RIAA, MPAA Ask High Court To Review P2P Decision

Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-11 07:31 · Score: 2, Funny

The story is here. It appeared then vanished again, just to show up once more before disappearing into the void.
But now it's here! Lets party!

Re:Finally by punkin · 2004-10-11 07:36 · Score: 2, Funny

We can't party. Partying implies sharing a good time and since sharing is bad .....
Re:Finally by danheskett · 2004-10-11 08:36 · Score: 3, Informative

This isn't bad. If the Court refuses to hear the case then the current ruling will work its way through different federal courts until (1) there a consenus on the side of file swappers or (2) there is a disagreemnet where at least one court disagrees with a peer or lower court. At that point the Court will either hear the case, or decline.

The only way this can be bad for fileswapping is if the Court hears the case and reverses the Betamax decision.
Re:Finally by danheskett · 2004-10-11 11:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Most all the rulings so far have been bad for fileswapping -- ie, they have all agreed that unauthorized copying is illegal -- this ruling just protects the software itself, and keeps the burden shifted over to fileswappers.
There has never been any legitimate legal question to whether unauthorized sharing of files is copyright infringement. It is.

The only question has been are the companies/individuals who write the software liable for any potential secondary infringement claims.

Can't they just... by Mori+Chu · 2004-10-11 07:31 · Score: 5, Funny

Can't they just slip the P2P ban into Patriot Act II? It'd be much easier for me; I could concentrate my hatred in one place.

Re:Can't they just... by Eric_Cartman_South_P · 2004-10-11 08:05 · Score: 5, Funny

Can't they just slip the P2P ban into Patriot Act II? It'd be much easier for me; I could concentrate my hatred in one place.
Better yet, slip it into Patriot Act II, and put all of THAT into a Microsoft Longhorn EULA.
Re:Can't they just... by SlowMovingTarget · 2004-10-11 11:38 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm trying to figure out if that's like wrapping dead fish in crap, or wrapping crap in dead fish... And then lighting it on fire.

Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-11 07:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

The owners of copyrighted material often say they suffer "harm" and "economic loss" resulting from illegal copying. Like most arguments put forth by copyright enthusiasts, it holds little water - for several reasons:

The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the copying individual would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur.

The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the bookstore's stock of books were burned, or if the money in the register got torn up, that would really be a "loss." We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a book, the bookstore and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the bookstore and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to play bridge instead of reading a book. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry "foul" just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them.

The claim is begging the question because the idea of "loss" is based on the assumption that the publisher "should have" got paid. That is based on the assumption that copyright exists and prohibits individual copying. But that is just the issue at hand: what should copyright cover? If the public decides it can share copies, then the publisher is not entitled to expect to be paid for each copy, and so cannot claim there is a "loss" when it is not. In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.

Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water? by PigeonGB · 2004-10-11 07:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

While I agree on most points, it is hard to say that copying in itself hurts no one without someone freaking out that you basically said it is ok to copy things because no one gets hurt.

You didn't say that. You're simply saying that no one lost money directly from a copy, which is the truth. Now if someone making a copy decides not to pay for something, the copyright owner has lost a potential sale, but it would be fraudulent to claim it as an actual loss.

Here's something that the RIAA and others don't like to admit. When someone downloads an MP3, or even an album of MP3s, it doesn't prevent them from subsequently buying the album. I know plenty of someone who downloaded the Dave Mathews Band album when it was prematurely released, only to buy the CD afterwards anyway. So by the logic put forth by many like the RIAA, the RIAA broke even in terms of losses in that case. That's absurd.

--
I have 3656.9 Bogomips. How many Bogomips do you have?
Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water? by LewsTherinKinslayer · 2004-10-11 07:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

You're not wrong. But you're making the point they want you to make. P2P software is not necessarily for use for trading copyrighted material. And that's why they should be allowed to stay. Even if one were to admit that a primary reason for p2p networks is for trading copyrighted material. That does not make it the network's fault. It is an abuse. And it should be treated as such. Handguns aren't banned because people use them to hold up seven eleven's. The criminals are prosecuted. (Regardless of whether or not you feel that copyrighted material swapping is indeed a crime, either way, its NOT the p2p network's fault.)
Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water? by ArbitraryConstant · 2004-10-11 07:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

These arguments get made a lot, but the fact of the matter is that they actually do own the copyrights on the materials, and legally should be allowed to dictate what happens to them. Even though no direct loss occurs, their copyright is still being violated.

Unfortunately, the members of the **AA abused the market, and now the invisible hand is tearing them a new one. This is nothing more and nothing less than the market attempting to bring the price down to what people are willing to pay.

Anyone that knows economics knows that if the price is that far above what people are willing to pay, the situation is very unstable and it doesn't take much to bring the whole thing crashing down. Napster was the catalyst, but if it hadn't come along someone else would have done it, probably within a few months of the same time.

The market is built into human nature, The **AA's attempts to win a battle against human nature are evidence of the extent to which they are disconnected from reality. It's like trying to stop the drug trade or prostitution. You can spend an arbitrary amount of effort trying, but all you can do is drive up the price, and in the case of all 3, not by very much.

--
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water? by mcrbids · 2004-10-11 07:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

In other words, the "loss" comes from the copyright system; it is not an inherent part of copying. Copying in itself hurts no one.

... and you'll argue this "no loss" defense until you have some significant work of your own, of intellectual nature - a book, music, software, database, etc...

Really, copyrights are not about removing rights of consumers, it's about offering producers choice about their works. They can give it away, license it, or keep it carefully to themselves.

With the exception of the rediculous term (~ 100 YEARS!) copyright is one form of intellectual property that our government got RIGHT. Either I have a right to dictate how my works are used, or I have no defense against larger companies who wish to steal my works for profit.

Copyright levels the playing field so that "little guys" can eke out a business without having to suck up to the big guys. Again, the only weakness is the term of copyright.

What makes this issue particularly relevant is that P2P is the fundamental structure of the Internet itself. Any IP address can "publish" materials online via HTTP, anon-FTP, BitTorrent, NNTP, and too many other protocols to name.

If all forms of P2P are illegal, then the Internet is, also.

Write a letter to your senator/representative today!

--
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water? by idesofmarch · 2004-10-11 08:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

You miss some points well.
1. It is true that individuals that download often would not have bought the works in the first place, but many would, perhaps not in the volumes they are downloading, but in some quantity. It is obvious they are fans of the subject. Moreover, mass downloading is fostering a new attitude in our youth - no one should ever pay for music. So it entirely possible that peer-to-peer sharing is changing people's perceptions toward buying at a psychological level - they may feel that to pay anything, even a dollar per album, is inherently a rip-off. If you think I am kidding, talk to some school kids.
2. A dollar not earned is still lost revenue. In the bookstore example, you forgot to mention that the bookstore owner bought the book from the publisher with the expectation of being able to sell it. If his stock does not sell because everyone has already illegally obtained a copy, that is a very real loss. You are just playing with words. A penny saved is a penny earned, after all.
3. In your last point, you seem to try to say that the concept of copyright should be changed to make it so that anyone can copy anything. If I am wrong, please correct me. So what exactly should copyright protect then? It seems you have taken away all rights. I think what you are really trying to say is "I want to copy whatever I want legally and screw everyone else." Surely, you realize that if people are not rewarded for their work (sometimes years of work on a single project), they will stop working. Sure, a few will do it purely out of love, but then they will realize their savings are gone and they have to take some other full time job, and hey, pretty soon they are down to half hour per day of creative work.
Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water? by mcc · 2004-10-11 08:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

These arguments get made a lot, but the fact of the matter is that they actually do own the copyrights on the materials, and legally should be allowed to dictate what happens to them.

Not necessarily. Copyright owners don't actually have any "rights". What they have are privileges, granted by congress based on a mandate to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".

It may be some of the privileges granted to copyright owners may be in the best interests of promoting the useful arts and sciences; but if we begin to fall into the misconception that the copyright system exists for the copyright owners' benefit, we are making a big mistake.

I'd say artists have to a certain degree a right to be compensated for use of their work, but I'd say saying copyright owners get complete and total control over exactly how copyrighted material is used is something which benefits no one at all except the owners of the RIAA and MPAA corporations.

--
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water? by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · 2004-10-11 08:26 · Score: 2, Informative

2. A dollar not earned is still lost revenue. In the bookstore example, you forgot to mention that the bookstore owner bought the book from the publisher with the expectation of being able to sell it. If his stock does not sell because everyone has already illegally obtained a copy, that is a very real loss. You are just playing with words. A penny saved is a penny earned, after all.

Except in this specific example, the bookseller simply rips the cover off the book and returns the cover to the publisher for a full refund. Haven't you ever read the fine print inside that tells you that if you bought this book with no cover, then you've ripped off the publisher?

--
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water? by rpresser · 2004-10-11 08:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

The law doesn't take the simple-minded view that a loss must be money taken away from someone, it can also be something of value that someone would have rightfully had but for another person's wrongful conduct.

Therefore, Sonny Bono should have been drawn and quartered, because "something of value" -- many, many works whose copyright was due to expire -- would have been rightfully the property of the public but for his wrongful conduct.

Alas, now that he's dead we cannot kill him again.
Re:Pro-copyright arguments - do they hold water? by gbnewby · 2004-10-11 08:32 · Score: 4, Informative

A good question is whether shared items are copyrighted, and if they are whether they're licensed for redistribution (as is often the case for individual artists & writers), and if they are copyrighted and not licensed does the RIAA/MPAA legally represent the copyright holder (if not, it's MYOB under Title 17 U.S.C.).
Project Gutenberg contributed an amici brief with Prelinger & the Internet Archive. We welcome the opportunity to show how the use of p2p for legitimate copyright-free works has grown since we wrote the brief (and it was large then, already).
With the help of Magnetlinks (an open standard), all of the Gutenberg content is now available for direct download to enabled p2p programs via the Gutenberg search page. This is very cool, and helps our free eBooks to get around. If you use p2p software, consider sharing Project Gutenberg content in your "shared items" location.
On a somewhat different note, to anticipate a frequent /. contribution: it is still quite unclear whether individual readers (or listeners) violate copyright when they view/read an item for personal non-commercial use in many situations. For example, if you own a print copy of Orwell's 1984 and are in the US (where it's still copyrighted), is it legal for you to view the online copy of 1984 from Project Gutenberg of Australia? Or, if you are in Holland, can you view James Joyce's Ulysses from Project Gutenberg even though it still has copyright protection in life+70 countries? What if you already own a copy of the book? The core issue, yet to be decided for any media I can think of, is what happens when you purchase an "item" - did you purchase a right to use the item in various forms, or some piece of plastic or dead tree? The MPAA/RIAA & like-minded companies want all the benefits, so that if you lose your dead tree you need to buy another one (because you don't have the rights to the intellectual creation, just the crud it was printed on), but if you want to put a CD on your MP3 player you can't (because you own the piece of plastic, not a license to the music). The intersection between fair use, licensing and Title 17 (particularly the DMCA extensions) has not been addressed fully, and overlaps with issues like the applicability of EULAs. There's lots of work yet to be done.

Story by KaSkA101 · 2004-10-11 07:32 · Score: 5, Funny

This story needs to disapear again just like the RIAA and MPAA

Don't blame the tool by Kethinov · 2004-10-11 07:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

Knives are used to murder people every year, but they are not illegal. **AA needs a grip on reality. Their business model is failing. Quit tinkering with legislation and find a profitable venue.

--
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!

Re:Don't blame the tool by DunbarTheInept · 2004-10-11 07:49 · Score: 2, Informative

Apple's iTunes is doing okay. It's not charging money that's the problem - it's enforcing inferior technology in order to protect a revenue stream with overinflated priofit margins that's the problem. These days it's just silly to get your music by buying it on a physical disk, and it's even sillier to be paying 10x markup for it.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Don't blame the tool by Jim_Maryland · 2004-10-11 07:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Could one argue that computers (operating sytem, hardware, and software) themselves are inducing people to commit copyright infringement? Without the PC, how many games/music/movies/software/etc... would be copied?

Just because a tool can be used for illegal actions doesn't mean the tool itself is bad (as you point out with the knife example). If tools are considered responsible for criminal activities, we might as well eliminate quite a bit of the technology we use (cars, guns, knives, PCs, VCRs, baseball bats, plastic wrap, rope, paper, fuel, etc...) as they can all be quite useful when applied incorrectly.

Id10ts by ProudClod · 2004-10-11 07:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

"This is one of the most important copyright cases ever to reach this court," the groups said in papers filed with the court.

Yes, but not for the reason the RIAA may think. The point is that filesharing by P2P, as demonstrated by Bittorrent distribution by many companies, is a solution to a major bandwidth problem, and as such it'd be madness to ban it because it can be used to infringe copyright - there's about as much grounds to do so as there is to ban all net file transfer activity.

--
Gamers Europe - Gaming News. Reviews.

If the software has a legitimate use ... by hattig · 2004-10-11 07:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Then it should not be able to be banned because a person uses it for an illegal use.

* standard comment about guns here - people kill, not guns, etc etc *

Some of the software out there is clearly written to share music and video files that will most likely be breaking copyright. Regardless, it is still the people that are doing the music copying that are breaking the law, not the software.

Re:If the software has a legitimate use ... by haeger · 2004-10-11 07:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

If the software has a legitimate use then it should not be able to be banned because a person uses it for an illegal use.

Not even if the software if primarily used for illegal stuff?
Not trolling here, just curious. Should a single legitimate use for a tool render it free for anyone to use, even though the vast majority would use it for illegal purposes?

.haeger

--
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
Re:If the software has a legitimate use ... by back_pages · 2004-10-11 08:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

Not even if the software if primarily used for illegal stuff?
How many digital cameras are used for producing porn? How many registered domain names are used for porn?
How many handguns are used (as in fired and hit something living) for hunting or self defense versus committing a crime?
How much marijuana is (debatably) purchased according to state laws versus illegally purchased in states that have legal uses?
How many people are killed by drunk drivers? Beaten by drunken spouses? How many people are really better off after a few drinks?
What's the point of making nicotine a legal drug?
How in hell is it legal for the fast food industry to sell us the unhealthy crap they do but an elderly person with a terminal illness can be court ordered to take medication to prolong his life|suffering?
I'm not refuting/supporting the implications of your question, but trying to show that without a MUCH broader context, the question cannot have much meaning. In fact, I'm inclined to agree that P2P filesharing is on shaky ground based on its "legitimate use", but then so are handguns and liquor. The bigger question, to me, is why this ought to be even considered at the federal level.
If you made a product out of coathangers, and it turned out that people discovered that they could replicate your product with their own coathangers, is it right to get a federal law preventing people from bending coathangers?
I'm more than happy to pay for copyright media if I feel like I'm getting a fair value. Throughout the whole MPAA/RIAA/P2P controversy, I've continued to buy plenty of DVDs but not a single CD. I really thought about getting The Roots latest CD, but since that group makes such a fuss about P2P crap like hookers for their record label, I just downloaded it instead. I'll still go see them live, though.
Blah, anyway, I got Columbus Day off, sat home drinking beer, and wrote a rambling 5 page response to a 2 sentence Slashdot post. How about you?

Naturual Progression by powerpuffgirls · 2004-10-11 07:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

With so much at stake, it's not surprising that this will eventually involve the Supreme Court. However if this is once again ruled against them, they will have serious problem.

From the original article... by neuro.slug · 2004-10-11 07:33 · Score: 5, Funny

In a joint petition to the Supreme Court, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) said that letting the lower court rulings stand would badly undermine obscene profit^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H the value of copyrighted work.

We already have a decision... by prozac79 · 2004-10-11 07:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

It was in the BetaMax case. Very simply, a company cannot be held responsible for illegal activity if the product has legal purposes. I think going after the individual file swappers made a lot more sense (although I have issues with the shotgun approach they are using). In any court case, someone doesn't get their way. The RIAA and MPAA have to decide... are the users at fault or are the tools at fault? They can't have it both ways!

--
"Oh dear, she's stuck in an infinite loop and he's an idiot" -Prof. Farnsworth (Futurama)

Re:We already have a decision... by DaHat · 2004-10-11 07:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

You are half correct. However the concept was 'substantial non infringing use' as said by the court has become the bar from which other products have been judged.

And yes, they can have it both ways. Not only are burglars who break into your house at fault, but so are the companies that manufacture and sell lock picking tools and make their tools widely available to the known felons.

Welcome to the world of Tobacco Trial style liability.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Re:We already have a decision... by Hatta · 2004-10-11 07:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yep, we should keep in mind that the SCOTUS has not accepted this case, and doesn't have to. But since IANAL, I'm wondering what happens if they decline. The original ruling was in the 9th circuit court, what if I'm in the 5th? Can the RIAA sue me for writing an app they don't like? Will the precedent from the 9th circuit court generalize to others?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:We already have a decision... by Peyna · 2004-10-11 07:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

You don't need to be a lawyer to know how the legal system works. If it is appealed from the 9th circuit and the writ of certiorari is denied by the Supreme Court, then it means that the decision of the 9th circuit court stands in the 9th circuit. It has no bearing on the other federal courts, because the Supreme Court did not make a decision on it. Refusal by the court to hear an appeal should in no way be construed to constitute approval of that decision. There could be any number of reasons they have not choosing to hear it, and they don't have to give any reason at all.

--
What?

foo. by garcia · 2004-10-11 07:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

In a joint petition to the Supreme Court, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) said that letting the lower court rulings stand would badly undermine the value of copyrighted work.

And I say that the changes to copyright law have made copyrighted works worth more for longer than they should be. It's just as ridiculous.

"These companies have expressly designed their businesses to avoid all legal liability, with the full knowledge that over 90 percent of the material traversing their applications belongs to someone else," MPAA Chief Executive Dan Glickman said in a statement.

Sounds like any business out there. Being able to avoid getting in trouble when their product fucks up. Isn't that what lawyers are for?

"That case was based on the principles established in the 1984 Betamax case, which has led to the largest and most profitable period of technological innovation in this country's history. Consumers, industry and our country have all benefited as a result."

Exactly. Current law (and the DMCA) have stiffled innovation as everyone is fearful of being sued. Let's end this non-sense and let the corporations realize that they cannot buy everyone.

If P2P is made illegal, then.. by xeaxes · 2004-10-11 07:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

If P2P is made illegal, then a lot of other tools should be made illegal.

Here is a short list: Guns, hammers, rocks, knives, forks, spoons, sporks, drills, axes, saws, chainsaws, javelins, baseballs, Windows, Linux, Office, pillows, electronic devices, sheets, bath tubs, lawn mowers, mail boxes, etc.

What do they all have in common with P2P? They all have legitimate uses because they are simply tools, but at the same time they can also be used for crime.

--

"BEHOLD, CORN!!" - Dr. Weird, ATHF

Re:If P2P is made illegal, then.. by shalla · 2004-10-11 07:53 · Score: 2, Funny

Here is a short list: Guns, hammers, rocks, knives, forks, spoons, sporks, drills, axes, saws, chainsaws, javelins, baseballs, Windows, Linux, Office, pillows, electronic devices, sheets, bath tubs, lawn mowers, mail boxes, etc.

What do they all have in common with P2P? They all have legitimate uses because they are simply tools, but at the same time they can also be used for crime.

Er... what are YOU doing with your lawn mower?

INDUCE Act by PigeonGB · 2004-10-11 07:36 · Score: 4, Informative

The INDUCE Act is related and should be a concern as well. Check out http://www.eff.org for more info on this bill making its way through the Senate.

--
I have 3656.9 Bogomips. How many Bogomips do you have?

Al Gore? by AvidProToolsDoc · 2004-10-11 07:37 · Score: 5, Funny

So when's the RIAA/MPAA going to try to sue Al Gore for inventing the Internet, and causing them to lose profits? Let's just litigate some profit back into their business model!!! Yay!!!

FTP, HTTP, etc by Hatta · 2004-10-11 07:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Defendants distribute and support software, the users of which can and do choose to employ it for both lawful and unlawful ends," federal Judge Stephen Wilson wrote in his 2003 decision. "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."

It will be interesting to see what the arguments of the RIAA will be. What fundamentally distinguishes FTP or HTTP servers from other file sharing programs? By what critera can a programmer know if the program he is writing is illegal?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Re:FTP, HTTP, etc by Kethinov · 2004-10-11 07:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

There is no difference. I can share loads of copyrighted material on my webserver if I wanted to. The only difference? It's easier to shut that activity down. Dedicated p2p systems are harder to shut down. The technology to do this has existed for decades. Only now is it becoming mainstream. The **AA has been sitting on a failing business model for a long time. Their meddling with US legislation is merely an act of desperation out of fear of change.

--
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!

I don't understand... by FiReaNGeL · 2004-10-11 07:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

I don't understand how things would change if, somehow, they would win their case. OK, P2P apps are declared illegal. Majority of people who trade on these networks already know it's illegal, and do it anyway. Sure, it'll let them sue the p2p apps developpers... but they should know it's the modern version of Hydra : you cut off a head, it grows up 2 better ones. Do they really think they can get out of this without changing their (failing) business model? At least they seem to get the message lately, with all the online music stores... at last.

--
Eureka Science News - automatically updated

Well, it's merely a request so far. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-11 07:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

There's nothing stopping them from making a request if they've got the money to pay for the lawyers, but it doesn't mean much. Even if they agreed to hear it, which is doubtful, they would agree with the previous decisions.
Besides which, it is really quite irrelevant what the US Law says about P2P because P2P is only marginally concerned with the US. If the US Congress passed a law saying all people who possessed P2P software will be rounded up and executed tomorrow and the Supreme Court backed it up and the President went on Fox News and announced it to the drones and their neighbors all agreed to turn in the dirty evil file trader enemies of the corporate State of America, it still wouldn't stop P2P. Even them you would still find files on Kazaa tomorrow. Consider that. The US is not the center of the world and when it comes to the Internet it is no longer even a major player.

Be careful what you wish for... by IgD · 2004-10-11 07:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

This could really backfire on the music and movie industries. The supreme court might take the betamax decision to a new level. I'm all for this.

Re:Go figure by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-11 07:40 · Score: 3, Funny

At least a couple of moderators hadn't expected your revelation that this is nothing new, and was expected. "What insight!", they cried.

It might get heard. by RealAlaskan · 2004-10-11 07:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

The lower courts have disagreed, the **AA shysters say, so just maybe the Supremes will take it. Unfortunately, the anti-**AA decisions have come out of the Ninth Circuit, the most overturned court of them all. If the Supremes do take this one, it might only be to slap down those wacky guys in California, and that would be bad.

More seriously, I'm not sure what they might do with this, but their recent Mickey Mouse decision doesn't make it look very encouraging.

--
See what I've been reading.

Re:It might get heard. by dgatwood · 2004-10-11 08:04 · Score: 5, Informative

The 9th circuit is also the circuit that most frequently gets reviewed by the Supreme Court, largely because they see the most cutting-edge, controversial cases. In terms of overturned cases, though, only about 51% get overturned, about the same as almost every other circuit. Thus, you might make the argument that it is the most overturned court because their rulings are "wacky", but you would be wrong.
In fact, as a percentage of total cases reviewed, the 5th circuit (Texas/Louisiana/Mississippi) is the most overturned circuit, not the 9th, coming in at about 60% of heard cases overturned.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping. by JaxGator75 · 2004-10-11 07:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you repeat it enough times, it just might become true!

Then again, you could just be wrong and saying otherwise MIGHT prove nothing...

Just maybe...

--
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

wake up RIAA by suezz · 2004-10-11 07:42 · Score: 3, Funny

why does the MPAA - RIAA wake up and get in reality. should we outlaw all cars because some wife runs over her husband on purpose. what world are they from anyway? I guess to them their all important copyrights are more valuable than lives. what a bunch of screwed up people - they need to take a break from counting all their money. lets outlaw forks and knives because someone stabbed someone to death with a fork and knife - then we have to eat with our fingers or chopsticks but then what if someone pokes somebodies eye out with a chopstick. then we are reduced to fingers. but then if you strangle someone - okay that's all I have a headache.

As Ani DiFranco said by marktaw.com · 2004-10-11 07:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Any tool is a weapon if you hold it right."

Starving musicians everywhere should file a class action suit against the RIAA for being used as the RIAA's defense in these cases, when we all know that the starving musicians are starving because of the RIAA's monopolistic nature & underhanded treatment of their "talent."

Look, it's simple... by el-spectre · 2004-10-11 07:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is an existing economic system, built in a time where it was not possible to duplicate goods w/o cost. And a lot of people have a lot invested in that system ("Fuck the RIAA" you say? Those companies employ a lot of people... Folks just trying to feed their kids and live life, just like most people).

Now, it is very easy to duplicate many of these kinds of goods. This reduces the incentive of the companies to produce... their revenue per unit of work decreases, which hurts the company.

Of course, you can copy music (I won't call it 'theft' because I don't want to call down the semantics people). I can also rob people on the street, commit fraud, etc. Morality aside, all of these are breaking the 'rules' of society.

Think what you will of copyright as a concept, but to berate folks who are playing within the 'rules' (whether you agree with the rules or not is immaterial) as 'stupid', 'greedy' or '[insert expletive here]' is grossly unfair.

Now, if you want to change the rules, fine. If enough people agree, they'll change. But stop breaking the rules for and then casting yourself as a persecuted party. It's intellectually lazy and a cop out.

--
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.

Re:Look, it's simple... by PigeonGB · 2004-10-11 07:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually the RIAA was the one who claimed it was ok to make copies of CDs to give away to your friends. To do so on a scale that Napster was able to make possible made them change their position. The RIAA was the one who changed the rules here.

In any case, no one wants to rip off musicians or the people who are employed by the RIAA. The Internet provides a chance for innovation and new ways to market products, and the RIAA is very slowly getting with the times.

I could copy music, and I can do so legally. Companies exist, such as audiolunchbox.com, that allow me to not only download songs but buy them. If the RIAA actually decided to make use of what its customers would already be willing to use, and didn't gouge them with high prices and lawsuits, perhaps they wouldn't be complaining about "theft".

You can't rob people on the street or commit fraud legally, so your analogy doesn't stand. Your statement makes it sound like copying is immoral by itself, which it is not.

To leave your post as it was is intellectually lazy.

--
I have 3656.9 Bogomips. How many Bogomips do you have?
Re:Look, it's simple... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-11 07:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

Now, if you want to change the rules, fine. If enough people agree, they'll change. But stop breaking the rules for and then casting yourself as a persecuted party. It's intellectually lazy and a cop out.

I think Rosa Parks would disagree with you.

Perhaps comparing the civil rights movement with copyright is a bit of a stretch, but I think the example still stands.

I do not feel I am under any obligation to follow 'rules' that I consider wrong. Of course, I consider murder, fraud, and robbery wrong. Most of things on my "that is wrong" index are in agreement with societies. However, I do not think "breaking the rules" when the rules are wrong is intellectually lazy, or a cop out.
Re:Look, it's simple... by LordK2002 · 2004-10-11 08:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

If enough people agree, they'll change.
Wrong.
If enough people with money and influence agree, they'll change.
There is a huge difference.
Re:Look, it's simple... by el-spectre · 2004-10-11 08:01 · Score: 2

You can't rob people on the street or commit fraud legally

Nope, nor can you copy w/o permission. If a stranger on the street gives permission, it ain't robbery. So, you are correct: When the copyright holder gives permission, you can make copies. This is within the 'rules'.

To leave your post as it was is intellectually lazy

Oh, come on. I'm trying to make a point here, not have a pissing contest, or flamewar.

--
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Re:Look, it's simple... by what+the+dumple+is · 2004-10-11 08:03 · Score: 5, Funny

That's the point. We don't want them to produce anything.

I'm out of a high paying cush-y tech job and I want everybody to feel my pain. Muhahahaha! What? Some record exec can't feed his family? Guess what! Neither can I! See you at the food bank.
Re:Look, it's simple... by el-spectre · 2004-10-11 08:07 · Score: 2, Informative

Yeah, I knew the civil rights issue would come up. And yeah, it's a hell of a stretch... I'd wager that treating people like subhumans and copying the latest Backstreet Boys are not _quite_ analogous.

Also, it could be argued that the basic laws of the country (remember the 'all men are created equal' bit) were being violated by denying black folks civil rights.

It's called an implied social contract. You choose to live in a society, if you won't live by the rules, you need to leave or suffer the consequences of your actions. LOTS of people only follow the rules they want, yet expect full protection from the courts, military, fire/police, etc. Seems a pretty hypocritical approach to me, hence the 'cop out' comment.

--
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Re:Look, it's simple... by PigeonGB · 2004-10-11 08:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

I know you were trying to make a point. But the way you left it made it sound like copying was equal to mugging someone or committing fraud.

Of course, you can copy music (I won't call it 'theft' because I don't want to call down the semantics people). I can also rob people on the street, commit fraud, etc. Morality aside, all of these are breaking the 'rules' of society.

When the copyright holder gives permission, you can make copies. This is within the 'rules'.

Two different statements. One is wrong because it is a blanket statement that doesn't apply in all cases, and the other one is correct because it applies in all cases where a person gives you permission to copy.

That's my point when I said you were being intellectually lazy, to quote you when you refer to those who break the "rules" and then try to say they are the victims. I agree with you in that if it is illegal, it shouldn't be done. I haven't really downloaded music files by the RIAA ever since Napster was taken down. I legally do get music files from friends' bands or bands that understand that the Internet is an amazing new tool to advertise their music to fans.

I still think that the RIAA is crappy for not only bringing lawsuits to its own customers but also trying to make otherwise legitimate tools illegal simply because they can be used illegally.

While I see your point, that copyright exists and changing the law can be done without violating existing copyright, you made it while also painting copying as by default immoral, the likes of fraud and mugging people on the street. I was simply correcting you, and I apologize for doing so in a way that seemed flameworthy.

--
I have 3656.9 Bogomips. How many Bogomips do you have?
Re:Look, it's simple... by IWorkForMorons · 2004-10-11 08:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Think what you will of copyright as a concept, but to berate folks who are playing within the 'rules' (whether you agree with the rules or not is immaterial) as 'stupid', 'greedy' or '[insert expletive here]' is grossly unfair.

Now, if you want to change the rules, fine. If enough people agree, they'll change. But stop breaking the rules for and then casting yourself as a persecuted party. It's intellectually lazy and a cop out.

And isn't that the whole problem right there? The publishers are trying to change the rules in their favour, while leaving their customers with few alternatives. There are a set of rules that allows the publisher to get paid (CD levies, store levies, etc), to cover "losses" from people copying things. In return, people were given the right to make back ups of their purchases. This was the "Fair Use" clause. While it does allow for some people to make illegal backups, for the most part people stayed within the law. Now that the publishers have found a new enemy to blame all their woes on (P2P), they are systematically removing fair use rights, while still holding on to their money paid from the levies. What will be left is a system where people will be paying 3 or 4 times for the same item, and if it is lost or broken then they have to pay 3 or 4 times again for that item. Their rights to back up what they bought have been taken away. Whether you like this or not doesn't matter. In time, the whole system will crumble under it's own weight. People will spend less money on those items, because the value/price ratio will be so far out of whack. The whole exercise of trying to "save themselves" will ultimately be the publishers downfall. While this idea doesn't make me sad, what does make me sad is that customer rights will practically be non-existant by that time.
Re:Look, it's simple... by Cramer · 2004-10-11 08:39 · Score: 2, Interesting
- Actually the RIAA was the one who claimed it was ok to make copies of CDs to give away to your friends. To do so on a scale that Napster was able to make possible made them change their position. The RIAA was the one who changed the rules here.
Actually, they didn't. They said they couldn't police such small scale sharing and thus wasn't going to even try. Read the actual copyright notice on your CDs; most will explicitly prohibit even loaning the physical disc to anyone else.

Napster was not sharing to one's friends. It was sharing with anyone and everyone who asked without restriction or limit. There is a line, and Napster was out arround Pluto beyond it.
Re:Look, it's simple... by dougmc · 2004-10-11 08:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually the RIAA was the one who claimed it was ok to make copies of CDs to give away to your friends.
It was. It was called fair use.
Now, things like the DMCA have changed the rules for digital media. I think it's still legal to take a cassette tape and copy somebody else's CD , tape or record, but I'm not sure if it's legal to make a copy digitally, like make an mp3 of somebody else's CD (or even tape or record) anymore. I suspect it still is, though I'm sure the RIAA wouldn't agree.
The usual reason for the special treatment for digital media is that `digital copies are just like the original' ... and I guess in some cases that's true, but in many cases it's not. An mp3 of a CD is not the same as the CD itself, though the mp3 can be copied (if done properly) through many generations with no further loss of quality, and that's what they claim to be afraid of.
Of course, the RIAA IS getting paid. If you copy a CD onto an Audio CD, the RIAA gets a cut. (It's called the `DAT tax'. Google is your friend if you've never heard of it.) I guess they're just not getting paid enough ...
Re:Look, it's simple... by Yebyen · 2004-10-11 09:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Of course, you can copy music (I won't call it 'theft' because I don't want to call down the semantics people). I can also rob people on the street, commit fraud, etc. Morality aside, all of these are breaking the 'rules' of society.

The 'rules' of society are the rules that a majority of society follows. If a majority of society is breaking a rule, then it's not a rule of society anymore. If a majority of some subset of society is breaking a rule, and if a majority of society accepts this subset's right to exist, then there is an inequity in the system. It is possible for laws and socially acceptable rules to differ, just like it is possible for laws and morals to differ.

I still agree with your overall conclusion. If the rules are wrong, the rules need to be changed. When some people play by the rules, and some others don't, that is also inequity in the system.

--
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
Re:Look, it's simple... by Xtifr · 2004-10-11 09:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

Read the actual copyright notice on your CDs; most will explicitly prohibit even loaning the physical disc to anyone else.

Nope. Not only does that make no sense under the applicible laws, but I just spot-checked several, and none of them say that. Most just say, "unauthorized duplication is prohibited," while a few go on to mention that public performance, broadcast and rental or hire are also forbidden. None of them say that loans are forbidden.

(Actually, most of my CDs are legally redistributable concert recordings from bands that allow such things (mainly, in my case, Hot Tuna, the Radiators, Gov't Mule, They Might Be Giants, the Butthole Surfers and the Flaming Lips) as found at places like the Internet Archive, but I checked my more mainstream CDs, and none had the statement you claim.)

When the VCR first came on the market, most uses were infringing. Prerecorded tapes typically cost around $100, and there weren't any rental outlets. When the MPAA failed to get the technology banned, they did the smart thing, and adapted to it, and now it's a huge source of revenue for them, and most uses of the VCR are not infringing (although there's surely plenty of copyright infringement still occurring). What lesson can we learn from this? Well, if you're the RIAA, apparently none!
Re:Look, it's simple... by dedalus2000 · 2004-10-11 10:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

It took more than 50 years for the legislation that preserved the independence of broadcast media to be significantly undermined. Before that it didn't matter if you wanted to broadcast something that would make you look bad or not because someone would.
Copyright by the way had a limit of 14 years with a possible additional 14 year extension and was only created to further innovation by allowing artists and authors to profit for a time from their work before it entered into the public domain, which is where any released work went prior to these laws. It had a limited scope in order to foster creativity and the advancement of science.
If the original laws stood unaltered we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. the volumes of information that should be rolling into the public domain and the value that information holds for the advancement of American culture and for the advancement both culturally and technologically of the entire world is immeasurable. That information is ours and it's been stolen for no other reason than to protect Mickey Mouse from imitators.

--
My keyboads not woking popely.
Re:Look, it's simple... by iminplaya · 2004-10-11 11:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

...changing the law can be done without violating existing copyright...

Heh...tell that to Rosa Parks, or Galileo, or Martin Luther King. Some laws won't be changed until they can be made unenforcable. It took all that bootlegging to make prohibiton unenforcable and thus repealed. Many minority rights wouldn't exist if it weren't for the violators. Only the law breakers will get copyright stricken off the books. This is not an issue in gen pop, and the politicians being constantly re elected are only making matters worse.

--
What?
Re:Look, it's simple... by iminplaya · 2004-10-11 11:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

You choose to live in a society...

That's like saying "I chose to be born on this planet" This "implied social contract" is a load of bull. We live in a world of "might makes right". It's that simple. The guy with the gold controls the guy with the gun, and you're going to follow their rules. An "implied social contract" does not involve coercion. An "implied social contract" means voluntarily doing the right thing beacuse it's right, not because someone tells you to.

--
What?
Re:Look, it's simple... by nsayer · 2004-10-11 12:07 · Score: 3, Informative

It's called the `DAT tax'
It's more properly called the Audio Home Recording Act. It is the giant upon whose shoulders the DMCA is perched. At the time it was passed, it did not get nearly the outrage and attention it should have (that does not imply that it didn't get tons of both - it did, but passed anyway). It was the mechanism by which the Rio got hassled (the Rio escaped by the skin of its parallel cable - the fact that it was a computer peripheral was all that spared it). The AHRA, I believe, is every bit as horrible as INDUCE threatens to be today.
Re:Look, it's simple... by shark72 · 2004-10-11 12:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

"It was. It was called fair use."

Interesting, I haven't heard that. Do you have a citation?

"I think it's still legal to take a cassette tape and copy somebody else's CD , tape or record, but I'm not sure if it's legal to make a copy digitally, like make an mp3 of somebody else's CD (or even tape or record) anymore. I suspect it still is, though I'm sure the RIAA wouldn't agree."

Also interesting. Do you have anything to back that up? If you would like to see what US law says about "fair use" (as opposed to the common Slashdot misunderstandings), Here's the link. Ivan Hoffman also has an excellent article about Napster's failed attempt to defend their actions as fair use. pdinfo.com addresses the specific issue of music and fair use here ; they write "We have attempted to do find specific details and examples of Fair Use of music. The rumors that it is OK to use so many notes or so many bars are just not true. There is little doubt that, other than private in-home listening and playing, Fair Use of music is extremely limited."

So, if you've found a law that makes it okay to copy my friend's CDs onto cassette tapes, please post the links. In either case, there's an important difference between "under the radar" copyright violation (making copies of your friends CDs in small quantities) for which nobody will get on your case, vs. activities which are truly "fair use."

"Of course, the RIAA IS getting paid. If you copy a CD onto an Audio CD, the RIAA gets a cut. (It's called the `DAT tax'. Google is your friend if you've never heard of it.) I guess they're just not getting paid enough ..."

That's counter to the popular understanding of how it works. It's explained here (Google is indeed great for finding instances of that retarded "the RIAA gets a cut" meme, but for stuff like this, just going to the actual law book will save a lot of wasted time). The vast majority of the money goes to artists, composers and musicians -- who, I should add, generally aren't paid enough. A small percentage goes to record companies. None goes directly to the RIAA.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:Look, it's simple... by libcoder · 2004-10-11 14:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

The problem arises from the RIAA not knowing what it is that they sell. Do they sell the CD? If so I should be able to loan it out whenever I choose to whomever I choose. Or do they sell the license? In this case only I may listen to my CD, however the CD were to break, or become obsolete, I should recieve a free replacement with whatever the current medium is.

--
RIAA and the MPAA, putting the "F U" in "fair use".
Re:Look, it's simple... by Raffaello · 2004-10-11 15:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Are you just too young to remember the idiotic refrain "America: Love it or Leave it!" repeated by jingoistic supporters of the ill conceived (and ill fated) US involvement in Vietnam? Because you've managed to reinvent it, albeit in a considerably less catchy phraseology.

There are not "lots of societies on this planet to choose from." One needs the wherewithal to relocate to some hypothetical other society, and that society's approval of one's immigration.

So, no the argument that there exists some sort of implied social contract is just an attempt to make the lack of any real choice look like consent. Most of us obey the law because we were born into the society in which we live, subject to mostly preexisting laws. We have neither the means not the legal right to relocate to some hypothetical other society.

Arguing that individuals have some responsibility because we live in a representative republic would ring more true if we didn't also live in a country where Presidential elections can be stolen by recourse to a corrupt Supreme Court - two of the justices, Thomas and Scalia, who voted for Bush had substantial interests in the outcome of the case, and so, under federal law, should have recused themselves.

Everyone knows.. by eBayDoug · 2004-10-11 07:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm only stealing what I would have never paid for anyway.

--
Learn About Outsourcing. http://www.pioutsource.com

I love this quote... by Eric+Damron · 2004-10-11 07:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

"These companies have expressly designed their businesses to avoid all legal liability..."

In other words, they're staying within the law... Oh how dare they...

--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-11 07:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you walked up to me and took a COPY of my wallet containing $200 and spent it on drugs and hookers... I really wouldn't give a shit. Idiot.

RIAA/MPAA should just create their own P2P by Bonewalker · 2004-10-11 07:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Look, we can get all the music we want for free, as citizens, on the radio, and all the movies we want, on cable tv. Why are they free for us? Because advertisers pay someone big money.

So, why don't they, the MPAA/RIAA, just create their own version of Kazaa, charge for advertising rates, and offer all their movies and music for free to the file sharers? Sounds like a win/win to me...even the artist gets at least what they are getting now from radio and television royalties.

EASY FORMULA! by Spy+der+Mann · 2004-10-11 07:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Start selling the CD's from $3 to $10 at most.
People'll buy them for hundreds.

Then, and ONLY then, they can start persecuting P2P file sharers.

I told it before. The recording industries are NO LONGER NEEDED. They're history, and belong back in the days when making expensive vinyl records was the only way to distribute music.
We've come to a time where new small distributors are wanting to emerge.
Give up. Pass the flag.

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping. by TheGavster · 2004-10-11 07:55 · Score: 2, Funny

I can pay in MP3s for drugs and hookers? Sweeeet ...

--
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".

Re:Call it STEALING, not swapping. by hacknslashdot · 2004-10-11 07:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is a terrible analogy, a better analogy is this:

I walk up to you in the street, and make an exact replica of your shoes, then go to my friends house and let him make a copy of my copy of your shoes. I haven't stolen anything from you, but have I done something that the shoe company should be worried about? .. and infact, in this case, should the shoe company sue "Wholesale cobbler goods" where I bought the tools to make my copy of your shoes?

Not as clear cut as the riaa would like you to think huh?

They're trying to subvert the law ... by c.ecker · 2004-10-11 07:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

... because its too hard for them to catch individuals breaking it. They're trying to get the Courts to legislate from the Bench (which is another argument entirely) and shut down all use of P2P filesharing so they can line their own pockets ...

The courts are ruling correctly.

What's the real reason that everyone flocks to KaZaA and Morpheus, despite the Virus, Worm and other dangers there? Because, MUSIC CDs ARE TOO DAMNED EXPENSIVE!

Rather than subvert Copyright Law to their will, these folks ought to look at lowering their level of greed, so that people might be inclined to purchase a CD rather than steal one. Once you've stolen one, what's another 50 or so?

The Movie industry caught on. I think its amazing that a movie DVD costs only twice what a Music CD does. A Music CD involves just a fraction of a fraction of the production costs -- a fraction of a fraction of the investment that a typical movie does.

When Music CDs start selling for $2, the piracy issue will only be a nuisance. I know plenty of people selling downloaded music CDs for $5 each and making a small fortune. How many are they gonna be selling if they can only get 50 cents?

If you're competing in a marketplace, and you don't respond well to competition, the courts can't come to your rescue -- that's not their job.

Let's just hope the Legislators in DC don't get the idea to help ...

--
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds ...

File swapping software illegal? by antivoid · 2004-10-11 07:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's ridiculous:
If they made file-swapping software illegal, that would mean that:
- Windows Explorer is illegal, since you can swap files with it
- ANY ftp client is illegal
- Firefox/Internet explorer is illegal, because it technically has the capability to swap .html files

I dont get it how people can demand things as "fuzzy" as this. Where do you draw the line?

Yes by dtfinch · 2004-10-11 07:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Supreme court will most certainly find that any technology allowing the free communication of raw data facilitates piracy and is therefore illegal. This includes web browsers, email, phone lines, the post office, and the like. And so we should arrest or sue the providers of each. Nevermind that the constitution intended for the reach of copyrights and patents to be extremely limited. Not.

The media lobby isn't about fighting piracy. Many P2P providers have offered proposals on how to legitimize P2P, as has happened with past technologies such as audio recording, radio, television, and vcr's. Each time publishers sued and shouted claims of "piracy" and Congress has had to step in to force a solution that doesn't involve the destruction of the new, superior technology.

The media lobby fights to protect their control. Your music doesn't doesn't reach store shelves if they don't get a 97% cut. Yes, recording artists average about 3% in the end. Some even lose money after the hidden fees. All they want to do is get their music out, and gigs pay most of their income. Technologies like P2P offer a way to circumvent the control of the media companies over distribution.

Most P2P traffic is piracy because the media companies have refused to cooperate in working out reasonable licensing plans, as has happened with EVERY new distribution technology that they couldn't control. As was done with radio, Congress will likely need to step in and make it happen.

Ban my ears! by jbrelie · 2004-10-11 08:00 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm sure I've used my ears to illegally listen to copyrighted material at least once. Perhaps they should be seeking to ban ears and suing my parents for.. umm.. "making" them?

I had mod points.. by jonhuang · 2004-10-11 08:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

..but I decided to reply anyway.

As I've heard a starving artist say, "You can give whatever reason you want for downloading mp3s instead of buying CDs, and I'm okay with that. Just don't tell me that you're doing it to help me make a living.

Whacky by smclean · 2004-10-11 08:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think the problem the courts will have to face is the fact that not only do companies create P2P software, individual developers create P2P software for free. They do not profit on it. This makes the *AA's case significantly shakier, because they can't prattle on about how the 'business model' attempts to skirt copyright law; there will be no business model. There will be no profit, IE no sinister motive.

Will I be sued because I release a program that makes distributing copyrighted media possible for free? What programs *don't* have the potential to facilitate this in some manner, anyway?

I think this slippery slope is the kind of things courts know can not stand up, and I'm hoping they will have the wisdom not to hang the law on this one.

The MPAA and RIAA just want the courts to believe that they just need to stop a few *evil* companies from doing business, and the copyright holders' troubles will be over. I'm hoping that the courts can't be so stupid as to believe them.

--

"'Yrch!' said Legolas, falling into his own tongue."

Legitimate applications for peer-to-peer networks by anachattak · 2004-10-11 08:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

I've actually been working on a project to make a legitimate use of peer-to-peer technology on behalf of aspiring artists. It's an idea still in development, but I've put together a website for the effort (called Distributed Development) at http://www.distributed-development.com. I just "launched" it last week and am looking for aspiring artists across the country and around the globe to collaborate on projects and make reputations for themselves. It uses peer-to-peer technology to distribute bandwidth costs among the user network, so large independently developed files can be shared without costing an individual server excessive bandwidth.

Another application I've seen is an article I received the other day, about the BBC using BitTorrent to distribute programming to viewers (http://www.hyperreal.org/~mpesce/fbm.html).

Declare Microsoft Illgal ! by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2004-10-11 08:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

No I'm not trolling. It is the Microsoft software that has allowed me to:

Store
Retrieve
Burn to CD
and Listen to MP3 files. As well as:
Execute all the P2P programs available
which are likely Written using MS development tools.

There are probably people out there that have only bought computers with MS software on them for the sole purpose of connecting to the Internet to download free music.

None of this would be possible without Microsoft's enabling software. After all, I locate and download my illegal P2P software using Microsoft Internet Explorer, and run it all under Microsoft Windows.

My first point is that these attacks against P2P software companies seem exceptionally selective. If this was a true attack against the enablers of this technology, then Microsoft is the biggest infringer. And they get a complete pass on this.

On the more serious note my second point is, there are certainly a lot of other people who want to determine what you are allowed to write and run on your own d@mn PC (or Mac).

All this violates my overall sense of fairness and individual rights!

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

We've got some time by maximino · 2004-10-11 08:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

But we really need to use it wisely. I don't think the Supreme Court is likely to take this particular case this term; the reasoning of the 9th Circuit is solid, and it's certainly in-line with what the SC itself has found copyright law to allow.

But this is no time to become complacent. Congress has the power to write/rewrite the copyright laws at its discretion, and the Supreme Court has largely decided that it can't (or won't) interfere with that power. Expect the fight to shift to the legislative arena, with all the lobbying ability at the **AA's disposal. The INDUCE act and PIRATE act are just the harbingers of what they might try.

The lesson is that we've got to take P2P mainstream! It's got to be built into important applications that are used on a daily basis, so that lobbyists line up on the other side when the fight comes. It's good that it's already being used to distribute Linux distros, but we need enough uses that it is no longer possible to talk about banning it. There's probably only about a 2-year window before the legislation starts coming, so people who are software developers need to get cracking.

Al Gore never claimed to invent the internet. by TiggertheMad · 2004-10-11 08:22 · Score: 2, Informative

This is an example of the Republican party spreading dis-information and lies in an effort to discredit their opponents.

The statement made by Al Gore was that he helped with funding to support the Internet. The Republican lie machine quickly shortened this up to 'Al Gore claims to have invented the internet' and spread the quote all over the media. Informed parties saw exactly what was happening, but the average joe only sees the issue being muddied up by all the distortions.

I realize you are trying to make a joke, but I find it hard to make light of a situation where people are knowingly distorting the truth to gain power.

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!

Painting the RIAA/MAPP into a corner!! by Starluck · 2004-10-11 08:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

OK, these are not my words but they have had me thinking now for a few weeks on the reprocusions of more laws aimed at attacking p2p and the people that use them. What I am going to cut in paste below is a post by my fellow poster on another tech site about the ramifications and consequences that further laws/bills might have. I really respect the community here at slashdot and would love to hear what everyone else thinks about this vision of the future, could this be the consequence of the RIAA/MPAA's action, I certainly think so! Heres the post please share with me your thoughts:

" Ok first of all the internet is global. Hate to point out the obvious, but this seems something the US congress fails to grasp. And fine, you can make p2p illegal in the US. Or even the ability to copy CD's, record TV shows, etc. Because honestly the MPAA & RIAA are really just interested in the distribution centers, and the profits made by these distributors. The internet is a VERY real threat to these types of buisnesses. So p2p is illegal, and our fair use rights are revoked. Fine great. The RIAA / MPAA have just criminalized their own consumers. So other than a potential boycott of thier products, you have a global market place, and open source software. Some P2P programs are already offering encryption. I don't know if the RIAA / MPAA realize what they are about to cause. Currently P2P encryption is either broken, or very weak. But that's because there isn't much demand for it. Most of the WAREZ DOODZ still use FTP servers and are generally fairly lax about thier security. Every so often a bust is made which keeps piracy from becoming too wide spread. Currently I think the model works, pirated content isn't too hard to find, if you want it, but there is quality issues, and the programs are not as robust as the commercial services (iTunes). But at the same time piracy is kept in check with current laws, and is prevented from becoming too rampant (in the US). Fastforward to 2007. Companies (some in kerplackistan, Russia, Caribbean, whatever) - as well as a few Open Source projects have launched the next generation in P2P applications. These encrypted networks are vast, scores of contributors join, and produce content of thier own. Files are ranked according to completion & quality. The RIAA & MPAA are helpless, as just to get s subpoena, it costs millions of dollars to rent the computer cluster just to decyrpt the data for one of these P2P users, and there are millions of users. Once a particular checksum is cracked, the encrytion scheme changes, or cypher strength is increased, automagically patched in the background. My suggestion to the RIAA / MPAA: You don't know how good you have it right now. Necessity is the mother of invention. Give the public, your consumers, a good reason to develope a parallel p2p encrypted network & it will happen faster then you can say Napster." (twitchster)

confounded technology by nanojath · 2004-10-11 09:24 · Score: 4, Funny

Hear Hear! And furthermore, sir, I have GRAVE ISSUES with this so called "postal service," with which, I have it on good authority, nefarious tune-peddlers are exchanging many the Victrola phono-graph via some sort of criminal hotbed called eBay without returning a whit of recompense to the artists in question!

--

It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

Law is not C++ by hacksoncode · 2004-10-11 09:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

As much as all us geeks here on /. would like it (not), the law is not something that is or should be executed with computer precision.

The courts (and juries) are perfectly capable of distinguishing between WWW/FTP/Windows/VCRs and Kazaa, in spite of the fact that they serve logically equivilent purposes.

The difference is intent, and the difference is how the software is used, both as perceived by a reasonable person.

The web isn't, by and large, almost entirely composed of attempts to infringe copyrights. Neither is Windows, nor is FTP.

90% of existing P2P is. And I bet you'd have a really hard time convincing a jury that it wasn't designed with that in mind (first of all, all of Slashdot would be subpoena'd as evidence to the contrary).

And, frankly, neither were VCRs. The vastly overwhelming usage of VCRs was and is not to infringe copyright, but to make (at least reasonably) fair use of copyrighted materials. You really don't see (and never have seen) people using VCRs to make 1000s of copies of the 6 O'Clock News and give it to 1000s of people they don't know.

Don't get complacent.

Re:Law is not C++ by elegie · 2004-10-11 14:16 · Score: 3, Informative

With P2P services, those who produce the software are not able to effectively control the content upon the services. The original Napster service was in a position to exert control because all communications relied on its central location. A P2P service could have a license agreement prohibiting illegal uses, but there would be no way for the makers of the software to enforce that agreement except by tracking down individual users. Should they be required to do that? The P2P manufacturer could add copy protection technologies (which might become outdated quickly) but there would be the same problem with people defeating them. In any case, copy protection would likely not be compatible with FOSS P2P software. If there was a P2P feature with absolutely no significant non-infringing purpose, then liability just might be considered. However, it should be noted that the fact P2P is decentralized has legitimate reasons: privacy (consider leaked documents about wrongdoing), efficiency (sharing the load), and reliability (no central control that can fail or be attacked.)

Consider the Freenet service which is said to be difficult to use but extremely resistant to being censored. It is said the service cannot enforce copyright and protect free speech at the same time. The emphasis of the project is to protect free speech although the service is likely used for illegal activities by some (not all) as well. The issue of illegal P2P usage i.e. illegal porn is mentioned, but it is said that people should not be denied certain freedoms because a few individuals might misuse those freedoms. Incidentally, some of the uses of Freenet (and its likely goal) are much more serious than enjoying the latest music. It is said that the Freenet software is used in China to evade official censorship, for instance.

It is interesting that there was a case with the Madster (formerly called Aimster) service. That service appeared to be centralized, but encryption was used for the communications. This meant that the communications could not be monitored for wrongdoing. However, individuals using the service might well have wanted privacy when communicating. In the end, the service came under fire. There was no evidence of significant non-infringing use. Of course, with the communications encrypted, there was no way for the service to accurately determine how much use was or was not infringing.

He's right, and here's some more info... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-11 12:16 · Score: 2, Informative

The petition, which you can find via the article on Lawmeme, says there's some conflice with the Aimster ruling in the 7th Circuit.

Now, I don't know if they're blowing this out of proportion (they distort everything else, I'm not a lawyer to say if this is just a ploy to get the SCOTUS* to grant cert & overturn this), but if true, it would seem to compel them to hear the case (one of the principle duties of the SCOTUS is to harmonize the interpretation of federal laws, like copyright law). But it's true--they don't have to grant cert for much of *anything* unless it has "original jurisdiction" and goes to them first (read your constitution for what they have original jurisdiction over--not much save treaties & some misc. stuff).

Anyhow, since you're probably now wondering what it was in conflict with, read Lawmeme & click on the link to the Aimster decision. The judge there was *not* impressed with the 'cryptographic blindness' to infringement they had created, but he also gave a laundry list of things they *could have* (but didn't) argue to prevail... Things I'd hope these services have paid attention to.

Disclaimer: IANAL, this should not be taken as legal advice, but the people at Lawmeme are lawyers from Yale (though they probably also have disclaimers about what they say not being legal advice).

* It's only well-known in legal circles, but SCOTUS stands for Supreme Court of the United States.

How will I buy CD's without P2P? by gillbates · 2004-10-11 13:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Between work and the rest of my life, I spend a lot of time not browsing in record stores. That's right - I don't have the time to go to the store and sit in a listening room for hours on end...

Even though I spend hours at work listening to music, it's all on CD - I don't want to risk getting sued by the RIAA. And I'm getting pretty tired of my collection - but I'm not going to risk getting fired and (possibly) sued because I wanted to listen to something different...

Now granted, if I had P2P, I could scope out new bands, and order the CD through Amazon during my lunch hour. But I don't have P2P. And I haven't bought a CD in about 12 to 18 months.

I wonder when the RIAA is going to wake up and figure out that P2P is the most effective way to market music to time-starved professionals. We have the money for CD's, but lead hectic lives; time spent in a record store is time that could have been spent coding. We can't stand the stuff on the pop-40 stations, but we are willing to buy good music - if only we could find it...

And the interesting part is that I'm spending much more on books than on CD's these days - I can read before I buy without being thought a criminal.

--
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.

Speaking of avoiding legal liability... by goldfndr · 2004-10-11 14:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

They, themselves, designed the DMCA so that they themselves could avoid legal liability.

Thus they only need to state that they represent the "copyright-owning" party, and not that an actual copyright violation is taking place under penalty of perjury.

--
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)

Precedent by MacWiz · 2004-10-11 16:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

How will the Supreme Court rule?

Hmmm.... let's see. The RIAA's case goes basically like this: "Those thieving pirates are stealing our stuff." This is the same offensive legal tactic that was used to stop piano rolls, player pianos, radio, tape recorders, cassettes and VCRs, just to name the most obvious "pirate" technologies that threatened to destroy the entire entertainment industry.

They've never won before with that argument. But hey, maybe the Supremes will do acid the week that the RIAA case comes up and forget every prior decision handed down over the last 100 years in cases involving technology and copyright.

Slashdot Mirror

RIAA, MPAA Ask High Court To Review P2P Decision

92 of 435 comments (clear)