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.
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.
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
So freenet is an ethical dilemma? Next thing you know, we won't have our right of free speech!
Oh wait, nevermind....
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.
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
"The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
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?
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
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..."
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.
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.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
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.
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.
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
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."
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.
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.