Slashdot Mirror
How to Tell if the RIAA Wants You
codewolf writes "Wired News has an article on how file sharers can check a new online database to see if they are wanted by the recording industry.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has created a site where users can plug in their file-sharing user names. That name is checked against the list of those subpoenas filed in the Washington, D.C. district court.
The EFF also has an article on how to avoid a lawsuit from the RIAA."
Sounds like a great way to harvest usernames for future lawsuits.
-- "You can lead a yak to water, but you can't teach an old dog to make a silk purse out of a pig in a poke" - Opus
I have already done it. All you do is enter your name, address, phone number, and SSN and a helpful representative from the RIAA will contact you in 30-60 days to tell you if they want to prosecute you.
They make one huge point that I've been waiting for someone to make aloud: "Disable the "sharing" or "uploading" features on your P2P application that allow other users on the network to get copies of files from your computer or scan any of your music directories. We hate this option, but it does appear that it will reduce your chances of becoming an RIAA target right now." I see this as a foolproof approach because there is no way to defend oneself as a sharer, but downloaders may still claim rights to listen to the music; the approach has one obvious flaw, however, which I'd still like to see covered in some major media outlet: once everyone begins to turn sharing off, there is nothing to download and the system collapses. My bet? The RIAA recognises this effect and is just waiting for it to render P2P file-sharing dead...
How is the scene for people outside US.People in President blair's Britain,France,Germany?China,India,Japan,Israel?Ir aq?
Wanted : A Signature.
Just a quick straw poll, answer AC or whatever if you like (you will anyway)
How many of you does this annoy because you consider it a blatant disregard of legal process that the RIAA can just dive in and subpoena anyone they choose.
And who does it annoy cos you REALLY think it's your right to download as much IP as you can for free because... hey, it's digital, and it's your right?
Out of the two names i tried, bluemonkey13 and our famous munkeyspanker21, only bluemonkey worked...
Don't rely on this too much.
It's easier to grab people's IP address there. Unless of course u happen to use networks that hides your hostname (for DOS attack precautionary measures).
Has the RIAA started it's "crackdown" on IRC networks?
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
For users of Kazaa-Lite, where every user is called kazaa-lite-tk (or something like that), this won't help much. While 99% of lite users will be ok, there will be that 1 person who's gonna get nabbed.
Personally, I don't give a rats about downloading music for free, but I am PISSED that the RIAA has been given the right to harrass private citizens at will. I hope they (inadvertantly) supoena the asshats that gave them this power.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
So no more sharing of my Linux ISOs?
Those are copyrighted too.
Freedom Is Universal
Linux-Universe
Not to burst your bubble but CDs have gone down in prices in most up-to-date stores [in Canada anyways].
I totally agree that the levy on CDs is a waste [specially since I bet more people pirate software than audio with the CDs].
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I don't know about other Slashdot readers, but up until a few days ago when Slashdot brought the word into daily use (and read the article!), I thought that 'subpoena' was stuff that floated in ponds. If anyone else doesn't quite remember 'subpoena' being in their day-to-day vocabulary either, this might help clear things up:
[a@desk,docs] dict subpoena
3 definitions found
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Subpoena \Sub*p[oe]"na\, n. [NL., fr. L. sub under + poena
punishment. See {Pain}.] (Law)
A writ commanding the attendance in court, as a witness, of
the person on whom it is served, under a penalty; the process
by which a defendant in equity is commanded to appear and
answer the plaintiff's bill. [Written also {subpena}.]
{Subp[oe]na ad testificandum}. [NL.] A writ used to procure
the attendance of a witness for the purpose of testifying.
(etc)
-Andrew
I always thought it wasn't the sharing of files that was illegal, but the downloading of them. I would still contest, to the death (or until they lock me up) that I can have any files I damn well please shared under Kazaa, Limewire, etc, it's when someone downloads them that *they're* doing something illegal. This is comparable to someone walking in your wide open front door and taking your backup cds...then *you* get sued for it. Utter bullshit.
--trb
1. Breathe on to some glass. Does the glass fog up?
2. Place your fingertips on your neck just below the corner of the jawline. Do you feel a beating often associated with a lubdub sound?
If you answer yes to either of these tests, the RIAA wants you!
Revealed! The algorithm for the online RIAA check form:
output = "";
username = ENV("uname");
if username {
output = "You are wanted by the RIAA. Please report to your local police station and turn yourself in.";
}
print "<HTML>";
print output;
print "</HTML>";
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
They are supoenaing (sp?) the details of those people who they have identified as being infringing, which is EXACTLY what people on this forum have been saying they should do.
Yes, and a subpoena before this RIAA crap was something that could only be court ordered, not something a company or corporation could do just out of the blue. That is what's shitting people. It's giving law enforcement rights to a body that is NOT a law enforcement agency. The "slippery slope" thing here is what worries me. How small a change would it take before the RIAA is given not only the right to subpoena an ISP for names of users who they suspect of filesharing, but to send out fines without running through proper legal channels?
There are philosophical links to PayPal here. It's not a bank and is not under the same regulatory controls as banks, yet it acts as one and gets the benefits of being one. the RIAA is not a law enforcement agency and is not under the same regulatory controls as one, yet it acts as one.
The last "A" is RIAA stands for America. While the Americans are still the majority of the Internet users, it is changing quickly as more and more contries get their telecom act together.
RIAA can't subpoena Chinese, French or Russian users. And it is not even very clear if RIAA's sister organisations in their respective countries can, because laws are different over there (remember Sklyarov and how PDF encryption breaking is legal in Russia?).
So, I guess Americans can safely disable their shares and let the world feed the networks for a while. When RIAA comes to town in Australia, for instance, we do it the other way around.
Theft is wrong...it hurts everyone eventually.
BUT
I have a record album of Police Syncronisity (I know I spelt it wrong) and ACDC For those about to Rock. Both of those have unplayable first tracks on both sides...do to poor pressing/materials...they are warped.
I don't have a LP player in my car...infact I only have one in the house for the purpose of putting songs to CD.
So Riddle me this Batman...How am I supposed to get a copy of those 4 tracks that are unplayable on the albums?
Am I a pirate if I download those 4 songs to replace the ones I cannot play?...is the uploader a pirate for allowing me to get those 4 songs that I already paid for but cannot use?
I think the RIAA wants me to buy a few more albums/CDs/cassettes of the same recording so that I won't be a pirate...
OOOh but what if I get the clearance cutouts recordings at the discount store...or CDs at the pawn shop that are cheap because they don't pay any royalties...hmmm...am I a pirate then?
> Uhm, they are using the legal system IN THE WAY THE
> LEGAL SYSTEM WAS MEANT TO BE USED.
No. the RIAA is not using the legal system at all and that is what's highly questionable. It is now able to bypass the legal system and directly order subpoenas by itself. That is inherently dangerous when a corporation who stands to benefit from legal action has been given the legal right to bring action against whoever THEY suspect, WITHOUT going through all the correct channels of the legal system that has existed in this country for hundreds of years.
Download and share music that can be legitimately shared. Frankly, I'm so pissed off at the media cartel that I don't want to even bother pirating their products, let alone buy them. Even commercial radio stations thoroughly suck these days.
Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
...which of course I don't know anything about personally *cough*.
1. Make your private server.... just you and your friends, people with broadband connections. Say 30 people with 1-200gb each = 3-6tb.
2. Download new stuff from public networks, but never be a big sharer, just one among the huge crowd of small traders.
3. Relax and realize the chance of getting into trouble is slim and none.
While the RIAA/MPAA might be moderately successful in cracking down on public networks, the network of friends they'll never manage to stop...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Stop pirating music assholes. D'uh.
Why? Why should I be able to record a song off of the radio but not off of another person's hard drive? Why should I not be able to share an out-of-print, but still copyrighted, piece of music? You act like pirating music is some heinous, horrible, despicable act. It's not. People have been trading cassettes, loaning albums, and letting their friends borrow CDs for years. They've been making "mix tapes" for their friends. They've been taping their friends' records. It's normal and healthy.
The entire copyright bullshit is infuriating. Were there not extension after extension granted by Congress, much of the copyrighted material that's out there would now be in the public domain -- as the founding fathers (of the U.S.) intended. Instead, legislation has been bought by the record companies so that they can continue to collect their ill-gotten gains for years.
As to your "asshole" remark, bite me.
Here is a link to the subpoena issued for "munkyspanker21@KaZaA."
Note that this particular subpoena was sent to Time Warner. That means that although AOL users were conspicuously missing from the subpoenas so far, Time Warner Cable/RoadRunner users are being hunted down.
In the previous story there was some speculation that since Time Warner has interest in RIAA their customers might be off the hook... Doesn't look that way.
Well until mankind phases out money, what incentive is there to make music if any joe-blow can pirate it and not pay a dime?
Copyright isn't the only way to promote the production of art. At least one other method - sponsorship - has been engaged in with some success in history, and one other method - grants - is continuously being employed in large parts of the world today. The former will tend to end up producing works that are desired by the sponsor and the latter will tend to be used to finance works that don't have broad consumer appeal.
Art forms that lend themselves to performance can make their profits from performance alone. Recorded copies can then be public domain. This applies very well to music.
Art forms that produce items that are still difficult to copy (painting, sculpting) won't be much affected by loss of copyright.
sigs are hazardous to your health
robandfab@millivanilli.com (Getting material for that new album)
captainjack@caribbean.pirates.org (If yer gonna be a pirate, expect to show up on such lists)
hrosen@riaa.org (oops!)
uday@saddam.iq, qusai@saddam.iq (now we know why they had to bomb that house!)
senatorhatch@senate.gov
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Specifically,
Has anyone loaded up a server with dummy files 3 or 4 mb in size, but with the same filenames as ones commonly shared by the "wanted" users?
I'd love to know if the RIAA is actually *checking* what's going around, or just jumping up and down pointing and going "Oooh! Ooh! Him! He's got a naughty file up for grabs!!"
mindslip
noone is going to buy more licensed music because of their efforts.
The target of these lawsuits isn't really the defendants, it's the US Congress. The RIAA is trying to get noticed in a way that will encourage congress to pass a law that will ensure they can continue to make money in the distribution business. The lawsuits are just a tool to make their blip on lawmakers radar screens bigger.
Piracy or no, the service that the RIAA members perform is obsolete, and without some prop to hold them up they will slowly loose revenue as artists choose alternative (and increasingly more profitable and effective) distribution methods, and listeners choose a more convienient channel. As you correctly point out, ending piracy will just postpone the inevetable. Let's not get so distracted by these petty suits that we let worse legislation than the DMCA get passed.
No need to worry, unless your ISP is comcast. The court documents doesn't list a name, unlike some of the other user names, but only the ISP.
Business News and Resources: www.usasource.net
RIAA_can_lick_my_sweaty_balls@KaZaa doesn't match. Safe for now!
"Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
Want to make some money, here's all you have to do:
Step 1: Buy a computer
Step 2: Use the P2P program of your choice
Step 3: Take a bunch of files that *YOU* have the copyright for or that are in the public domain and share them to the world.
Step 4: Make sure a few files are named something like b-spears.mp3, metallica,mp3 or harlanellison.doc.
Step 5: Document everything!
Step 6: Wait to get sued.
Step 7: Legal stuff
Step 8: Profit!
Incidently, those numbers are from the end of 2001, grossly outdated in the Internet context. Here's a more up-to-date (for the most part) and way more elaborate list from the 2002 CIA factbook. It's also apparently more conservative, since the numbers quoted for the USA and Germany are both lower, significantly so for the USA (165 instead 185 millions). I doubt the number of users has fallen in either country in the last two years...
... I'd wager that copyright violation is more common here than in the USA, at least that's the impression I sometimes get from Internet boards: I've seen lots of youths and young people who say copyright violation is wrong (and act accordingly), while I don't think I've met any German computer user under the age of 25 who does not, on occasion, commit thought theft. On the other hand, broadband Internet access and flat fee services used to be rare around here, although that's gotten better to a point where I assume (I'm sure there's data) broadband usage is on about the same level as in the USA.
Anyway, it's fairly save to say that if every American user turned off the file sharing option, it'd have a tremendous effect on the global filesharing equations, even if there are more European than American nodes[1]. Also Europe seems to be heading a similar route with the EUCD - which would leave the Asian nodes.
[1] Which isn't necessarily true - there probably are more or less P2P users per 1000 Internet users in Europe than in the USA. Interesting question actually
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
I personally listen to almost 100% indie music and find that its harder to find good RIAA artists/songs than it is to find good indie artists. Certainly per capita the RIAA loses and badly.
You can try this site if you're new to indie music, indie rock in particular. They also have 128kbs streaming MP3s. Or you can pay a visit to a couple of the bigger and more popular indie labels like Matador or Jade Tree.
Yeah, its tough finding good indie music, but that's only because the RIAA and Clearchannel monopolies make it so. If you put in a little effort you might be surprised at what you find.
I hope the indie labels exploit these damn lawsuits to increase their profile amongst music lovers.
1) The desire for fame.
2) The desire to make good Music "just for fun."
3) Music for contract. Like an ad, for instance. I can't see why companies would mind an ad being copied endlessly.
4) Writing for performances. You can copy a song, but you can't copy a concert.
Copyright Law does have a place, though. I'll give you that. (It's got some incredible flaws, but it has a place.)
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
INSERT INTO have_to_sue VALUES $handle_entered_by_user;
what a great way to collect more handles for people to sue. use a cron job to see what they share and file the complaints.
easy as onehundredtwentythree...
Privacy is terrorism.
How will the music worm work?
It will be distributed as an email worm. The user installs it by clicking on an attachment that arrives in an email spam. A large number people will do this knowingly, but many will be innocent "victims". Knowing users will thus have "plausible deniability".
Once installed, it will do the following:
1) Email itself to everybody in the user's address book, just like any other worm.
2) Install a hidden peer-to-peer server.
3) Identify every music file on the users computer.
4) Make all of them available over the web via peer-to-peer sharing.
5) Begin silently and automatically downloading music files to the user's computer and adding them to his music library, favoring additional titles by artists already represented in the user's library.
6) An internal list will of the downloaded files, and the worm will monitor their usage. Any downloaded file that is not played within a certain period of time will be marked for eventual replacement, in order to prevent the music archive from growing too large (say 20% above the size of the permanent library or 80% of available disk space, whichever is smaller). Any file that is played will be deleted from this list and permanently added to the user's music library. 7) Knowing users will be able to "order" specific music via a web interface by accessing a web site (actually located on the user's computer) via a web browser. The worm will silently edit the browser's history file to erase the record of this access.
How could such a worm be combatted?
1. Legal assaults on users would become difficult; there will be continuous trading of music over the net. Much of it will be entirely innocent; the result of the worm running on the computers of innocent "victims." This will provide a smokescreen for the activities of knowing users. It will be extremely difficult to prove that somebody is a knowing user, since the patterns of download to any individual user will be similar to knowing use. Many unknowing victims will accidentally add some of the downloaded music to their permanent libraries, because a lot of people do not keep careful track of the contents of their music libraries.
2. Virus scanning and firewall software could be employed, but many users do not keep their protective software up to date. Attempts to eradicate similar worms employed by spammers have not been particularly effective. And with the music worm case, many of the "victims" would actually be secret users, intentionally abetting the worm's presence on their computers.
3. The RIAA could distribute counter-worms, which would infect computers and delete music, or gather evidence of intentional trading. However, this would require the music industry itself to engage in an ongoing illegal activity. Moreover, it would be relatively unsuccessful in targeting the technically sophisticated knowing user, who would have a strong incentive to block such worms.
Ok, in reply to you and the other replies to my comment, i have this quote:
"The following user names were culled from subpoenas filed with the US District Court in Washington, DC." (taken from here which was reference in this slashdot story)
As you can see, the subpoenas were files WITH A COURT. Therefor the RIAA was asking the court to enforce the subpaenos, as happens whenever someone wants to issue a subpoena!
So, lets see, in this case the RIAA hasnt done anything extra legal, non legal, or unlegal. They went through the courts. Hence, they ARE USING THE LEGAL SYSTEM AS ITS MEANT TO BE USED.
Dear Students, Faculty and Staff:
I am writing to you about a problem that has many of us at the college deeply concerned. You may be aware that four Bentley students are the subject of subpoenas served by the Recording Industry Association of America which is seeking financial damages for illegally downloaded and shared music files. According to The Boston Globe, the RIAA has filed at least 871 subpoenas this month. These students now face legal action and potentially significant fines.
We have every reason to believe that the RIAA will not stop here. Every person who downloads or shares music, video or software in a fashion that violates copyrights is breaking the law and is subject to fines of up to $150,000 for each violation.
All of us know that file sharing and downloading are commonplace; all of us are familiar with the argument that "everyone does it." But the copyright violations that so often accompany these activities are illegal and now the industry whose copyrights are being violated is responding aggressively.
Please recognize that everyone using our campus computer network who engages in this form of file sharing and downloading is violating Bentley College policies, breaking the law and exposing themselves to potential action by the RIAA.
Effective this morning, the college has temporarily eliminated all bandwidth associated with the following file sharing applications:
aimster audiogalaxy edonkey gnutella
hotline imesh KaZaA napster
scoutexchange blubster
If you have downloaded any of the above applications on your computer, we urge you to delete them immediately.
In September, we will launch a campus-wide discussion about appropriate longer term approaches to what is a serious legal and ethical issue.
Sincerely,
President
But I don't see kazaauser@kazaa.com on there
No sig for you!!
Of course they can. With a little help from their copyright-affiliates in the said countries.
Every western country has a RIAA/MPAA equivalent and they dance to the tune of those who represent the largest media corporations: RIAA and MPAA.
I do not live in the US, but I received a cease and desist letter from US attorneys for breaking the DMCA by sharing deCSS code on my foreign server. Recently I have been probed and DoSed (one of my IPs is still being DoSed by malformed packets to port 1214; my ISP is investigating the matter) by sites that I strongly suspect are a part of the MPAA/RIAA campaign ("we'll sue thousands") that began in June. I fully expect to receive a cease and desist, or even a subpoena, from the local copyright fascists for sharing my files.
The big huff is that they only have to file them with a measly clerk. There is no judical oversight. If that's what you call "file[d] WITH A COURT", then I've got some great "advice FROM A MAJOR STOCK FIRM"... That advice will be from the secretary, or possibly a janitor, but that's good enough according to you...
Nothing is illegial if it gets legalized... The DMCA and other such laws made this possible, but it should not be allowed. It's not strictly illegial, as congress passed the law, and the courts have upheld it so far, but it certainly violates many rights that Americans are accustomed to.
No, the founders of the USA did not mean for the legal system to be used to take away the life-savings of college students, just for sharing 3 MP3 files... Another case where congress' actions are in conflict with the constitution is copyright law, which is now being infinitely extended, even though that is explicitly disallowed. Since the congress decided that they can do that, does that make it right, or okay? Most rational people don't believe so...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
You're in error, at least in the U.S. The No Electronic Theft Act clearly covers copyright infringement as a criminal violation:
[*2] SEC. 2. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS.
(a) DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL GAIN- Section 101 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the undesignated paragraph relating to the term 'display', the following new paragraph:
"The term 'financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.'.
(b) CRIMINAL OFFENSES- Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
(a) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--
"(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
"(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $ 1,000 shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.'.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
somebody else already did. it's more efficient not to have to look through all of them though.
There are a lot of people (I won't say a majority, the proportion is a point not worth arguing) using P2P simply because they want free music. For those people, I have a suggestion - one that's legal and significantly socially healthier than hiding indoors and playing Russian roulette with the RIAA's lawyers.
Find your local music scene.
Find out which clubs or bars in your town (or a nearby metro area) host live music - many do on the weekends, some do several times a week. Check the local papers for lists of such places, or activities like festivals, open-air concerts, park celebrations, etc. Ask around, check with your friends, neighbors, people at the local watering hole. Hell, take a walk through a noisy section of town sometime on a Friday night and listen to hear which places sound like they've got a band going.
For a small cover (or free, depending) at most of these places, you can get in, hang out with friends, have a few beers, talk to members of your-preferred-gender, and listen to the artists up close and personal. You might be listening to some neo-punk band of sixteen-year-olds. You might catch a really great jazz set. You might hear some grizzled-looking blue-collar fellas playing some mighty fine blues. You might dance to some eighties cover band.
And - here's the part for those interested in free music - a lot of these bands sell their CDs very cheap, and many give them away for free! Sometimes, musicians that aren't even performing will show up just to hand out some CDs of their stuff, to try and get some exposure.
Expand your horizons, get out of your house, have a social experience, spend time with friends, and get free/cheap music, all for little investment - plus, you get to support homegrown talent, instead of manufactured "talent". How can you go wrong?
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
I'm pissed at the RIAA because they are abusing the legal process. This is all obviously FUD so they can shut down any competition and steal money from everyone (through media/internet/computer "royalties"--really taxes)--including those who don't want anything to do with their "products."
It's sad to see the EFF has joined their cause:
www.k_lite.tk_Kazaa_Lite@Kazaa
Uhm, that seems a lot like the default username for Kazaa lite, which would be the same for hundreds of lazy users. Same goes for "Jim", "Jeff" and "Jessica". Good luck proving which jim@Kazaa was sharing copyrighted music.
Copyright law is designed so that the originators of creative works can derive compensation from those works, right? No, the recording industry likes to take 90% of artist proceeds and stuff it into some hole and now wants to put a greater lean onto touring revenue.
The RIAA is of course whining about how it isn't gettin gits fair share of cash for these songs that are being downloaded. Now, the RIAA for the most part, has nothing to do with the creative process, and those corporate bands/singers that are puppets, can't really be called creative (say hi Justin) by any real stretch.
In essence, by swapping files we take money away from the RIAA (money that it really didn't deserve to have in the first place, but that's just an editorial aside), and then the RIAA takes away more money from the artists.
Here's a simple solution, let the artists sue the RIAA for getting continually raped and having this crusade carried out in their name. I'm sure that any number of artists down on their luck would like their fifty million dollars from their platinum album back from the RIAA. They are the originators of the creative content and are thus in charge of the copyright (unless they were stupid with their contracts), it should be the decision of the artist who gets their money and who gets to be compensated for money lost from file downloading.
Hopefully the artists aren't totally stupid and just keep the suits to the RIAA, because suing their fans would be very much counterproductive (after all, would you buy a band's cd if they were in the middle of litigation with you). Just a thought.
There are peer to peer networks for the sharing of legal music. In some cases they use digital signatures to ensure the files are legit. Here's the ones I've found so far:
- Furthur Network
-
konspire[2b]
-
Monotonik's BitTorrents - zip files with ~300 MB of MP3s
If you know of any others please let me know.Request your free CD of my piano music.
The reason I wrote this article was that a friend quite seriously told me that the money she paid to purchase Kazaa went to compensate the musicians whose music she was downloading. She had no idea she was violating anyone's copyright. I suspect people like her are not uncommon among p2p users.
Other slashdot users have repeatedly mentioned that their less computer literate siblings and friends who use p2p were quite unaware that any of the songs they downloaded were immediately made available for sharing. While you can usually disable this, most of the p2p apps are configured to automatically share by default, and I don't think they always make an effort to inform the user of that fact, or of its legal implications.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Hear, hear.
Not passing around copyrighted material that you don't have a license to copy seems to me to be a rather foolproof way to avoid getting sued. I know I don't have that particular worry.
However, I do have quite the worry that the continued insistence of the freeloaders that they're not doing anything wrong serves only to inflame the whole issue, and then I do have to worry about things like DRM obstructing real fair use, attacks on my online anonymity, and the legal machine suffocating legitimate P2P uses in the cradle out of fear.
I suppose that's what really bothers me about this whole music "sharing" thing. If people really feel so strongly that the very idea of copyright is immoral, maybe it's time they got the Constitution amended to that effect.
Do you have a pulse?
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
The Smart One: I'll take "Things you should know" for 200.
Alec: Since the beginning of time, this specific method was used to avoid being prosecuted by others.
The Smart One: What is not breaking the law?
Alec: Correct.
The Smart One: I'll take "Things you should know" for 400.
Alec: The 20th century is marked by the loss of this great leader and moral officer, which dawned an era of weak men and scared little boys who cried out for some sort of empathetic revenge due to their faces being barried in a surealistic existence, one which their brains try to forcefully merge with reality.
The Smart One: What is "Responsibility, son of Accountability"?
Alec: Correct. No.. wait.. someone is complaining, that must mean we are in the wrong. Okay, whoever said that our show is against constitutional rights, that's just not funny!
on the sixth day God created man.
on the seventh day, man returned the favor.
Ouch! Stop him! He stole my thought. Make him give it back.
Cool concept. Reminds me of the book "Deathkiller". Or it could be something spies use: steal his thoughts and wipe his brain, although I always figured killing was much easier than wiping a mind.
We all reuse thoughts, and it rarely hurts anyone. I may use the phrase "thought theft" in a song. You may never hear the song, and my reuse won't hurt you. Thousands of people may share my songs on P2P networks, and that is good for me:
1. People are listening to my songs.
2. People are being injected with my ideas.
3. People will pay to see me play the songs.
4. People may order my CD. Yes, CDs are almost obsolete, but they are still a good method for those who do not have high bandwidth to transfer music without losing quality.
5. I will get paid for being on late night television, and have cameos in movies and maybe start an acting career doing commercials, and write a book, and write a column in a magazine like John Mayer telling how he wrote a song that nobody wants to hear while travelling between famous people's houses. And that is what dreams are made of.
---
Copyright was allowed in this country so that a creator would have a limited monopoly so creators would gain some benefit from creating and would have the incentive to do it again.
Now the benefits all go to corporations for a period of time formerly known as limited. Yes, they still expire, but I will not live to see the copyrights expire on works that were created by people that were dead before I was born. I do not have the legal ability to derive new creations from the work of the greats. The original copyright had a maximum of 28 years. That means people should be able to reuse the entire Beatles catalog without legal hassles. (Someone once said they wrote every song. Does that mean noone can create anything new? That explains today's popular music.)
I spend my life entertaining my brain.