down quite a bit......but its still dead on.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
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."
Of course, I realize there are a bunch of libertarians around here who want their guns and file-sharing. ;)
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
"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.
Who is RTFM and when will he help me with Unix?
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?
I do not have a signature
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.
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.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Ah finally seeing the light?
Even here you struggle to convince yourself guns are evil because their only (in your mind) use it to kill and maim.
However, you do not seem to be able to rationalize why p2p, which (to copyright holders) is only used to spread copyrighted work, should not be illegal.
Guns can be used for sport. P2p can be used for sharing iso's. Both do have valid uses.
So, now we are down to a few options. We outlaw guns and p2p because both can be used for evil. Or we allow both p2p because though guns and p2p can be used for evil, they are not inherently evil, the users can be. Or we live with our dualism, the fact that we are a "me me me" (think seagulls in Finding Nemo "mine mine mine") society.
Personally I opt for option two.
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
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.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
And taking a Bible from the motel would be called .....
News.com: Is it moral to create a general-purpose, anonymity-preserving tool--a file-swapping system that can be used for good (publishing political tracts) and ill (trading copyrighted music)?
Oppenheim didn't really answer this question, nor has anyone else from the RIAA or any similar organization. Instead they put forward the assumption that all anonymous file-swapping systems are inherently designed for the sole purpose of copyright infringement.
If anonymity is truly necessary for free speech (as the courts have upheld), then isn't the anonymous trading of files an obvious side effect? Oppenheim also decided to completely ignore the fact that Freenet is being used in places such as China, where anonymity really IS necessary, and not "necessary" in some legalese definition, "necessary" as in "if the government finds you they will kill you". Does the RIAA honestly believe that pro-democratic Chinese dissidents should be denied an anonymous file-sharing technology simply because it can also be used to circumvent copyright? I'd love to hear them actually answer this question.
Actually dude, you are wrong. I happened to be at a church one day to see a presentation by one of their representatives, and the Gideons very much encourage you to take Bibles from hotels if you're so inclined. They consider that spreading the word. Oh wait, it's probably the Word, no? In any event, while it doesn't specifically say that you're free to take them, that is the intent of the Gideons if you are so moved by the Word. ShaunDon
i hear it is usually called "grand theft auto"
i think someone even made a computer game(training simulator?) based around that concept
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.
/t
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
- Mahatma Ghandi, In Philosophy
#!/usr/bin/english
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.
The same way Kazaa, Grokster, Napster and others make money off consumers distribution. Advertisements and other little things.
Do the calculations, artists would actually make more money off this system than the current system because they'd still own their copyrights and would take in 100% of the profits made.
Example1
Example2
Currently artists dont profit at all off distirbution and record sales unless they sell 500,000 records, in the new system even if you sell 1000 records you'd get something because you'd still own the copyright.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
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."
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.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
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.
When I invite a group of people over and share my TV I still have possession of my TV.
;)
;P
Assume you mean the reception, that's okay because you 'pay' for it by watching ads.. Everyone who's watching the tv with you is paying by watching the ads as well.
When I share music via radio, I still own my radio
See above about television.
When I share music via the computer, I still own the CD and computer.
Correct.. You however only paid to listen yourself. You can't give a stripper $50 for a lapdance and tell her to give one to all your friends too. For a more G rated analogy.. If your friend knows this plumber that did a good job fixing his sink, and you find out he has no other jobs lined up on Tuesday.. Do you expect him to work for free because your friend already paid for his services? No.. Do you expect him to work for free on Tuesday even though you aren't keeping him from making money elsewhere? No..
I would be happy and the first person to sign up for an ad-based p2p service or even a subscription based service where the artists get most of the money.. So don't think I'm arguing with you about that.. I just don't like your analogies
When you play a DVD on your TV and you and your 100 friends watch it, hows it any different than sending that DVD to your 100 friends via the net?
I wouldn't invite 100 of my friends over to watch a DVD, I'd tell them to buy their own damn movie
but the ultimate solution is political.
Ian Clarke is an articulate technologist, and Freenet is a cool project. But if Slashdotters and all computer users everywhere don't put their money where their mouth is, then all the clever software in the world won't win this fight.
The RIAA and its employees in Congress will pass more draconian laws because they have power and we don't. They will outlaw computers if they have to, because computers have rendered them irrelevant.
They will only stop, or rather will only be stopped, if all of us choose to exercise our power as consumers and voters. What are those things?
1. As a consumer, stop buying CDs. Stop buying band merchandise. Stop buying concert tickets. CDs and merchandise feed the RIAA. Concert tickets feed ClearChannel. Send them the message that you want out of this abusive relationship. Deprive them of the dollars they pay their lawyers and Congressmen with.
2. Discourage your friends, family, and coworkers from buying CDs and tickets. Offer to burn them copies of the music they want instead. If the 50 million people using P2P in America did that for just 5 other people not online, then that's the entire population of the country that has no more use or dollars for the RIAA.
3. Call your representatives and ask them if they support you or the RIAA. If you don't like what you hear, then don't vote for them. Tell others not to vote for them. Use florid language if you must, because you can be sure that the RIAA won't be afraid to.
Yes, these are little things. Yes, if you're the only one doing them, then how can they possibly make a difference? But a wise man once said, "It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do a little. Do what you can." Besides, you're not alone; you're a member of an army of 50 million people. If each does a little, it amounts to a heck of a lot.
At the very least, the very, very least, stop using the RIAA's language and terms to talk about this issue! Copying files is exchanging information, and exchanging information is NOT stealing. Neither is it piracy. So stop calling it that. You can't convince even the most sympathetic politician that stealing is OK. But you probably could persuade them that file sharing is a good thing. Think about it. Then do it.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I live in Australia, where the film "Ken Park" has recently been banned even from being screened at a film festival.
. ht m
It is causing a furore here because of the censorship issues, and Larry Clark (the director) has been interviewed by several media channels on the issue.
When asked what he thought of people "illegally" downloading his film off the internet, his reply basically condoned the practice:
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s896904
In this instance, because the director cannot profit from his work in this country, I don't see how it can really fall under copyright infringement. Mind you, the free PR and overseas sales he gains from our nation's stupid censors will far outweigh any potential sales he may have had if the film had not caused controversy.
So in this instance P2P provided the freedom for me to make my OWN choice to watch the film, despite our government censors saying I can't. I'd consider that a fairly good use for P2P, and Freenet is a natural extension of this principle of freedom to choose without being persecuted or arrested for it.
Quizo69
Visceral Psyche Films
Sweet Mary, mother of God, where do these monkeys come from? As soon as I find out, I'm going to patent the "infinite source of energy by harnessing infinite supply of people who don't understand copyright."
Assuming you're buying a CD (or a record or tape, assuming you can find one), you are purchasing... a CD. Nothing more, nothing less. Certainly not a license. You'll notice that if you walk into your local Music and Other Stuff Store, that a CD and speaker cable is rung up exactly the same. After the purchase, you own that one particular copy of the CD. That sales transaction is exactly the same as, say, when you purchase a chair. You own that CD, and you own that chair. You can sell the CD, loan it out, give it away, play it, incorporate it into some abstract sculpture, use it as a coaster, or microwave it. You don't get any license because you don't need any license!
Now, that CD is marked "Copyright 2003, Some Big Company, All Rights Reserved." What's that mean? In a technical, legal sense, it means absolutely nothing. Thanks to the Berne Convention, in most countries (including the United States) you don't need to put any sort of copyright label on your work. You get copyright protection, free of charge, even if you don't label it. The label is just a warning. That way if you make a copyright infringing copy, you can't claim to the judge "but your honor, I didn't know it was protected by copyright," because the Expense Music Industry Lawyer will respond, "It's clearly labelled."
So, what does your free-of-charge, automatic copyright protection grant you? A number of things, but most of them can be summed up in the key protection: the copyright holder has the exclusive right to distribute copies. That's just about it. (You're also notably forbidden from public performance. If you squint a bit, public performance looks like distributing copies.) So, while you own that one specific CD, copyright law specifically withholds the right to distribute copies. This has nothing to do with a license. You don't need a license to cross the street, no, you're free to cross the street, but disallowed from jaywalking. Similarlly you're free to use and own that particular CD, but your disallowed from distributing copies.
This whole "license" concept is bullshit that the copyright based industries are trying to confuse people with. The software industry has been particularlly successful in convincing people that they can change a sale into a license after the fact. That this idea does not have any sort of strong court support yet doesn't bother them. Don't be confused by this deception!
Search 2010 Gen Con events