Interview With Mark Cuban About Grokster

Who? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 16:17 · Score: 2, Funny

Who the hell is Mark Cuban....?

Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 16:41 · Score: 5, Funny

What rock do you live under?

He's obviously the guy who invented the cigar.
Re:Who? by Golias · 2005-03-30 18:57 · Score: 5, Informative

Who the hell is Mark Cuban....?

Mark Cuban was one of the few dot-com millionaires smart enough to cash in his chips and leave the table before the bust.

He went on to buy the Dallas Mavericks and make a big jackass of himself ever since, but the sort of jackass who is fun to have around at a party.

He has been fined by the NBA for unsportmanlike conduct more than any other owner... probably more than any team owner in the history of sports.

He recently produced a "reality TV" program which was sort of a low-rent version of the Apprentice, in which he gave a million dollars away, making the contestants do really stupid shit and eliminating the losers on the basis of his own fickle whims.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:Who? by killjoe · 2005-03-30 19:50 · Score: 1

Did that show ever hit the air? I don't remember it.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-31 02:04 · Score: 0

Please don't forget that when he does get fined, he donates the same amount of money to a charity. I don'te believe ANY other player/owner in the NBA has EVER done that!
Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-31 02:08 · Score: 0

You beat me to it, you bastard.
Re:Who? by Innova · 2005-03-31 02:45 · Score: 1

Mark also took his millions and started hd.net, a pioneer in the HDTV arena.

--
See my Home Theater
Re:Who? by Lord+Kano · 2005-03-31 15:46 · Score: 1

I do believe his timing was good enough to make him a dotcom billionaire.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano

Let's hope for the best... by Eptisam · 2005-03-30 16:19 · Score: 0

This might really be a turning point with respect to digital rights.

They seem to disagree by CSMastermind · 2005-03-30 16:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Quoted from the article:
GM: Does the Betamax precedent apply to the Grokster case, even though people are using digital technology like Grokster to amass libraries, not just to tape shows and enhance viewing convenience?

MC: Yes. People amassed libraries on tape as well. You can pick up any movie-collector mag and see the ads to buy a VHS or DVD of any TV show ever made. That's a big library, and those ads have been there for at least 10 years. The industry doesn't care.

Quoted from the a lawyer for MGM on Channle One today:
Betamax doesn't apply here.

Hmm I suppose that's for the courts to decide.

Re:They seem to disagree by Propagandhi · 2005-03-30 16:23 · Score: 4, Funny

That quote MGM quote should read: "I don't want Betamax to apply here."

Have to account for the lawyer spin..
Re:They seem to disagree by FlacoFuerte · 2005-03-30 22:46 · Score: 0

From Mar. 30 LA Times-
Justice Antonin Scalia also discounted the Betamax decision as a guide for the new case. Don't "waste your time on this," he advised Taranto. "This court is certainly not going to decide this case based on stare decisis," he said, citing the Latin term for stay as decided, or sticking with precedent.
Good luck with that idea. Looks like thats already been decided.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Eptisam · 2005-03-30 16:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Our side is not to sue when unlawful behavior takes place?

So, what's it to him? by Mr+Ambersand · 2005-03-30 16:22 · Score: 0, Troll

I mean, isn't he rich enough that he could simply pay whatever he needed to as he went along? Hell, in this day and age I wouldn't be surprised if he could even write the lobbying off as 'expenses'.

--
"Your admirers in the street
Got to hoot and stamp their feet
in the heat from your physique" -King Crimson

Re:So, what's it to him? by CSMastermind · 2005-03-30 16:27 · Score: 3, Informative

Well if you read his blog entry covered on /. here: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/27/14 11245&tid=98 you'll know that he owns alot of digital content. If MGM wins this case they could potentially shut down a valuable means for him to get that content to his customers.
Re:So, what's it to him? by Ctrl+Alt+De1337 · 2005-03-30 17:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

Mark Cuban is one of the more fascinating personality studies of the past decade. He's very shrewd and is an incredibly smart businessman, but he's also very impulsive, as you would know if you've ever seen him courtside when the Mavericks aren't getting calls on a particular night. After catching some criticism for saying he wouldn't hire a particular set of NBA referees to work at a Dairy Queen, he himself worked the counter at a Dairy Queen for an afternoon to benefit charity. He does have business reasons for this, but he also could be doing this because he feels it's the right thing to do (like when he lambastes the refs on his blog, or refusing to trade Nowitzki for Shaq). He made his money from technology so he understands it very well, so he definitely understands the implications and importance of this case. I applaud him for this as he's taking a stand for a reason other than trying to get David Stern cheesed off.
Re:So, what's it to him? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 19:48 · Score: 0

This comment needs to be modded a little higher. It's obviously one of the very few written by somebody who's bothered to learn a little about Cuban. Irritating guy in some ways, but most people could learn a shitload from him if they'd just pay attention.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Lu+Xun · 2005-03-30 16:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

What, are we on the side of stealing? I thought we just wanted legit uses of technology to not get banned because they're used by some people for theft?

--
That's not a soda... it's a caffeine delivery device!

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by orson_of_fort_worth · 2005-03-30 16:23 · Score: 4, Funny

There's a few of us around here who are against stealing. We were hired to serve as sacrifical lambs.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by CSMastermind · 2005-03-30 16:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Are you saying that people who steal content shouldn't be punished? I disagree with the systems we have in place to sell music, tv shows, and movies (Not so much movies) but that still doesn't make it right to take the content. I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy but in some sense they do have grounds to sue people.

Can you imagine what would happen to Mark if they said he disagreed with the law suits?

Re:Golf Magazine? by TrippTDF · 2005-03-30 16:24 · Score: 4, Funny

No no - Gelf magazine. Like an adult Gelfling, from The Dark Crystal. It's the magazine for those with the essence of life.

Why they are covering it is beyond me.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 16:25 · Score: 1, Insightful

No, our side is the one that knows the difference between stealing and copyright infringement.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by kwoo · 2005-03-30 16:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't think he's on our side... Take a look at this comment: [comment about MC not having a problem about individual file-sharers being sued]

He's not on your side. He's not trying to make sharing copyrighted content legal. However, if you'd read down a little further, you would find that he is after something much more important:

MC: [snip] Peer-to-peer has been around for about 20 years. I remember selling Artisoft software on LANs way back when and offering various applications that allowed for sharing of files and content of all types across those networks. Peer-to-peer isn't new. It's just that the music industry recently decided to be litigious about it. Just because the RIAA doesn't like an application and its uses 20 years later doesn't mean they should be able to stop any and all implementations of it.

So far as I'm concerned, MC is right on the money. The problem with what is going on isn't that copyright violation should be protected; the problem is that the baby is getting thrown out with the bathwater.

--
unixkb.com -- articles on practical Unix issues.

Re:Eat A Dick, by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 16:27 · Score: 0, Funny

Thanks.

Will do that.

--
Taco

legitimate uses of P2P by bcrowell · 2005-03-30 16:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

The interview isn't very informative about what's going on with the Grokster case. Here is a NY Times article (free registration required, yeah yeah). Basically the record industry is trying to outlaw a technology because the technology could be used to commit a crime. Continuing with this logic, we should outlaw guns, cars, photocopiers, and VCRs.

It's too bad that P2P has been hit with both the stigma and the legal assault resulting from many people's belief that they're entitled to free professionally produced pop music, and free professionally produced porn. If they want some free information, they should make some free information. If they think free music would be cool, they should make some free music. If they think free porn is cool, they could post nude pictures of themselves on their blog.

Meanwhile, there are a lot of possible legitimate uses of P2P technology, but they're not really being taken advantage of because of the stigma. For instance, P2P is probably the logical way to distribute open-source software today, but most people use server-based mechanisms instead.

--
Find free books.

Re:legitimate uses of P2P by geekd · 2005-03-30 16:58 · Score: 1, Offtopic

I've got lots of free music on my site: http://www.theexperiments.com/

as for pictures of me naked, you don't wanna see that, trust me. :)

At least it sounds like there's some hope that the Supreme Court understands the issues and the potential for stifling new technology by outlawing P2P.

-geekd
Re:legitimate uses of P2P by kubrick · 2005-03-30 17:38 · Score: 5, Funny

If they think free porn is cool, they could post nude pictures of themselves on their blog.

Please, don't encourage them.

--
deus does not exist but if he does
Re:legitimate uses of P2P by geekd · 2005-03-30 18:36 · Score: 0, Offtopic

How is this off topic? The parent post stated:

If they think free music would be cool, they should make some free music. If they think free porn is cool, they could post nude pictures of themselves

damn mods don't even read the posts before they moderate.
Re:legitimate uses of P2P by shark72 · 2005-03-30 18:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

"Basically the record industry is trying to outlaw a technology because the technology could be used to commit a crime."

It is MGM vs. Grokster, not "MGM vs. P2P technology." In fact, the recording industry is partnering with Mashboxx and other permission-based P2P platforms. Many Slashdotters like to slippery-slope this into "the record industry hates technology" when indeed they simply hate technology that allows people to get their stuff without paying for it.

You are, of course, correct that P2P is simply a concept; it's neither good nor evil. I applaud the folks who are setting up BitTorrent sites that provide torrents to content that is being shared with the permission of the creator.

Grokster (and Kazaa and its ilk) is utilizing P2P technology as part of a business model that's based on providing access to pirated material. That is why MGM is suing them.

"It's too bad that P2P has been hit with both the stigma and the legal assault resulting from many people's belief that they're entitled to free professionally produced pop music, and free professionally produced porn. If they want some free information, they should make some free information. If they think free music would be cool, they should make some free music. If they think free porn is cool, they could post nude pictures of themselves on their blog."

Very well put.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:legitimate uses of P2P by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 18:50 · Score: 0

"...many people's belief that they're entitled to free professionally produced pop music, and free professionally produced porn"

No, actually, I search for amateur porn.
Re:legitimate uses of P2P by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 19:02 · Score: 1, Informative

Well, just use the MPAA in or the BPI(British phonographic institute) as a case for P2P networks. Both of them say that P2P are good for entertainment, and they are only after illegal activity.

Maybe they should lobby against the RIAA.

NYtimes isn't just free registration, it's junk mail and having to wait for an add to go away. This AC doesn't like forced advertising.

ASHINGTON, March 29 - The much-heralded Supreme Court showdown in the Grokster case between old-fashioned entertainment and newfangled technology found the justices surprisingly responsive on Tuesday to warnings from Grokster, the software maker that allows Internet users to share computer files on peer-to-peer networks, that a broad definition of copyright infringement could curtail innovation.

Justice David H. Souter asked Donald B. Verrilli Jr., the lawyer arguing for the Hollywood studios and the recording industry, to envision "a guy sitting in his garage inventing the iPod."

"I know perfectly well that I can buy a CD and put it on my iPod," Justice Souter said. "But I also know if I can get music without buying it, I'm going to do so."

Because that possibility was so obvious, he continued: "How do we give the developer the confidence to go ahead? On your theory, why isn't it a foregone conclusion from the outset that the iPod inventor is going to lose his shirt?"

That Justice Souter, the least technically minded of the justices - he still drafts his opinions by hand on a legal pad - could even invite a dialogue about Apple iPods, much less suggest that he could be tempted to engage in illegal file sharing, was an indication of how this confrontation of powerful interests had engaged the court.

But by the end of the lively argument pitting Grokster and its allies on the electronic frontier against the entertainment community's stalwart defense of intellectual property rights, any prediction about what the court will actually decide appeared perilous. The justices themselves seemed taken aback by the procedural complexities of the case, Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios v. Grokster Ltd., No. 04-480, which moved through the lower federal courts on summary judgment, without a trial.

Some justices appeared tempted by the prospect of allowing the studios and record companies to get to trial on a legal theory that the lower courts did not address: that Grokster and the other defendant, StreamCast Networks, which offers the Morpheus file-sharing service, are liable for copyright infringement for having actively induced consumers to use their software to download copyrighted material on an immense scale.

The Federal District Court in Los Angeles, in a decision affirmed last year by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, took a different approach, ruling that the file-sharing networks were not liable because their services were "capable of substantial noninfringing uses."

The lower courts took that test from the Supreme Court's 1984 decision that absolved the Sony Corporation, manufacturer of the Betamax video recorder, of copyright liability for infringing uses that consumers might make of the product.

The Sony decision provided the right answer, and that should be the end of the case, Richard G. Taranto, arguing for Grokster and StreamCast, told the court. He said it was "critical" for the Supreme Court to adhere to the "clear Sony rule" for the sake of "innovation protection."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg objected, noting that the 1984 decision "goes on for 13 more pages" after articulating the test that provided Sony's defense.

"If the standard was that clear, the court would have stopped there," Justice Ginsburg continued. "I don't think you can take one sentence from a rather long opinion and say, 'Ah-hah, we have a clear rule.' "

In briefs filed as friends of the court, allies of the file-sharing networks in various technology industries and civil liberties organizations have depicted file sharing as a
Re:legitimate uses of P2P by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 19:08 · Score: 0

"It's too bad that P2P has been hit with both the stigma and the legal assault resulting from many people's belief that they're entitled to free professionally produced pop music, and free professionally produced porn. If they want some free information, they should make some free information. If they think free music would be cool, they should make some free music. If they think free porn is cool, they could post nude pictures of themselves on their blog."

I think the problem is that the radio is free, music on the TV is free, so why shouldn't music on the internet be free? (well ignoring that most music on the Radio or TV is payola/advertising).
And anyone who pays for porn should save up for a holiday in Amsterdam instead.
Re:legitimate uses of P2P by FidelCatsro · 2005-03-30 19:11 · Score: 2, Funny

We could call it Blorn , the *insert troll faviourit website about goat* changes from shock trolling , to Blorn journalism and becomes legit art

--
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Re:legitimate uses of P2P by WarwickRyan · 2005-03-30 20:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

>Continuing with this logic, we should outlaw guns Finally a good idea.
Re:legitimate uses of P2P by Michael+Hunt · 2005-03-31 11:59 · Score: 1

But... Goatse is already legitimate art.
Free Goatses for all is codified by Amnesty International and the United Nations as a fundamental human right.

--
You're doing it wrong.

Modern altruism by FlyByPC · 2005-03-30 16:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Now there's a good way to buy yourself some karma. Support the EFF. Well, either that or bankroll the fledgling space-travel industry.

Rather than the they're-getting-what's-coming-to-them attitude, though, the question about the RIAA would have been an ideal way of bringing up the possibility of artists' selling songs directly for very little money, still making a lot, and cutting out all of the unnecessary middlemen...

--
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.

Mark's talks about this issue in his blog by xmas2003 · 2005-03-30 16:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Read Mark Cuban's Blog where he talks more about this.

--
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease

Re:Golf Magazine? by Scrameustache · 2005-03-30 16:35 · Score: 4, Funny

Gelf magazine. Like an adult Gelfling, from The Dark Crystal. It's the magazine for those with the essence of life.
Why they are covering it is beyond me.

The RIAA is secretly run by Skeksis executives.

--

You can't take the sky from me...

Mark Cuban's blog. by IconBasedIdea · 2005-03-30 16:35 · Score: 4, Informative

Cubes has plenty of opinions on everything at his blog, but here's some more MGM v Grokster for you all... http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000237029704 / http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000890030093 / http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000523038163 /

P2P is not illegal by Mantus · 2005-03-30 16:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

Using the logic behind the *IAA's argument roads should be outlawed because they can be used to traffic drugs and other such illegal things.
Targeting idividual users is the only thing that the law really should allow.
I believe our copyright and patent system needs reform, but until that happens stealing copyrighted works is still a punishable offense.

Re:P2P is not illegal by lemnik · 2005-03-30 17:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

The problem is that the people who actually decide whether P2P is illegal or not are totally ignorant to what it really is. All they know is that millions of people are using the technology to "steal" other peoples work.

We need to see more legal uses of P2P technology. Bit-torrent is a great system, but it's been abused. There are plenty of other possible uses for P2P apps (DNS servers that discover peers through P2P lookups; P2P Radio Stations; etc).

If we don't see some blatently legal, popular, and usefull P2P apps soon, the technology does risk being outlawed (which is not technically possible, but it's still legally possible (from what I know anyway)).
Re:P2P is not illegal by mankey+wanker · 2005-03-30 21:08 · Score: 1

"I believe our copyright and patent system needs reform, but until that happens stealing copyrighted works is still a punishable offense."

That's the problem right there: we all agree on the first part, the second part is the crazy part. Copyright infringement shouldn't be a punishable criminal offense, it should be a matter for a civil court. Such a lawsuit should be entirely dependent upon the plaintiff to move the case forward. What we have right now is the state in collusion with corporations for the protection of the private interests of an elite few.
Re:P2P is not illegal by SilverspurG · 2005-03-30 21:19 · Score: 1

Stealing... taking without just compensation.

I could seriously argue that allowing media executives to live in my nation is compensation enough given the trash which they produce. What gives them the right to harass my citizens with their goons and lawsuits? I don't see the inalienable right to squeeze consumers for every dollar they're worth written down anywhere.

The courts, flatly, should tell the RIAA and anyone else who attempts to peddle IP to cope. Revise the business model, quit whining, face reality, go home.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Re:P2P is not illegal by Mycroft_VIII · 2005-03-31 01:11 · Score: 1

Unfortunately you get that going the other way as well.
If it's purely civil what happens when a big corp with deep pockets and TEAMS of laywers on fixed payroll decide to make thier own closed source version of some gpl app owned by one guy who's main job only pays 40k/year and is raising kids.
You got it, the big money wins again.
Not saying criminalizing it is the right answer eigther. But keeping it purely civil doesn't alone balance the scales any, and may make it worse.

Mycroft

--
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Re:P2P is not illegal by generationxyu · 2005-03-31 06:23 · Score: 1

Since I've got excellent karma, I'll actually bite here, I can take the -1 Flamebait.
Your argument is that P2P has legitimate uses, and is therefore legal. I agree. However, your analogy to roads is flawed. The vast majority of road usage is for legitimate purposes. P2P has legitimate uses, sure. But really, when's the last time you downloaded a Linux ISO from Kazaa, Grokster, or any other second-generation P2P network? (BitTorrent not included, it's not second-generation.) The facts are simple. The 2% of legitimate use of P2P do not outweigh the 98% illegitimate use, at least in the *AA minds.
A better analogy would be to automatic weapons. I can go hunt deer with an AK-47. But for the vast majority of people, an AK-47 is used to kill people. This is why you can't buy an AK-47 in the U.S. The question as to whether or not the legitimate uses outweigh the illegitimate ones is for the courts. But looking at the precedent for this kind of thing, I don't expect much.

--
I mod down pyramid schemes in sigs.
Re:P2P is not illegal by mankey+wanker · 2005-03-31 07:42 · Score: 1

I agree with you. But no one cares about the "little guy" now anyway. By removing the criminal aspect of things at least we return the matter to its proper forum - civil court. But yes, you still have to have the means to pursue the matter.

By criminalizing certain infringement issues we accept certain costs at tax payer expense - the wages of FBI and policemen, court processes, and jail time. I don't really want copyright infringers in jail where we all have to support them - let a copyright holder sue them, win a judgment, and get a lien on their property and earnings. They can keep working and living in society for all I care about it. The infringement issue is not my business. So yes, the way it is now elite corporate copyright interests are financed by taxpayers in the main. And to me, that's just bloody stupid.
Re:P2P is not illegal by Mycroft_VIII · 2005-04-01 00:02 · Score: 1

That makes a bit more sense. Though I would hope the police,fbi, etc. would aslo act on behalf of 'the little guy' I do agree it's excessive to spend the taxpayers money, especially on jailing 'offenders'.
I'd rather they just shorten Copyright back to a reasonable duration and limit it to intentional profiteering. If I make a mix tape/cd for a budy or two, the courts should be able to ignore it. Now if I make a few thousand copies and try to sell them at the local gas station chain or some such that would make sense to sue over.
Another thing they should do is limit 'real' damages to the retail costs, not production costs as if the infringer literally stole the only copy of the master tape.
But the days of the riaa and other old style middle man having total reign over popular culture are fading fast and thier trying to fend off thier own inevitable demise rather than adapt. And this means they use thier money while they still have it to buy all sorts of useless, but sadly not painless, laws from thier pet politicians.

Mycroft

--
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea

no dangling from gallows! by Cryofan · 2005-03-30 16:41 · Score: 1, Interesting

Refreshing. A plutocrat that actually does not cause me to fantasize about seeing them tried for crimes against the people, and then seeing them hang from a gallows. Nice change of plutoctratic pace....

--
eat shiat and bark at the moon

Re:no dangling from gallows! by WhataFreak · 2005-03-30 19:01 · Score: 2

Maybe that's something for you to think about. Perhaps these "plutocrats" aren't always the terrible people that some stereotype them to be. Just food for thought. :)
Re:no dangling from gallows! by Cryofan · 2005-03-30 20:14 · Score: 1, Interesting

you need to learn some history....past AND present.

Just ONE example: 18 THOUSAND Americans die every year because they lack access to basic healthcare. And why is it that they have no basic healthcare? All the other western nations do? Because plutocrats and corporations pay off the politicians so that they can continue to extort obscene profits from us for healthcare. I call that murder, organized crime. And I think that they ought to hang for it. I'm just saying', is all....

--
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Re:no dangling from gallows! by SilverspurG · 2005-03-30 20:53 · Score: 2, Informative

they can continue to extort obscene profits from us for healthcare
Continuing on that thought...

There are about 3 major insurance companies in the world. Those three have dozens of subsidiaries. Those dozen subsidiaries have hundreds, maybe thousands, of corporations. What this means, however, is that the effect on profit margin anywhere can and will be compensated anywhere else. Consider the late 90s and into early 2000 when the bust happened. Those businesses were insured. Some investors, usually those closest to the top of the investment chain, recouped losses through business insurance. That was very costly for the insurance companies holding the policies. They can't be expected to take a loss, though, so they must recoup the losses somewhere.

It's no coincidence that the cost of health care began skyrocketing as the stock market tumbled. There's no coincidence that the cost of gasoline began skyrocketing as the stock market tumbled. It's little more than a pyramid scheme of recouping losses from one investment by raising the prices of another. Ultimately we, the American public paying car/home/health insurance, will pay to rebuild the vacation homes and posh resorts devastated by the earthquakes on the other side of the globe. I have no problem philanthropically helping people in need but I don't relish the idea of seeing my auto insurance rise on my paltry salary while a spoiled brat with a gigantic ego sips pina coladas in a beach chair that I (indirectly) bought.

A pub in my home area had a bumper sticker,"We screw the other guy to pass the savings on to you." Alan Greenspan, George Bush... they're just the figureheads for a group of people who are screwing the general populance in order to pass the savings on to themselves.

If one would write a computer simulation of the business world with our current taxation system, and another computer simulation of any two-bit MLM or pyramid scheme, the code would probably be indistinguishable.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Re:no dangling from gallows! by Narchie+Troll · 2005-03-31 02:15 · Score: 1

If they weren't, they would not be plutocrats.
Re:no dangling from gallows! by WhataFreak · 2005-03-31 07:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, there are multiple reasons for the cost of healthcare. Corporate greed is part of it, but not all.

I disagree with you on the way that the world should work. I don't WANT socialized medical care. I prefer that I am left on my own in the world, and I work and make my own decisions on my healthcare. I don't want government forcing a social program on me. People have different views of what "freedom" means. To me, a big part of freedom is being free from high taxation and forced social programs. And I have thought that all my life, even when I was a FLAT BROKE college student.

I also disagree that the example you gave can serve as proof of wrongdoing in other areas. Picking one specific example related to healthcare has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Mark Cuban deserves the money he has, and whether or not he obtained it through illicit activities.

Re:Golf Magazine? by Ravenscall · 2005-03-30 16:44 · Score: 1

Mmmmmmmmmmm, Gelfling!

--
You say you want a revolution....

Past is prologue by stox · 2005-03-30 16:47 · Score: 1

I truly hope that the decision goes the way of the Betamax decision. Sadly, as with the Betamax decision, the content producers will make out like bandits in the long run. I sure would like to find a way to penalize for this litigation, but the consequences of doing so would probably not be worth it.

--
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "

Re:Past is prologue by WhataFreak · 2005-03-30 19:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

What is so inherently wrong about the content producers making a lot of money? As long as they aren't making it by something that is unethical (and I don't consider it unethical simply to sell things instead of giving them away), what is wrong with it? If they are doing something evil and bad and wrong, then I agree with you. But simply making a lot of money is not inherently wrong.
Re:Past is prologue by Gr8Apes · 2005-03-31 01:38 · Score: 1

In and of itself, it is not inherently wrong to make money off of production/distribution, it's how all factories work after all. However, it is wrong when the content producers create a little monopoly for themselves, and then try to use new legislation to maintain that monopoly so they can set prices and other illegal activities done by monopolies. That's our current situation.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:Past is prologue by WhataFreak · 2005-03-31 07:35 · Score: 1

Ah, okay. I get your meaning now. Yes, I agree with you on that. :)

the long view by jamienk · 2005-03-30 16:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

I imagine a time in the not-too-far future, when anyone, anywhere in the world, will have instant access to ANY audio, video, or written thing that has ever been created, INSTANTLY.

But to the owners of massive amounts of Intellectual Property (like movie studios and record companies), the way people get their music, movies, books, etc should remain the status quo, with minor adjustments to further stop copyright infringment from P2P networks, non-DRMed song files, TV signals with no "broadcast flags," etc.

Imagine what it would be like if we access everything... It would change everything in such big ways, to put it mildly. Science, the arts, research, historical knowledge would be capable of permiating our world in a way they are restrained from doing now.

It is this future that much energy is current being spent to stop. Shame on the narrow-minded! Shame on the selfish! Shame on the short-signted!

Re:the long view by garcia · 2005-03-30 16:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Imagine what it would be like if we access everything... It would change everything in such big ways, to put it mildly. Science, the arts, research, historical knowledge would be capable of permiating our world in a way they are restrained from doing now.

Imagine if the UN, individual governments, individual governments controlled by Big Business, and Big Business themselves get to control the global communication network the way they want.

We won't have instant access to anything except what they want us to. Free speech doesn't exist as it's bad for business. Free ideas cannot be distributed as it's bad for business.

Imagine that and remember to vote in the next election and take an active role in pressuring your local representatives to do "The Right Thing".
Re:the long view by Mr+Ambersand · 2005-03-30 16:57 · Score: 1

Ok, so which pro-business canidate do you suggest I vote for, then? The dem or the republican?

Or are you going to suggest I toss my vote after someone who has no chance of ever holding an office?

--
"Your admirers in the street
Got to hoot and stamp their feet
in the heat from your physique" -King Crimson
Re:the long view by mrchaotica · 2005-03-30 17:05 · Score: 1

Or are you going to suggest I toss my vote after someone who has...
...a decent chance of holding an office if you and others like you actually follow through?

Yes.

Besides, if both other candidates are pro-business, you don't care which one wins anyway, so there's no need to vote for either of them. Remember, in the long run, freedom of speech and information is the most important issue, much moreso than Social Security or Iraq or NASA or whatever. Without free discourse, we have no hope of fixing any of our other problems, you know.

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:the long view by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2005-03-30 17:17 · Score: 1

I really don't expect the quality to remain the same, better in some ways, but I think generally worse in most ways.

Except for the people that have signed away such rights, most people are already free to release what they want to the public domain or some form of copyleft. The thing is, the people that have the talents to produce quality material generally want to use those talents to make money. I don't know if anyone has made money releasing media direct to copyleft and public domain, it is anything but a proven moneymaking path. You say selfish, but I have questions about the ethics of trying to shame people that are trying to earn a living.

I do think the repeated copyright extensions are shameful though, as it does create the risk of some works being lost forever rather than the small hope of being restored by some fans and recirculated.
Re:the long view by jamienk · 2005-03-30 17:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

When the printing pess was invented (before which BTW most people in Europe were illiterate, to say nothing of all the other GREAT THINGS it has given the world), the Christian Monks (who rewrote by hand all that needed to be copied) argued with the pro-press techies:

"How will the Monks make money then?! Answer me that, and I'll entertain your flights of fancy. But first, how, oh how, will the Monks make money?!?"

Looking back and having to do it all over, isn't it absurd to weigh the Monks concerns against the press?

And believe me, the people making the big IP $$ are no monks!
Re:the long view by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 18:47 · Score: 0

I imagine a time in the not-too-far future, when anyone, anywhere in the world, will have instant access to ANY audio, video, or written thing that has ever been created, INSTANTLY.

Hey, you saw that commercial too? It was for Quest broadband or something, right?
Re:the long view by arh9623 · 2005-03-30 19:30 · Score: 0

That is a great quote. It's one I have not heard before. It fits the situation nicely. More people need to see the possible long term effects. Quotes like that one are good for explaining the 'era' we are in.
Re:the long view by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-03-30 22:12 · Score: 1

"How will the Monks make money then?! Answer me that, and I'll entertain your flights of fancy. But first, how, oh how, will the Monks make money?!?"
AFAIK no one ever denied monks the right to copy books. Something new came along that could do the same thing more efficiently.
With music, however, someone still needs to write, perform and record it. No P2P can remove those expenses from the equation. All those skills require years of education. Just being a serious musician is a full-time job. Now what is the motivation to spend years learning and honing a craft, if you are expected to do it for nothing?
I don't think most of my favorite artists couldn't have done it had they not been paid for their work.

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done
Re:the long view by gl4ss · 2005-03-30 22:50 · Score: 1

*Imagine what it would be like if we access everything... It would change everything in such big ways, to put it mildly. Science, the arts, research, historical knowledge would be capable of permiating our world in a way they are restrained from doing now.*

that will never happen with the way corporations are acting now, sitting on vast amounts of publications they don't want to publish anymore themselfs.. and are not letting anyone else do it for them either. vast amounts of "intellectual property" are already in a limbo where the owner of the rights couldn't care less about them, has no use for them and can't see how to profit from them, and is just sitting on them doing nothing(most computer games end up in this kind of limbo after a while, as they become unprofitable to sell but there's no reason for them to give them for free).

it's already possible to access vast amounts of information, movies, songs, books and games instantly - so fast that the minor delay doesn't really matter. the technical side for offering such a thing already exists, and it's not even too expensive when done in distributed fashion, but sadly it is illegal and no commercial solutions even exist(it's quite pathetic when "pirates" have the more user friendly system).

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:the long view by Mycroft_VIII · 2005-03-31 01:15 · Score: 1

Now that I can't put my mod points here (already posted) I'll have to just do it verbally.
Thank you for trying to enlighten that person who's feeding the stupid vicious circle that keeps the democan republicrat goons in office.

Mycroft

--
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Re:the long view by Gr8Apes · 2005-03-31 01:34 · Score: 1

Actually, this quote is much more appropriate to the current situation than you may think. The monks were the "distributors", much like the members of the RIAA/MPAA. P2P represents a threat to the "monks", not the artists, at least not directly. As an example, check out the South by Southwest download. A massive publicity download for lots of mostly unknown bands. There's also another band that's rejected the current "monks" who is doing quite well, although their name escapes me at the moment.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:the long view by autophile · 2005-03-31 03:02 · Score: 1

"How will the Monks make money then?! Answer me that, and I'll entertain your flights of fancy. But first, how, oh how, will the Monks make money?!?"

They can sell ink for the printing presses!
--Rob

--
Towards the Singularity.
Re:the long view by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-03-31 08:59 · Score: 1

Actually, this quote is much more appropriate to the current situation than you may think. The monks were the "distributors", much like the members of the RIAA/MPAA. P2P represents a threat to the "monks", not the artists, at least not directly.
I don't think so, and few of the bands that I know personally don't believe in that, either. Most are pretty understanding and don't really care if their fans download their stuff (I don't like it, though), but none of them feel that it's exactly right, either. I do know that there have been some publicity stunts by certain bands, but it's pretty easy to rave when you already have a name and lots of money in the bank.
A massive publicity download for lots of mostly unknown bands.
It just doesn't work that way. Web sites are much better for them.

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done

Getting semantics straight by 1gor · 2005-03-30 16:49 · Score: 1

politicians who get paid to pimp for the studios and labels

Politicians are get paid to whore for the studios and labels (they provide favours in return for money). Arguably, the studios and labels are not pimping either. They are paying customers.

--
--

Rather... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 16:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

"We didn't agree with Betamax in the first place."

Re:Rather... by MightyMartian · 2005-03-30 17:55 · Score: 1

Which is their right, of course, but I doubt very much that SCOTUS is simply going to ignore a precedent because MGM's lawyers don't like it. There's a legal tradition here that predates taping episodes of Cheers.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Rather... by SirSlud · 2005-03-30 17:57 · Score: 1

"But somehow, despite pleading for our collective jobs and lives, we're still a huge, powerful industry capable of paying for big time lawyers to write THE BOMB cease and desist letters ... Yo mamma! Plus, we employ a lot of people! Think about the children!"

--
"Old man yells at systemd"
Re:Rather... by stinerman · 2005-03-31 05:20 · Score: 1

Sony is named as a peitioner in this case (on the side of MGM Studios). So it seems Sony itself no longer agrees with the Betamax decision.
Re:Rather... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-31 08:17 · Score: 0

You don't read the news I guess.

Sony's purchase of MGM has passed anti-trust inspection, and been approved.

And for a long time, Sony has been such a giant monolithic company that the right hand not only didn't know what the left was doing when it found out, it got pissed off.

Re:Golf Magazine? by filtur · 2005-03-30 16:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

No no - Gelf magazine. Like an adult Gelfling, from The Dark Crystal. It's the magazine for those with the essence of life.

Am I the only one that thought that the female gelfing as hot? I was so geeky at such a young age.

Not precisely by ari_j · 2005-03-30 16:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think that MGM is arguing exactly what you're saying, and I'm not sure how far along the continuum I'm about to draw you Grokster wants the line drawn.

Consider a continuum from a point where there is no possible infringing use of a service to a point where there is not even a pretense of possible noninfringing use (to the extent that the service provider goes out of their way to encourage you to use it for copyright infringement, with everything in between being capable of representation as a point on the continuum. Betamax and Grokster are both on the continuum, although they are probably not at the same point because of how much easier, logistically speaking, it is to infringe copyrights with Grokster than it is with Betamax.

The Court is going to have to decide where on the continuum Grokster lies and whether or not that is past the line of acceptability. The Court will probably also give a good indication of exactly where they are drawing the line, but that's not necessary (they do it to save themselves work in the future, basically).

MGM appears to be arguing that the line should be drawn through the first possible infringinge use of a service. If it can be used in any way to infringe a copyright, then the service's provider can be sued for any infringement that does occur.

Grokster may be arguing that the line should be at the other end of the spectrum, but if their lawyers are smart (which I suspect they just may be), they should be arguing (it seems silly to use present tense for an oral argument heard over 36 hours ago, but informal argument is obviously still ongoing, given this story) that the line should be drawn somewhere in the intent area - when the provider specifically intends that the service be used to infringe copyrights, he can be held responsible for resulting infringement.

What scares me is not the MGM side - the Court will almost certainly not draw the line that far over. But I suspect the Court will draw the line somewhere between intent and foreseeability, and foreseeability is a dangerous place because it's obviously foreseeable that a service can be used to infringe copyrights. So we want it as close to intent as possible.

This is just my opinion, although it's not humble.

Re:Not precisely by ray-auch · 2005-03-31 00:10 · Score: 1

[...] to the extent that the service provider goes out of their way to encourage you to use it for copyright infringement [...]

You mean like "Rip, Mix, Burn" ?

Or "The killer app for the computer industry is piracy," - Eisner

"That's like selling a crowbar and telling someone to smash, bash and steal," [quote from unamed entertainment industry ].

Make no mistake, even an "intent" ruling is dangerous because intent is difficult to disprove especially if the service/product ends up being used to infringe and it was forseeable. Remember in civil law it is "balance of probabilities" - if a device was forseeably useful for infringement and was then actually used for infringement, who is going to believe that this wasn't "probably" intentional (especially if you advertise the potentially infringing capability, ie. advertising that a device can "copy", or even calling it a "copier" - remember copying is infringing...) ?

If Betamax goes then they _will_ go after CD/DVD writers (or pcs/macs including such) etc.
Re:Not precisely by ari_j · 2005-03-31 01:44 · Score: 1

"Rip, Mix, Burn" is only infringement if you don't believe in fair use. The "rip" part of that implies that people are supposed to mix and burn music they've already licensed for personal use. Fair use is a battle for another day.

I think that the questions being asked here, with respect to intent, are severe: Did your instruction manual for your service explicitly demonstrate how to download a specific copyrighted work? If they draw the line at intent, I would hope they'd also give some evidenciary guidelines for what it takes to prove intent. (And if the guidelines are proper, then you won't have to disprove intent, because it's not your burden to prove lack of intent but rather the plaintiff copyright holder who must prove actual intent.)

And yes, if Betamax gets overruled, we're in for a hell of a ride. But I don't think that is going to happen here.

Nashville Copyright Activists by SonicSpike · 2005-03-30 16:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

I attend Middle State Tennessee University in the Nashville area. My major is the recording industry management program and I am about to graduate in 36 days and seek employment as an audio engineer.

I have been required to take music biz and law courses including a Copyright Law course as part of the standard curriculum. Often they will bring in experts and big names in the industry to discuss current topics that matter to the music biz.

One gentleman I met is Michael Harrington. He has been an expert witness in copyright and sampling cases involving the Dixie Chicks, Beastie Boys, 2 Live Crew. He gave a lecture at our school a few months ago about the current state of copyright. I attened the lecture planning on educating him about current technology and how the Internet works (most people in the industry don't have a clue). Come to find out he was already very educated on the subject; he is a member of EFF.

Anyway, check out his bio and an org he is a part of, the Belmont University Copyright Society. He is a very approachable guy and would probably appreciate an e-mail from our fellow /.'ers.

Here are the links:
http://www.belmont.edu/mb/profile.cfm?idno=369

http://www.belmontcopyright.com/

http://www.mtsu.edu/~record/facilities.html

--
Libertas in infinitum

Re:Nashville Copyright Activists by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 17:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

I also attended MSTU about ten years ago. An old professor friend of mine, Dr. Marcus Daven, wrote a rather interesting paper on copyright law and it's "catch-22" effect. He argues that existing laws are "cracky" at best, especially with chans. such as HBO and Cinemax dominating the broadcasting market. (or ClearChannel for radio). Hot Laws: Copyright and Broadcasting in the 21st Century by Prof Marcus Daven.

Tempest and the tea cup.... by zappepcs · 2005-03-30 17:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

Lets face it... the RIAA is representing people who have never decreased the cost of purchasing content, despite the fact that producing it has steadily decreased in cost over the years.

Now they are suing people because they are losing their ability to steal from the masses with impunity.

MC is *RIGHT* in his stance, but the RIAA and other deserve the sh*tstorm that they are in. They have been stealing from the masses and the artists for decades.

Digital media has changed the world of content distribution, and the RIAA and Hollywood need to face up to that and get their act straight. Stealing the content from them is not the answer, but if they want to stay in business, they will have to come up with a workable answer, and soon.

Just taking the argument to court does nothing for their cause (witness one SCO effort).

Personally, digital rights is taking the same phuqued up route that patents are going. There is more money spent on protection than there is on innovation and customer satisfaction. To me, I hope they are all undone by 'independants' as MC tried to explain.

Time for the big boys to get with the new game...

--
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People

Re:Tempest and the tea cup.... by SirSlud · 2005-03-30 18:06 · Score: 1

dates are appox

1600 we decide that arists actually own their own creations but that it MUST be in the public domain within a short amount of time.

now - copyright extends to 90 years beyond the death of the author, but is indefinate if produced as a 'work for hire' for a commerial purpose.

Its black and white. What we perceive as 'normal' protection for copyright holders is rediculous. I don't think ANYBODY wants the abolition of creators' rights, but the parent poster knows that while production costs have gone down, our cost hasn't. Why? Crazier copyright laws, and crazier copyright enforcement. Its basically collusion of a free market by using lobbyists.

--
"Old man yells at systemd"
Re:Tempest and the tea cup.... by zappepcs · 2005-03-30 19:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't think that many people think that copyright holders don't deserve some credit and payola, I just think that mainstream North American industries believe they should get way more than the content is worth.

Hey, if a vinyl album cost $12, and a CD costs $15, someone is getting cheated, and we all know that cheating is wrong. If I don't want the jeweled CD case, or the funky CD label, or the funny case artwork... how much is the content really worth? How about letting me download it for $5?

The main point that MC is making is that P2P is not the criminal tool that its being made out to be. Criminals will break copyright law no matter what medium is available. The plain facts are that those instigating the litigation are the ones that are suffering because the general populace is no longer willing to pay over the top costs for content that has not increased in value since the 1600's. At least they claim they are suffering... this has yet to be proven, in court, in fact, in any way at all.

The articles mentioned, and MC's blog make some very good statements about copyright law, and how big business is working hard (using our dollars) to infringe on our rights to use technology.

The underlying theme is who gets the money, and how much, not that artist 'X' is being ripped off or that someone is claiming the content of artist 'X' as their own.

If you and 14 of your friends make a pact to each buy a CD and make copies for each other, then the basic cost of that CD for each of you is about $1.50... or 1/10th of the retail price. This is a breach of the law that cannot practically be prosecuted. Because of technology, the RIAA and others have the opportunity to pick on a small group of individuals who have blatently broken the law. The problem is that they are using this activity to try to bar you and I from using the technology that criminals used, simply because it could happen again.... this is *WAAAAY* wrong.

Remember also that they are not doing this to protect artists... they are doing this to protect their Italian sports cars, plastic surgery, $5 million homes, and all the other stuff that they have bought with the money that they stole from innocent people, ostensibly very young people.

With P2P and other technologies, some artists are finding that %100 of the dollars spent for content they created is being delivered to the artist, and not shared out to oh-so-many middlemen in 'the industry' who suck the value out of everything that the artists do (yes, that was a gratuitous and unfair indictment of several industries on a grand scale... and I'm smiling about it)

The argument, nay.. the fight, is about what technology we can or cannot use and why. MC is right on in this matter. If you want to bring copyrights into this, you also have to look at the value of what is being stolen. Stealing is only stealing when you deprive someone of their property? Someone has to prove that file sharing has hurt the music or motion picture industry before I will believe they are being ripped off by P2P users.

?? Can anyone prove this ????

Meanwhile, all of us have a duty to try to fight the copyright overlords and their hell-bent determination to deprive us of technology.... simply to line their own pockets.

--
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Re:Tempest and the tea cup.... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-31 03:35 · Score: 0

don't forget their $5k lunches.
Re:Tempest and the tea cup.... by jratcliffe · 2005-03-31 04:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Remember also that they are not doing this to protect artists... they are doing this to protect their Italian sports cars, plastic surgery, $5 million homes, and all the other stuff that they have bought with the money that they stole from innocent people, ostensibly very young people."

Stole? STOLE? Last I checked, the CEO of Warner Music wasn't climbing through bedroom windows @ 2AM and snatching piggy banks. The company offers a CD at a price. People buy or don't. If they buy, then clearly the CD is worth more to them than the price. If they don't, no harm no foul. There's no stealing involved. Stealing happens when a non-consensual transaction occurs. Music sales are entirely consensual.

People illegally downloading music want to unilaterally set the terms of the transaction and force the transaction, without the consent of the other party. You can set terms for the transaction (i.e. I won't pay more than $0.00 per song, and I want total freedom to do whatever I want with it), and make a take it or leave it offer to the other party, but if they don't take it, that doesn't give you the right to then execute the transaction anyway, without the other party's consent. THAT's stealing.
Re:Tempest and the tea cup.... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-31 04:32 · Score: 0

People illegally downloading music want to unilaterally set the terms of the transaction and force the transaction
People downloading music are performing a transaction between themselves and the person uploading. There is no forced transaction or forced terms of transaction. The people uploading the music never forced terms of transaction. At some point, someone legally walked into a store and legally purchased a copy of the music. At that point they own that copy and are free to do what they wish with it.

Splitting hairs by writing legal volumes about how you want to pout and whine about profit margin and how to harass citizens doesn't mean there was a forced transaction anywhere. The CD was legally sold under no duress.

THAT's stealing
Exactly what is being stolen, again? Everything is either being legally sold or freely shared. Quit pretending that you own something after you sell it to someone. If you're not happy with your end of the sale then let that be a business lesson to you. Don't come whining to me to justify your concept of ownership after sale and don't expect me to endorse your desire to harass people over something which you willingly sold to them.

Every time I hear *AA press releases about evil music and movie and IP pirates all I hear is whining. They're incompetent at their business and they want us to back them up.

You know how the US military keeps people from distributing stuff we made and don't want them to have? WE DON'T SELL IT TO THEM!
Re:Tempest and the tea cup.... by Torontoman · 2005-03-31 16:48 · Score: 1

I would argue the 'point' is about pricing. So many people seem to think that piracy raises prices. Believe me, if I'm a software/music/IT executive, the FIRST thing I do when I'm thinking about launching a new product is to do market research on the optimal price:

Optimal Price = highest revenue

THUS = price that is high enough to make a profice BUT low enough to mean a certain amount of the paying public doesn't think it's worthwhile copying it.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by El+Camino+SS · 2005-03-30 17:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

I don't think he's on our side... Take a look at this comment:

MC: I have no problem with it at all. If you steal, you are wrong. You should have to deal with the consequences. We have plenty of laws on the book to make sure that happens.

Judging from your comments, I would say that you're not on OUR SIDE. You're only on YOUR SIDE. You're on the side of unfettered theft of other people's hard work and original ideas. You're chillin' with the credit card thieves. The ones that use their knowledge to steal. There is no justification for immoral behavior, digital or analog.

This is exactly what is ruining it for the rest of us.

The true push for computing, the real game that is going on is to make sure that computers and computing can evolve, and that the ideas of programming like P2P don't become outlawed. This is the true manner of what big thinkers like Cuban are trying to prevent the small thinking, greedy minds from doing with the law. Cuban is trying to make sure that it isn't illegal to own a type of computer program, or format, or using a computing style is outlawed. Code is just thoughts and actions expressed in numbers, just like sheet music is just dots that represent sounds and ideas. Let's not let code become thoughtcrime, shall we?

A beautiful world where a man can text message Natalie Portman for a date is is the dream of all geeks. A better, cleaner, more transparent environment for all people to use the computers that make their lives better. Computers aren't out there so that you can be the petulant IT guy in some cube farm and lord over them with your 1337 MCSE Haxor Skillz. Computers are tools. You should have the heart of a teacher instead of the justifications of a thief, or the arrogance of a petulant child.

It is the promise of fairness and openness, what all of us, computing for all citizens, and the real advances that it makes will advance greatly. Let's make sure that jackass CEOs don't take away the ability to restrict our imagination that turns into code. The benefits are obvious and proven:

Look at Linux... look at all of the good that it has done to keep players in the software game honest. Look at the little villages that can't afford expensive computers, but can now get E-mail and news from the outside world. Look at all of the great advances that a couple of computer geeks have done for the way people communicate and live their daily lives. A lot of great ideas were taken, FOR FREE, from Linux and are used every day. It is getting better, and it is moving faster. Linux wasn't illegal, it wasn't stealing anything. It was a great idea that flourished, and it flourished because the environment was open for change.

Look at our culture, can anyone see that the entire "design culture" that corporations around the world are scrambling to get to is not directly influenced by coding, computers, and IT techs?

What if people said that Linux was illegal because people could use the program to steal credit card numbers? What happens to all of the future advances? I don't ever look forward to a day where the police kick down my door because I am not on a "trusted computing" format and could be doing wrong.

If people like you insist that open and blatant theft is what all of this computing revolution thingee was about, and that not paying people for services is what all of the people who wired their first boards together with a soldering iron was about, then hell, count me out. I got into computing as a hobby because I could do things with it, and the circle of digital friends I got from it I couldn't find in a million years in the big blue sandbox. I get to have great, mind blowing "P2P" conversation with people every night ALL OVER THE WORLD. Yes, I could use it as a tool to put the one over on someone else. But really, is that what it is all about?

You, my friend, are confused, and are not on our side. You're on the side of

Nuke or Napalm? by jefedesign · 2005-03-30 17:13 · Score: 0

I can't help but want to go all vigilante on these jerks... why can't they let us steal like common criminals! I enjoy my 375GB(ISH)music collection and proud of it! Freebies rock as far as I'm concerned:)

--
Linux blog http://nsajeff.com/blog

He's helping fund the fight by Fox_1 · 2005-03-30 17:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

he's supporting the legal effort on behalf of Grokster, the online file-sharing network being sued by MGM Studios for allegedly infringing copyrights.

I still maintain that he's a megalomaniac who loves attention, but I also have to say I don't mind his efforts on behalf of our side of the issues. Besides, if I had been anywhere near as successful as him during the bubble I would be as bad if not worse (and I trip on my ego daily) - so power to him. Good thing though that he's helping fund, and not actually stepping into court himself to do the arguments.

--
The rock, the vulture, and the chain

King Canute comes to mind by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 17:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

King Canute is the guy who commanded the tide not to come in. His point was that there are some forces that you cannot resist no matter who you are.

In this case, once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't stuff it back in. The technology exists to swap files easily and anonymously. If they kill the current P2Ps, someone will come up with the next, harder to kill, iteration. The influence of Uncle Sam is waning and even if they can kill P2P in North America, the rest of the world will go on as if nothing happened. India and China are about to become super powers. Brazil is flexing its muscles. In the long run, the RIAA etc. don't stand a chance of stopping the technology. In ten or fifteen years the Grokster decision won't matter outside of the 'States. Basically, America can adapt to the technology it created or become irrelevant. (Just like George W. said the UN had become.)

Re:King Canute comes to mind by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 18:28 · Score: 0

very insightful, i think its cases like these that show how little USA knows how the rest of the world works, then again they are only 200years old which in civilisation terms means they are still shitting their diapers and throwing tantrums when they dont get their own way, oblivious that the rest of the world puts food on its plate, and we are just about to send them to their room without any dinner
Re:King Canute comes to mind by gl4ss · 2005-03-30 21:04 · Score: 1

the next, harder to kill iterations are already developed.

it's just a matter of people starting to use them.. for example, there's bittorrent over i2p(http://www.gotroot.com/article/195). which works, I mean that it really works, the reason why it's not a good alternative for most folks hunting for tv episodes is that there's not enough people on it and sharing. and sure, there's overhead but bandwith is cheap.

when the riaa and mpaa get too hungry with their lawsuits people will be forced to change, so anything they do is pretty much futile in this regard. but that doesn't matter - the lawyers get their cash anyways so what would they care about which direction they are pushing things...

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:King Canute comes to mind by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-31 01:35 · Score: 0

King Canute certainly comes to mind. No matter how many court cases there are, no matter how many well-reasoned arguments, organisations like Disney, the RIAA and the MPAA will push for stronger and stronger copyright laws, and they will be granted them. This will not change until they stop making billions of dollars. They won't stop making billions of dollars because politicians do what they are paid to do.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 17:33 · Score: 1

They should probably be punished the way that speeders are.

Instead, this "crime" of copyright "theft" is treated almost like a capital crime.

Of course, it works for the most part for Wal-Mart. Ever seen how aggressively Wal-Mart goes after shoplifters? It's pretty ominous, and the stupid thing is, it's a lot of effort aimed at a per-unit loss of not a whole lot. But it keeps the rest of the shoppers honest.

No one has died from this copyright "theft". No houses have been burned. No companies embezzeled.

The latest witch hunt of crooked corporate executives looks good, even though it's moving as slow as molasses (I bet Worldcom didn't give much $$$ to the RNC, unlike Enron). Will they get to beg out of their sentences like most of the Savings & Loan executives did? If they pin some serious federal pound-in-the-ass time for Bernie Ebbers, then *maybe* there is justice.

But the escalation in punishments at the behest of the RIAA and MPAA is absurd and unjust.

Give MGM what they want... by realitybath1 · 2005-03-30 17:39 · Score: 0

Thats step one.
2) Carelessly mimic crimes previously depicted in MGM movie.
3) MGM sues you for IP infringement.
4) You sue MGM for providing a technological inducement for crimesprees. (by setting advertizingly infectious IP examples)
5) Since 4 is a widespread crime on the part of MGM and 3 is an individual crime on the part of joo* , the crimes involved in 4 are > than those involved in 3 (plus all judges can brilliantly deduce 4>3 arithmetically) in terms of negative socio-economic impact. The judgements should reflect this, due to MGM's own lobbying logic.
6) Yaaay!!!**

*this offer only valid when crimespree regional volume is less than or greater than the circumference of pi.
**Offer not valid in Quebec.

In Other News by therealfitzman · 2005-03-30 17:40 · Score: 0

Someone has reportedly cloned the entire Dallas Maverick basketball team and is starting a new league called the CNBA (Cloned NBA).

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 18:00 · Score: 0, Troll

it's ridiculous though.
all pop stars young enough to have been able to copied music on c-cassettes.
all the computer game programmers copied computer games.

copying ain't stealing, even if it might be a crime - but a darn petty one at that not even comparable to stealing bread.

name one artist whos life was ruined because of massive copying! SERIOUSLY! NAME ONE! JUST ONE NAME! THERE IS _NOBODY_! THAT IS THE ULTIMATE ARGUMENT!

RIAA LIES EXPOSE : SALES != "UNITS SHIPPED" by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 18:04 · Score: 5, Informative

The RIAA says music sales are down, more specifically they say sales of the top 100 cd are down and this is DUE TO PIRACY.

Well by Sales the Mean "Items Shipped to Stores" !

So all they Really Mean is Stores Stock Less.

In the US Nielsen Ratings are based on "Individual Sales to Customers" so are these REAL sales down?

"Soundscan recorded 146 million CDs sold in Q1 2003, against 160 million in Q1 2004 - an increase of nearly 10%. Figures for Q2, released this summer are expected to show yet another increase. The RIAA, on the other hand, are claiming a 7% decrease in revenue - but that's purely through managing shipments and returns."

Nope, Sales are up !!!
By this more realistic definition Music Sales are up.

=> Therefore if we are to believe the RIAA but use a more realistic definition of sales then :
FILE SWAPPING HAS INCREASED POPULAR MUSIC SALES.

Here is a Link with the sources http://digital-lifestyles.info/display_page.asp?se ction=distribution&id=1222

People listen to more music than they buy.
The More Music People Listen to, the more they buy.

ADD in the spectacular rise of iTunes and Music Sales are through the roof.

File Sharing promotes music and increases sales.

Artists Win, The RIAA, wins, File Swappers Win, P2P wins - Everyone Wins !!!

It is about controlling the means of distribution.

Here is an Very Rigorous Academic Study of File Sharings Effect on Record Sales.
The Conclusion:"File Sharing Has A Negligable Satistical Effect on Sales".
http://www.p2pnet.net/zero/FileSharing_March2004.p df
Here is A Japanese Study with much the same conclusion.
http://www.iir.hit-u.ac.jp/file/WP05-08tanaka.pdf
So the Lies are exposed, the **AA are just out to keep cartel control, make sure we only watch and buy what they have.
Read How Exhorbitant Liscense Fees for Samples have crippled Modern Music in the excellent fast paced read.
http://kembrew.com/documents/mcleod-freedomofexpre ssion3.pdf
Freedom Of Expression by Kembrew McLeod also details many other ways in which Irresponsible Litigous Intellectual Property stifles research, innovation, cost millions of lives worldwide due to drug patents and holds back the development of important medicines for breast cancer due to human genome patents.

I think that P2P has revitalised Culture and learning, it has made the world a richer place and everyone has benefited from this, leechers, artists and business' alike.

On a bright note by realitybath1 · 2005-03-30 18:06 · Score: 0

that means non-corporate citizens (US-sic?) are pimps.

But their ho's are trying to f their own pimps up the ass.

Oh, man. Its going to be a sight for sad eyes when the pimps come down hard on the (p)ho(l)'s:

CitizenPimp: "where you hiddin' the rest of the money B_tch"
CheneyHo: "Oh come on, you know I love you. I'll put some lips on y'stick right now. Give me some Special Sauuce!"
CitizenPimp: "Don't give me that sweet talk Ho... I know you got more money B_tch"
MGMJohn: "Hey, cut the girl some slack, bud"
CitizenPimp: *waves pistol around in the air like he just don't care*
"Did I ask you B_tch...? NO! So SHUT the Fu@k up, before I rip your head open, you GODDAMN F'n sleazebag"

But remember, B_tches is P1mps 2 (JZ)

Re:HOW DO I MAKE A WEB FORUM? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 18:06 · Score: 0

No need to. Just visit Trolltalk.

Where did they get their stats? by Mr.+Ophidian+Jones · 2005-03-30 18:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

"90% of files transmitted were copyrighted files."

Does that percentage include traffic to Canadian computers, where such downloads are legal?

Does that percentage account for people who own the songs they are downloading in some other media format?

Does that percetage account for people who tried to download a song but got a RIAA-hijacked song instead?

What a waste of resources. They are playing at a very losing game. Before Napster there was always IRC, usenet, and FTP -- those are still there. After Napster came Morpheus/Grokster, which may/may not be left alive. But already the file sharing community has moved past into DirectConnect hubs, bit torrent, private WASTE networks, etc. Why do they even bother anymore?

Re:Where did they get their stats? by cyrax777 · 2005-03-30 19:04 · Score: 1

Someone needs to go back to english comprehension 101.

They didnt say 90% of file transmitted were copyrighted and transmitted illegaly just that they were copyrighted!.
Re:Where did they get their stats? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 19:08 · Score: 0

pretty much every file is copyrighted one way or another.
Re:Where did they get their stats? by zotz · 2005-03-31 01:28 · Score: 1

Honestly,

"They didnt say 90% of file transmitted were copyrighted and transmitted illegaly just that they were copyrighted!"

So, if they are telling the truth, (and the quote acurrately reflects what they said) then we now know that 10% of the files transmitted are in the public domain.

So, we would still need to determine what percentage of the copyrighted files were legal transfers and what percentage resulted in copyright violations. Right?

all the best,

drew

Hey, you can find some of my copyrighted files to trade legally over the p2p networks here:

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A %22drew%20Roberts%22

--
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
Re:Where did they get their stats? by TheRaven64 · 2005-03-31 01:34 · Score: 1

I many jurisdictions, the creator of any work is automatically granted copyright unless they explicitly relinquish it (by distributing it accompanied by a public domain notice). Therefore, I would suspect that more than 90% of the files distributed by P2P, or email for that matter, are copyrighted - the question is whether they are distributed illegally or not.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Where did they get their stats? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-31 01:41 · Score: 1, Insightful

"90% of files transmitted were copyrighted files."

Apart from anything else, this shows a hideous ignorance. Who cares if they were copyrighted? What matters is whether or not it's copyrighted and whether or not the copyright holders have given permission to copy.

I download and upload copyrighted material all the time. It's perfectly legal. Ever heard of the GPL, the BSD license, the creative commons?

By equating "copyrighted" with "copyrighted and no permission", they are denying the existence of thousands of people all around the world who want their material copied. Perhaps I'm just being cynical, but I don't think they want to call attention to that too much, since it devalues their "sharing stuff is a horrible thing to do" spiel.
Re:Where did they get their stats? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-31 02:06 · Score: 0

OK, for the sake of argument, let's say that "90% of the files swapped on p2p networks infringe someone's copyright" is a true statement. A recent story posted on /. (I'm too lazy to look it up right now) stated that there are an estimated three billion files swapped on Kazaa every month. Even if 90% of them infringe someone's copyright, that still leaves 300,000,000 non-infringing files per month.

That sounds like "significant non-infringing use" to me.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 18:25 · Score: 0

Dude get over yourself.
Stealing Your ID & Thieving Stuff are really bad.

Sharing Music is not, it can mean a lost sale, it can mean a gained saled as someone then buys the music, it can mean someone who just doesn't have the money can participate too.

There isn't really that much wrong with sharing, very often it is fair use.

Selling Copies is Wrong. That is Piracy. But Sharing with friends is not.

People stealing everything and buying nothing is bad, stealing games to save the money to buy hardware. But its not really that bad and then when people get some more income they do buy games, if they hadn't have bought the hardware they wouldn't have bought the game.

Most people are pretty decent, and if you don't take away their rights of first sale then people like to buy physical artifacts.

And youngsters that get copies of software and use it, then buy it when then they get jobs.
But companies using unliscensced software commercially is very bad.

So don't equate sharing with Stealing or Fraud because it isn't. In the Main it is good.

Sharing has Substatial Non Infringing Benefits to the Whole of Society.
ANd it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by tricops · 2005-03-30 18:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

And my side is the one that believes that while there's a difference, they're still both wrong.... splitting hairs doesn't change that...

--
(\(\
(^v^)
(")")
This is the cute vorpal bunny virus, copy to your sig or runaway, runaway in fear!

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 18:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Damn straight!!!

DO NOT VIOLATE ANOTHER PERSON'S COPYRIGHT!

A person has the right to distribute their own work under whatever license or terms that they feel they should do it. And its YOUR JOB to respect this.

GPL was specificly designed to allow redistibution/open source and to enforce it. That is the heart of the Linux.

People release music and shows under the creative common license which allows redistribution. They want people to benifit from their work without cost restrictions.

If YOU fuck over Microsoft's copyrights, then what is their to stop Microsoft from fucking over Linux developer's copyrights and incorporate it closed source into their own software?

If YOU fuck over the RIAA's copyrights, then what respect should the RIAA show for Artist's copyrights when the distribute using the creative commons?

So if you want to be able to freely redistribute the music you like, and the software you use, use music/media and software whose authors agree with you!! Pay them the money, give them your support!

Don't steal from people who don't feel that way, it only encourages them to try to enact legislation and create things like the DRM and TCPA.

Support the good guys, don't try to fuck over the bad guys, they are meaner and they are right (in the cases of them trying to fight copyright theft) and your wrong.

don't be a lemming, a dipshit, and try to justify immoral behavior by saying 'it's for the public good'. Because it's not. We have to respect the wishes of the people over their own creation, and we have to respect copyrights.

If you don't like it, then don't give them money. But don't steal from them either. It's NOT your right to listen to the latest Beasty Boys Metalica, or Britney Spears album without paying for it, and it never will be. Your not benifiting sociaty by redistributing it either.

That's just a sophmoric justification for immoral behavior and is silly.

Well, depends on what you mean by disagree. by einhverfr · 2005-03-30 18:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

Can you imagine what would happen to Mark if they said he disagreed with the law suits?

Well I think that the RIAA is making a big mistake with the lawsuits. While they have legal standing to sue and this is the appropriate legal tool, one has to wonder why companies would sue customers en masse. Such behavior is the acme of arrogance, thinking they is above the necessity of building sympathy and goodwill from a customer base.

Just because it is a bad idea doesn't mean one has to morally oppose it. The market is more than capable of handling this arrogant behavior.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

I see that future too... by Kjella · 2005-03-30 19:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

I imagine a time in the not-too-far future, when anyone, anywhere in the world, will have instant access to ANY audio, video, or written thing that has ever been created, INSTANTLY.

...and it is not all bright, but I believe it is inevitable. It will come together with anonymity. A distributed, anonymous storage network along the lines of Freenet (except it actually works well...), growing to contain our joint information. A cluster of storage clusters the way Internet is the network of networks.

Copyright as we know it will cease to function for better *and* worse
Libel, slander, stock fraud and similar will flourish
Privacy as we know it ceases to exist
Child pornography runs rampant

Still, it beats the alternative with totalitarian control of information, outlawing encryption and private communication. That kind of total control can only end in massive abuse, corruption and a ruling caste that can do everything they want (all of the above included).

The digital world is polarizing, it moves towards one or the other, 0 or 1, where today it is a rather pleasant shade of gray. And yet we can not stay where we are, change is inevitable.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:I see that future too... by Mycroft_VIII · 2005-03-31 01:25 · Score: 1

You've got a future in writing if you want it. Possibly even in speach writing for politicians. Or perhaps respectable fiction
Not shure if what you said has much validity, but you shure said it well. Sounded like the premis to some sci-fi novell.
(consider this a backhanded compliment:)

Mycroft

--
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by kfg · 2005-03-30 19:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, I have the standard issues with the concept of copyright violation as "stealing," but I don't have any innate problem with the idea of copyright violators being civilly prosecuted for such violations of civil rights.

I do have some problems with fairly recent changes to the law and its perception (such as civil rights violations as criminal theft of property) which broadens what is protected, for how long it is protected, what may be done to protect it, criminalizes violations and makes abhorent means available to prosecute violations.

But not with rights holders civilly prosecuting alleged violators per se.

Of course the above does not in any way imply that I believe the tactics and methods used by the RIAA (such as dressing up to give the impression that they are officers of the law and filing rubber stamp John Doe suits by the bushel basketful) are those of scum sucking bastards, but it is in part my legal and social perception objections that allow them to operate in such a manner in the first place.

KFG

Errata by kfg · 2005-03-30 19:23 · Score: 1

. . .are **not** those of scum sucking bastards. . .are **not**!

I need to sack my editor again. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go make some more suggestions for suggestive poses for the moose.

KFG

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by SilverspurG · 2005-03-30 19:50 · Score: 1

Sharing is not wrong.

Stealing is wrong.

If you sell something to me, and I share it with my friend, no one has stolen anything.

Splitting hairs by writing volumes of legal jargon about it doesn't change that.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 19:54 · Score: 0

Nice reply, but I guess I gotta be the one to tell you: Congratulations! YHBT! HAND.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by SilverspurG · 2005-03-30 20:05 · Score: 1

You're on the side of unfettered theft of other people's hard work and original ideas

Please step away from the soap box and take your pouting someplace else.

Reality: If you don't want someone to share something then don't give it to them.

If that means you can't Get Rich Quick then find a better business model or cope.

It's impossible to steal an idea. You can't rip it out of someone's head. It's possible to extort hard work or ideas from someone in a fashion similar to indentured servitude (eg. employee agreements which blanket IP). I honestly doubt that consumers are extorting the media industry.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 20:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

I don't think he's on our side

Look, I actually think the world would be a better place without IP laws, but what you're doing is like calling out Michael Badnarik for not advocating full-out anarchism.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by SilverspurG · 2005-03-30 20:24 · Score: 1

Reality check.

If YOU ____ over Microsoft's copyrights, then what is their to stop Microsoft from ____ing over Linux developer's copyrights and incorporate it closed source into their own software?

Don't be naive. The number of lower employees that MS middle managers and upper managers have screwed over to get where they are is just the way things work. The number of smaller companies that MS has bought out or openly crushed with superior resources or a quicker route through the copyright/patent office is just the way things work. Do you really think the business world is fair just because that's the way you want the world to work?

You are aware of the role of universities, aren't you? It's a way for businesses to come upon the newest and hottest ideas in a forum where the originators have no legally enforceable rights on those ideas. Some researchers and major research groups have resources and the experience to navigate the legal labyrinth of IP but they're in the vast population minority. It's just the way things work.

There are several factors which prevent MS from openly stealing Linux. Mostly it's PR and the fact that you can't develop a product for a decade and then expect to turn a multibillion dollar company on a dime to work on something completely different. IP is a token factor and a minor consideration. There probably are a few dozen MS employees working on *nix type clones in a back room, waiting for the time when the PR is favorable. IP will be the last thing they buy out before they ship it out the door. IP is little more than crossing Ts and dotting Is.

If YOU ____ over the RIAA's copyrights, then what respect should the RIAA show for Artist's copyrights when the distribute using the creative commons?

Do you really think the RIAA would give a flying squirrel's tail about the Artist's copyright if there wasn't profit in it for them first?

That's just a sophmoric justification for immoral behavior and is silly.

To act like the upper echelons of society and business are completely moral, philanthropic, and honest in their business dealings is equally silly. The only difference is the availability of resources to mount the subsequent lawsuit. A middle manager, for example, will never screw over a subordinate who has wealth, federal protection (sex,race,religion,age,disability), or friends who are attorneys. A middle manager won't even think twice about happily taking credit for the ideas of a subordinate who has no protection or resources. That's what Dilbert and most political comics are all about.

How can you possibly expect the general populance to be perfect angels when the example is set by campaigns such as MS vs. Netscape? Or when MS can openly cut and paste MacOS, restructure the code, call it Win95, and rely on political power and hush money to negate any chance of a successful lawsuit?

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.

It is about P2P by Kjella · 2005-03-30 21:12 · Score: 1

It is MGM vs. Grokster, not "MGM vs. P2P technology."

Centralized P2P (stupid term anyway) is nothing more than load balancing and pooling of distributed resources. Decentralized P2P is about letting a group of people connect to eachother and do whatever the hell they want (not unlike the Internet model, with Grokster as the ISP, eh?)

Basicly, they're trying to stop a group of people from getting together and doing what they want by banning the locations and the tools, and not the people nor the "contraband". It's like stopping speeding by banning public roads.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-03-30 21:36 · Score: 1

If you sell something to me, and I share it with my friend, no one has stolen anything.

If you buy one of my albums and share it with 100,000,000 of your friends, and I find out, would you want to meet me in a dark alley?

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-03-30 21:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

But Sharing with friends is not.

Therein lies the problem.. Are all the hundreds of millions people on P2P your friends? I see nothing wrong with a few copies between friends. But when over two thirds of current network traffic is people sharing stuff, I think it takes a tremendously selfish person to not see anything wrong with it.

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by SilverspurG · 2005-03-30 22:08 · Score: 1

If you buy one of my albums

You sold it to me. Cope. You're a competent human being, right? Figure it out before the sale. What happens if I share it? Adjust the sale amount and the medium properly. When the sale amount becomes too large or the medium requires a proprietary player then we'll start to see just how important your product is. Maybe it'll be humbling for you. Again. Cope.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.

Grokster summary by Sanity · 2005-03-30 22:11 · Score: 1

At the risk of shamelessly pimping my blog, I recently posted an entry describing MGM Vs Grokster and the issues:

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the MGM vs Grokster case today. For those living under a rock, at issue is the legal decision that prevented the movie industry from killing the VCR in the mid-80s (the "Sony-Betamax decision"). In retrospect the Supreme Court did them a big favour since most of the movie industry's revenue now comes from video rentals. Unfortunately the movie industry has not learned its lesson.
"Secondary copyright infringement" is when you yourself don't actually infringe copyright, but you somehow facilitate someone else doing it. I assume that this was originally intended as a way to get at the people that run "swap meets" where people exchange copies of software and CDs in violation of copyright law.
In the 1980s the Supreme Court said that the creator of a technology cannot be sued for secondary infringement if their technology is "capable of substantial non-infringing use", in effect creating a "shield" against secondary liability for technology creators. In the case of Grokster, two previous court judgements have said that this doctrine protects decentralised P2P software, in the same way that it shielded the creator of the VCR. The movie industry would like to see this shield weakened enough that Grokster and similar P2P file-sharing networks are no-longer protected by it.
Their opponents (myself included) fear that any weakening of this shield will create exactly the kind of legal uncertainty that can kill innovations before they have even made it out of the venture capitalist's office (and as a veteran of a number of VC's offices, I can attest to the fact that nothing turns them off like the threat of a legal battle).
If you don't mind Real Video, you can watch a great debate between Fred von Lohmann, Senior Staff Attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Theodore Olson, Former Solicitor General for the Bush Administration (2001-2004) and Representative of the Recording Industry and Motion Pictures Association here.
The argument only took place a few hours ago, but you can read a good summary from someone that appears to know their stuff here. His assessment? It went better for Grokster than he expected, but it is extremely dangerous to draw any conclusions from the oral argument phase of a court case.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-03-30 22:24 · Score: 1

You sold it to me. Cope. You're a competent human being, right? Figure it out before the sale.

Are you telling me I shouldn't sell my music, because someone who bought it might share it?

What happens if I share it?

If I find it out, I'll hit you several times with a large iron bar and leave you lying in a puddle of your own blood and my urine.

Adjust the sale amount and the medium properly. When the sale amount becomes too large or the medium requires a proprietary player then we'll start to see just how important your product is. Maybe it'll be humbling for you. Again. Cope.

Because it is easy to tell how many copies an album will sell, beforehand.

Congrats, your post was the most unrespectful I've ever seen on Slashdot.

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done

Do they? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 22:25 · Score: 0

What if we got rid of copyright altogether. Would we have NO music? Or would recordings just be for advertising for the live, unique and paid-for performance?

Get rid of copyrights and either people will pay *voluntarily* for entertainment or the entertaimnet will be live for money and recorded for personal gratification.

We can always re-instate copyrights later if we find out that this doesn't work.

What are you afraid of?

Re:Do they? by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-03-30 22:37 · Score: 1

What if we got rid of copyright altogether.
We tried that for a few millenia and it didn't work. People started selling other people's work as their own.
people will pay *voluntarily*
I'll applaud the day when car dealers introduce that system. I'm sure it will work.

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done
Re:Do they? by Mycroft_VIII · 2005-03-31 01:21 · Score: 1

HUH? if we did it for millinia and got works of art and music how did it not work. If your saying some didn't get proper credit that's true, but other than that you make no sense, though I suspect you're so deep into the thinking of copyright as a natural thing you don't realize it.
Copyright only works if it achieves it's purpose, that purpose to enrich the public domain with more art and litrature and music and such.
Since such things happened before copyright it therefore follows that copyright is NOT necessary to such things, just potentially benificial. However with the constant extensions going on the public domain now grows only by voluntary contribution, just as it did before copyright, only now it's in direct competition with this artificial thing.

Mycroft

--
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Re:Do they? by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-03-31 08:49 · Score: 1

if we did it for millinia and got works of art and music how did it not work.
Well, copyright law originates from the 16th century, so I guess you could tell me what great works of music and art were made before that...
And then there's this stupid little US paper from 1787 that touches on the subject.
Anyhow, printing press was the original reason. It was the authors who didn't want to grant the printers the right to distribute their work for no compensation.

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done
Re:Do they? by Mycroft_VIII · 2005-04-01 01:05 · Score: 1

First off 1600 was not 'millenea' ago.
IIRC the Bible, Koran, Socrates, Homer, Plato, and who knows how many other written works that are generally considered 'great' were written before 1600.
And as far as the constitutional authority granting congress the ability to create such things as copyright and patents, the founding fathers were not at all certain it was a good idea, thus the words MAY (not must or even should) and 'limited time'. It was with much reservation they put what little they did in there, and the fact that they did shows they didn't consider it a natural thing, but rather something that needed to be explicitly granted in the highest document of the land for the government to be able to do it.
Thomas Jefferson in particular was leary of copyright, at first including copyright as another form of monopoly, which he was against. Later he argued that if included at all it should be very limited and more as a temporary (One generation, that being to him the timespan in which half of all people living or more at the time of creation was statistically likely to have died) protection of the common man against larger entities.
And after the consititution and bill of rights had become law of the land he cautioned that ideas themselves were uncopyrightable, only particular expressions of them.
]

Mycroft

--
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Re:Do they? by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-04-01 04:43 · Score: 1

First off 1600 was not 'millenea' ago.
I never said it was.
IIRC the Bible, Koran, Socrates, Homer, Plato, and who knows how many other written works that are generally considered 'great' were written before 1600.
Strangely enough, I find that your few examples from a time span of thousands of years prove my point more than anything else.
What is preserved of those writings (with the exception of Quran, I think) is very fragmented and very different from the original manuscripts, and in many cases such never even existed. Most of the greek philosophers' texts are merely attributed to them. Little original text is left, largely due to the fact that they had no value to people in the dark ages.
Copyright gives art and literature a financial incentive. Without copyright, I find it very hard to believe that someone would dedicate years of their life to write a book.

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done
Re:Do they? by Mycroft_VIII · 2005-04-01 19:23 · Score: 1

I was just hitting what I could recall off the top of my head with that handfull. And if I could pull that many out of random memory...
And trying to downgrade some of the more well known literature of the past by pointing out that some loss of translation because of a significant drop of civilisation for a few hundred years....
As far as the dark ages go food and shelter and little else was important, let alone a bunch of musings on the meaning of it all, however profound .
I seriously doubt Micky Mouse or Brittiny spears will even be known in 500 years outside obscure historical texts even if society continues, let alone if we go through something akin to the dark ages.
Copyright and Patents as the original founders intended it could have value in helping foster the public domain of knowledge and culture, but as it is it meerly strangles inovation and public discourse while it encourages meaningly littigation for profits sake.

Mycroft

--
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Re:Do they? by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-04-03 21:59 · Score: 1

I was just hitting what I could recall off the top of my head with that handfull. And if I could pull that many out of random memory...
The thing is, there isn't a whole lot preserved from before the 16th century, partially because of the church burning everything that contradicted their then-current christian principles, but also because the works had little value to anyone creating (or even duplicating) them before that. It was still hard even after that, but at least it was no more legal for someone else to take your art and claim it was his.
And trying to downgrade some of the more well known literature of the past by pointing out that some loss of translation because of a significant drop of civilisation for a few hundred years....
There are no writings from Socrates preserved at all. There is exactly one work from one of his pupils, Plato, existing today that is thought to be an original. Everything else that is attributed to him is just patched together from multiple sources, a lot of which likely has nothing to do with him. But ancient Greece was an enormously rich culture and a peculiarity in the pre-christian world. Most of the great thinkers were also politicians, teachers or playwrights and their works are side-products of their main professions than the other way round. Oh, and the philosophers weren't widely accepted at all during that time, because they defied superstition. But I'm sure you knew all that.
On a related note, even if copyright didn't exist, I'm sure that scientists and humanists would still carry on writing, just like they did then. They'd just not get published as widely.
It's also worth nothing that one of the principles of copyright is that the works must not be altered without permission.
As far as the dark ages go food and shelter and little else was important, let alone a bunch of musings on the meaning of it all, however profound
I doubt that people became dumb for a few hundred years, when very rich cultures had already existed, and in fact still existed, in the Middle East, for example. They were oppressed by the Church, but I am sure people were interested in art and poetry just like any other time. Of course, visual arts are a bit different in that it is normally only the original that has value.
I seriously doubt Micky Mouse or Brittiny spears will even be known in 500 years outside obscure historical texts even if society continues, let alone if we go through something akin to the dark ages.
I agree. It is completely irrelevant, though. Copyright doesn't care whether a work is good or bad or artistic. It is also relatively short-term. Copyright gives you a possibility to sell your work. It gives you a possibility to make money with your own art. Without copyright, anyone could take your work and distribute it, even for gain. I doubt no one would want to spend years writing a book, if they had almost zero chance of making money with it. No sane person anyway. All publishers would just print whatever they felt is good and try to make money, and the author would get nothing. The whole industry would probably collapse into the impossibility of the situation.
Copyright and Patents as the original founders intended it could have value in helping foster the public domain of knowledge and culture
That's true, but not the whole truth. The reason for the introduction of copyright was that authors didn't want their books being sold without themselves getting a share. It gave those works value, which made them marketable, thus giving an incentive to create AND publish those works. More would be created, more would be published. Take that incentive away, and much less will be made and even less published, if any, because there'd be no more money-making opportunity, and people need to eat.
If there'd be no copyright, then you couldn't accuse anyone of plagiarism, either. If you think about it, if "IP" didn't exist, then wouldn't it mean that

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by SilverspurG · 2005-03-30 22:30 · Score: 1

when over two thirds of current network traffic is people sharing stuff, I think it takes a tremendously selfish person to not see anything wrong with it

Is there something inherently wrong with sharing? What did I miss.

As for intellectual property: If it were really that valuable and that important it would be safeguarded before being released. If it were really that valuable and that important it wouldn't be sold to any teenager with $15.

I don't put my best code on open display at a large venue. Why not? I'm not worried about the the average websurfer copying it--I'm worried about competing coders (big companies) copying it, refining it, and beating me to the store shelves before I have a finished product. While politicians and lawyers have consumers fighting with each other about innocent sharing, their own companies are trolling universities and places like sf.net looking for product ideas that aren't protected. The same goes for the music industry.

And what's the RIAA doing about the internal dirty laundry in the industry? What's the RIAA doing to actually protect the original authors and inventors? Nothing. Because it's not profitable. It's much more profitable to harass innocent consumers.

Please. No more of these moral pleas about IP and sharing. They're false.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-30 22:34 · Score: 0

"Are you telling me I shouldn't sell my music, because someone who bought it might share it?"

You made the information public. If you don't want it copied, don't sell it.

How much is your IP worth now?

"If I find it out, I'll hit you several times with a large iron bar and leave you lying in a puddle of your own blood and my urine."

Ah, so you are a murderer. Self confessed. Or at least you *will* be. Better lock you up now for 25 years so you don't kill someone.

Thank you for your cooperation.

PS Please stop pissing in the gene pool.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-03-30 22:34 · Score: 1

Is there something inherently wrong with sharing? What did I miss.

That 90 % of what is being shared is done so without permission and therefore illegally. (Or your head up your ass, whichever you find more appropriate.)

If it were really that valuable and that important it would be safeguarded before being released. If it were really that valuable and that important it wouldn't be sold to any teenager with $15.

Why?

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by SilverspurG · 2005-03-30 22:38 · Score: 1

Are you telling me I shouldn't sell my music, because someone who bought it might share it?

I'm telling you this is a big world. It's a live at your own risk world. Every other business in the world has considerations about marketing and ensuring product longevity and the vast majority do so without resorting to harassing the customers or coming up with legal schemes. What makes your business so special that you don't have to cope with reality?

It's fair.

If I find it out, I'll hit you several times with a large iron bar and leave you lying in a puddle of your own blood and my urine

I speak of fairness, you speak of violence and degradation. Hopefully the laws will quit supporting people of your nature.

Because it is easy to tell how many copies an album will sell, beforehand.

Risk is part of life. Everyone has to grow up at some point. The world does not owe you magnificent profit just for running in circles. There's a reason why lemonade is still 5 cents/cup.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by SilverspurG · 2005-03-30 22:41 · Score: 0, Flamebait

That 90 % of what is being shared is done so without permission and therefore illegally

The 90% figure is conjecture. As for sharing without permission: It was legally sold and bought. Refine the business model or cope.

What right do you have to harass the citizens of my nation with goons and lawsuits because you're a moron at running your business? Figure it out before the point of sale and quit whining about it afterwards.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by xenofile · 2005-03-30 22:41 · Score: 1

I realize the *AA's are sending all manner of shills into anti-IP cartel forums like Slashdot to kick up some astroturf and all, but sheesh, can you try and be a little more obvious?

You've got the pseudo-spelling/grammar challenged young-geek look down pat, but remember Grasshopper...

Molish lesson #1: subtlety's the name of the game. DON'T OVERSELL YOUR POINT!!!!!!

The heart of the Linux? Good one...

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-03-30 22:44 · Score: 1, Troll

How much is your IP worth now?

Nothing, apparently.

Ah, so you are a murderer. Self confessed.

My kid is starving, and you feel that it's somehow your god-given right to share my work with others. Why the hell should I give a damn about your rights, then? Being "a citizen" doesn't give you more rights than "a citizen working for a record company", or does it?

Please stop pissing in the gene pool.

Don't worry, I won't be having any more kids. You see, I have trouble feeding the current one, because for some reason the work I've been doing for living for the past 20 years (I work for a small indie record company) has suddenly lost all its value "because I made the information public".

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-03-30 22:51 · Score: 1

Every other business in the world has considerations about marketing and ensuring product longevity

How am I supposed to compete with someone giving away copies of my work for free?

I speak of fairness, you speak of violence and degradation. Hopefully the laws will quit supporting people of your nature.

No, you speak of taking away my rights to my work. When I speak of violence, I speak of taking away some of yours.

Everyone has to grow up at some point.

I do that by defending my values and views, not stomping on other people's rights.

The world does not owe you magnificent profit just for running in circles.

The world owes me the right to decide who I work for and what kind of money. Yes, if you have a large enough crowd, it makes removing those rights easy. But it doesn't change the fact that it is wrong. In fact, there is a different flavor of it called "slavery."

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by SilverspurG · 2005-03-30 23:00 · Score: 0, Troll

My kid is starving, and you feel that it's somehow your god-given right to share my work with others

Pity plea. Welcome to real life. It is a God-given right to share. Did you consider that your work isn't worth what you think it is? Welcome to the real world dose of humility. Mother nature doesn't care about your work. There are scientists all over the world in places like Russia who could probably save mankind from a deadly plague if someone would just look after their rights for them. Guess what? No one does and they're starving every day, freezing in homes that have no heat or electricity because they couldn't pay the bills. Be happy you're not them. Cope.

Why the hell should I give a damn about your rights, then?

You shouldn't and you probably don't. I look after my work and give it only to the people who I must (my employer) or who I trust. If I sell my work, I set the price after weighing the potential for the customer to take my work and replicate it without paying me.

If I fix someone's computer I allow them the opportunity to watch me fix it. It's possible they may never call me again. It's possible they may start fixing other people's computers. That's my intellectual property but I know it might happen and I take it into consideration.

If I synthesize a complex molecule which takes 30 steps and write down the procedure I do so knowing that someone else might take it, might follow it, and I may be obsolete tomorrow. That's life. I hope I can still eat. No one's watching my back.

If I change someone's brakes they might watch me do it. They may change their own brakes next time. I know this full well ahead of time and set my asking price accordingly.

There's nothing sinister about learning or sharing the contents of other people's IP. It's the way of the world. I hope you either meditate or pray to a God or whatever because you need to learn peace of mind. The world does not owe you a living.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-03-30 23:02 · Score: 1

Refine the business model or cope.

As you seem to have the answer to everything, I'd like to hear your take on this.

I spend a modest $10,000 to record an album, and sell it on the Internet for $5 per copy. It's selling pretty nicely, about 50 copies per day, until someone shares it on a P2P. The word goes out and sales go to a sudden halt, and now I'm selling a copy per week as the sharers in P2P grow at a good rate. I lost a whole lot of money.

What kind of business model do you suggest?

If you have two outlets distributing the same product, the other one giving it away for free and the other one, who spent the initial costs, charging money, what kind of business model do you suggest to the latter to compete with the first one?

you're a moron at running your business

Oh yeah, they just need to stop being morons at running their business. Well, that was easy.

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-03-30 23:06 · Score: 1

Did you consider that your work isn't worth what you think it is?

I have all the reason to believe it didn't lose its value suddenly after P2P music sharing came into existence.

Welcome to real life.

Oh, I get it. Because the world is evil and can never be perfect, we should all be allowed to do whatever we please.

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by SilverspurG · 2005-03-30 23:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

How am I supposed to compete with someone giving away copies of my work for free?

You can't. Just like the rest of us who get downsized or outsourced you'll have to pick up the pieces and find something else.

you speak of taking away my rights to my work

You have a right to work just like anyone else who finds themself in the unemployment line. Start pounding pavement. A tip: No one will hire you if you're still whining about the unfairness of the world. It's a fact of life and the time of the media industry being exempt from it is over. I'm sorry about your situation and bear you no ill will but you have to do what everyone else does: pick up and move on.

I do that by defending my values and views, not stomping on other people's rights

No one's rights are being stomped except for the right of a consumer to own a product they bought. I'm sorry if your business model sucked. I'm sorry if you have 30 years in a with a business that failed. I hope you have enough banked to apply yourself to new gainful employment before you can't pay rent. I've seen chemists turned out by the thousands from work on a day's notice.

Living in this world is like being R2D2 out fixing the X-wing. Lasers are whizzing right past your ear and no one's going to miss you if you get hit. There are enemies. The only thing you can do is try to find a solid ground someplace.

The world owes me the right to decide who I work for and what kind of money

You've been misled. Tell that to the programmers who were outsourced. Tell that to people who invested their money in Betamax videocassettes or the 12" laser discs. Tell that to Tucker. Tell that to people who specialized in working on vacuum tube electronic devices. Tell that to anyone who has ever been displaced from their chosen profession and forced to take a desk job pushing paper for half the salary someplace. It happens all the time and has probably happened to more of the professional population than anyone cares to admit. The world owes you the right to cope with whatever happens and that's about it.

And while you're coping, the rest of us are coping too. Don't feel like the world's picking on you. Let's just say that the IP gravy train has ended.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.

The courts might be more dangerous by Shivetya · 2005-03-30 23:23 · Score: 1

than big business.

Already we have seen many cases where a court is used to remove information from the public forum. The easiest method to bury something these days is to brand it with the word "hate". Hate-Crime, Hate-Speech, Hate-Etc.

Why businesses would exclude the information is so that they avoid being dragged into court and having even more of their dealings managed by outside forces.

If anything courts and governments are bigger threats to freedom of information because it does not profit them to share it. Whereas a business is in to make money and if information availability affects their profit stream they will make sure to find a way to offer it.

I cannot recall many if any cases where a business is supressing information from any source (they might from a few) but governments through the powers of their courts and such do do so.

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by SilverspurG · 2005-03-30 23:23 · Score: 1

What kind of business model do you suggest?

The severity of the situation which you've described is completely hypothetical and composed of conjecture. P2P is not a secret so yes, you are a moron if you don't consider the possible effects of P2P ahead of time. No sea captain could ever claim that the world owed him a ship and a crew if he was sacked by a storm--it's one of the risks of being a sea captain. Cope. Nor have I yet seen a blog where an artist could say "we released this album and then watched our sales drop because it hit P2P". There's a reason why artists cut their deals with the distributors and manufacturers. There's a reason why guaranteed sales exist. I'll point out your flaws: You did not have proper advertising or distribution planned before you released the product. Your $10k album was released prematurely. Had you engaged in sealing the proper business deals and the proper method of distribution then you would have reached the proper profitable customers long before the album made it to P2P. Additionally any businessman worth a bank account knows better than to invest all resources in a single venture which could be easily tanked. If you blew your life savings hoping that the $10k album would help you Get Rich Quick then close your ears so you don't hear me laugh because it'll just cause you consternation and anger.

Look. The rest of us do it every time we walk in for a job interview. The employee agreement sucks, the salary sucks, but it beats the heck out of trying to sell knitted mittens or slippers from the kitchen.

they just need to stop being morons at running their business

That's precisely it. When people start a business there's no guarantee that it will succeed and there's no guarantee that it will live longer than next quarter's funding. Have you seen the blank stares of people who got screwed because their business failed and their partners deserted them? That's life. If that's the hand you were dealt then your only option is to pick up, move on, and find a wage that allows you to eat.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-03-30 23:27 · Score: 1

You have a right to work just like anyone else who finds themself in the unemployment line.

What I meant is no one can force me to work for free.

No one's rights are being stomped except for the right of a consumer to own a product they bought.

Yes they are. I should be the only person allowed to decide who gets to copy the music I've made (=duplicat the results of my work). And it so happens that I choose to only allow those who pay me for the work that I've put into it to do so. By stating that I should now allow anyone to make copies you are taking away my right.

Owning is different from copying and distributing. It can't be that difficult to understand, can it?

Let's just say that the IP gravy train has ended.

I don't know what that is, but I think there'll soon be no more professional recording studios nor musicians.

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done

I take extreme offence to this by gnu-sucks · 2005-03-30 23:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

It should be pointed out, in the slashdot quote, that Mark is speaking about Post-Production (video) studios.

Let me tell you, recording studios (audio) don't want anything to do with the ridiculous shenanigans record labels and the like are pulling on their customers.

As the middle man in the path between musician and record label, its a tough place to be, but when you consider the creativity involved in a studio, you understand that studio ownership isn't always about money. Money's tough, yes, but we don't care whom it comes from. It could be from a band, the band's parents, their recording contract/label, etc. Doesn't matter. We're here for the music...

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by SilverspurG · 2005-03-30 23:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

What I meant is no one can force me to work for free

This is true. But just like anyone else who makes an easily copied product, be it lemonade, bread, or toothpicks: You accept all risk if someone else makes and distributes your product better than you do. It is you who is responsible for safeguarding your supply lines, your distribution centers, and your customer base up to the point of sale. Legal harassment after the point of sale is not acceptable.

I should be the only person allowed to decide who gets to copy the music I've made

What makes you so special? You're pouting and ranting at the same time. You made a product and you sold it. The fact that your product is easily replicated puts you in the same boat as a good portion of the rest of the population. Just like everyone else: if you don't like the selling price then don't sell the product. When I sell my patents to companies I realize full well that, while the IP is mine and that's my work, the company very well could turn around and produce a million of the patented product and never give me another dime. At my last employer I was required (extorted) to sell my patent rights to the company for $1 or risk termination of employment.

Once you sell the product and have accepted money for it then the game is over. No more of this "but I didn't know" or "but I'm not getting rich enough" or "but I can't pay my bills".

Life's not easy. Cope.

I think there'll soon be no more professional recording studios nor musicians

Vague doomsaying. What do you mean by "professional"? There will always be some people with money and an interest in audio production and there will always be some people who profit from it. Maybe Hollywood won't be the center of civilization and movie stars won't be entitled to millions of dollars at a shot. Maybe Britney Spears and Metallica won't be able to own thousand acre ranches. So what? I enjoyed music but not enough to support an industry which harasses the citizens of my nation for sharing their enjoyment with each other. We'll always have music and happiness somewhere.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-03-30 23:54 · Score: 1

The severity of the situation which you've described is completely hypothetical and composed of conjecture.

I've been somehow involved in the music business for the past 20 years. I know what I'm talking about. A lot of artists stay quiet about the P2P because they don't want to advertise that their album is there, simple as that. And they also don't want to engage in discussions such as this.

You did not have proper advertising or distribution planned before you released the product.

There is no such thing as guaranteed album sales, and it's a pretty widely accepted fact that advertising is rarely beneficial in music in general. Our channels are very different. Sometimes it is done, but is known to have even been detrimental to sales. Most often bands "advertise" themselves by simply playing in clubs until there is demand for an album. But of course, on Slashdot all record labels are evil and in the very least criminal.

In other words, you are speaking out of your ass about things you have no clue about. Basically, you're saying that you should get music, films and whatever for free (i.e. other people's work without their consent) whilst dressing it in some sort of vague "it's a bad world and the whole concept of IP is false" ethics.

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by SilverspurG · 2005-03-31 00:07 · Score: 1

I know what I'm talking about

That may be true but coming up with a hypothetical and improbable sad story situation to justify your concept of ownership isn't proving it.

In other words, you are speaking out of your ass about things you have no clue about

Allow me to sum up the reality of IP: Once you sell something quit trying to pretend you still own it. The IP age is over. The IP age should never have been started. If you want your IP for yourself then keep it to yourself. If you want to share it with others then you accept all risk of redistribution. It's no secret that P2P exists and it's no secret that CDs are easily copied. If you want your customers to pay-per-play then play live in performance halls where you search them for recording devices before they enter.

You're no different from anyone else in life. Think carefully before you decide to sell anything. Consider all aspects of the sale and everything that may happen afterwards.

The age of IP is over. We will no longer subsidize the careless mentality of the media industry.

As for patents and inventions: I've not yet seen a patent ever protect a brilliant inventor from a manager who says "You're fired if you won't accept that the company owns your IP."

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-03-31 00:12 · Score: 0, Flamebait

You made a product and you sold it. The fact that your product is easily replicated puts you in the same boat as a good portion of the rest of the population.

It's also quite easy to kill someone. Does that in your opinion make it right? If I want to have sex with your girlfriend or wife (Though on Slashdot this is VERY hypothetical) and I need to do you away, does owning a gun somehow make it ok? In your own words: Life's not easy. Cope.

At my last employer I was required (extorted) to sell my patent rights to the company for $1 or risk termination of employment.

So why didn't you sue them? Are you stupid or what? (Ok, after reading your trol^H^H^H^Hidiocy it's quite obvious, but it's still a fun question.)

What do you mean by "professional"?

Same as everyone else. A person who does music for livelihood (or gain).

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-03-31 00:17 · Score: 1

That may be true but coming up with a hypothetical and improbable sad story situation to justify your concept of ownership isn't proving it.

It's not improbable. Spiced up a bit, but by no means uncommon, even.

And I'm not talking about ownership. You brought that up. I'm talking about rights, you know, the vague concept you think doesn't exist.

The IP age is over.

But apparently, the parroting age isn't.

If you want to share it with others then you accept all risk of redistribution.

If you go out, you accept all risk of being shot. So what?

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done

p2p, intellectual property and the rest by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-31 00:22 · Score: 0

well, downloading songs without paying for them to be quite fair is not nearly as harmful to the artists themselves as the contracts they enter into with the record companies. a cd costs maybe a nickle to actually make, to press teh disk, print up the fancy pictures and lyric sheets. this package is then sold for...what $15 $20? and each sale the artist might make a dollar, tho i think that's a tad high. so the producers and record company makes $14-$19 per sale. now, i can see the argument that the records cost quite a lot of money to produce. which *can* -sometimes- be true. if a band like metallica (how appropriate to bring them up) will sit in a studio for several months to a year before putting out a finished product, then yes that album cost a large sum of money to produce. but then it's also silly to pay good money to sit in a studio and write songs from scratch. so, overall consider this: if each record cost an amount of money to produce that was proportionate to the money earned from sales...there would be no filthy rich record executives. in short downloading music for free doesn't take money from artists, it takes money from the companies who take money from artists. no, this doesn't make you robin hood, but it makes record companies minor victims of their own greed. as far as the artists who aren't major international stars...the cd's still cost only a few cents each to roll off the line, then charge maybe $5 for the cd in the store, and let the executive be happy with making a living instead of a fortune. final summary: yes it's illegal, but not in the least immoral.

Re:p2p, intellectual property and the rest by zotz · 2005-03-31 01:45 · Score: 1

"so the producers and record company makes $14-$19 per sale."

Perhaps if they are selling direct, but things do not play out that way in the retail world.

Now, I am not happy with how things stand, but on the whole, we will be better off getting the facts right. (I think we can be fairly certain they will not.)

And for a little conspiricy theory...

Since you posted as AC, how do we know you are not from the ??AA and club and posting things as your opponents that you can then argue against?

all the best,

drew

Files that you can legally put on most (perhaps all) p2p networks:

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A %22drew%20Roberts%22

--
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-31 00:33 · Score: 0

Even that sainted icon of populist liberalism, Paul Wellstone, voted for the DMCA. I wrote his office and they defended it. I suppose it is a pleasant conceit to think that taking Hollywood campaign money instead of arms dealer money causes less damage in the long run, but apparently, even in Wellstone's mind, Hollywood campaign money overruled the idea that someone with a linux machine might want to play a DVD he actually purchased. [Remember, U.S. folks, 5 years in a federal pen for using libdvdcss on a linux box to play your DVD collection.]

So I welcome anyone with some clout who wants to shout about the imbalance. I've gotten really tired of "Well, I didn't actually read the bill before I voted for it" or "I guess I'm just an old fool who didn't really understand the ramifications of what I was voting for". If someone has the resources to do the social engineering to make issues like this public enough that those excuses go away, good for him.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by SilverspurG · 2005-03-31 00:35 · Score: 1

It's also quite easy to kill someone. Does that in your opinion make it right?

Ridiculous. The loss of life is in no way comparable to replication of IP. You do see the difference between death and sharing don't you?

If I want to have sex with your girlfriend or wife and I need to do you away, does owning a gun somehow make it ok?

Again, ridiculous. Raping my girlfriend at gunpoint while holding me back at gunpoint is in no way comparable to the replication of IP. You do see the difference between violence and sharing don't you?

So why didn't you sue them?

Because IP gives no rights to authors or inventors. Rights only belong to the people who bought the IP. You sold your product. They bought it. They own the IP and they are free to share it. Similarly you still own your IP and are free to share it or sell it to anyone else. If you don't like it then deal in a product which isn't so easily copied.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.

To pull a Kevin Bacon... by Kjella · 2005-03-31 00:41 · Score: 1

Therein lies the problem.. Are all the hundreds of millions people on P2P your friends? I see nothing wrong with a few copies between friends.

I'm not friends with hundreds of millions of people. But I'm friends with dozens, and if I share with them, and they share with their friends, and they share with their friends... The actual result is pretty much the same as when we skip the intermediaries. Particularly since there were intermediaries before too (do you have X? No, but ask Y, he might...)

But when over two thirds of current network traffic is people sharing stuff, I think it takes a tremendously selfish person to not see anything wrong with it.

Very selfish to see that much sharing? I think there's a contradiction in there somewhere. At least say "people sharing other's IP without permission" if you're going to make it sound like a bad thing. Otherwise you group OSS, free content and personal material right along lawbreakers.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by SilverspurG · 2005-03-31 00:44 · Score: 1

I'm talking about rights, you know, the vague concept you think doesn't exist

There is a natural right to share anything which you own. If you sell something you own to someone else then they own it and they have a right to share it. If you don't like it then raise the price before the sale or safeguard the medium. Litigation after the point of sale is unacceptable.

If you go out, you accept all risk of being shot. So what?

Now we're on the same page. Live at your own risk and accept responsibility for your actions. If you sell something to someone then you accept responsibility for having sold it. If you sell something which is easily copied then you know full well they may copy it. You accept that risk at point of sale. You do not have the right to legally harass your customers if you miscalculated the cost of business. Some businesses thrive and some fail. That is the way of the world.

It's your own fault. It's not something that the government is responsible for.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by El+Camino+SS · 2005-03-31 01:26 · Score: 1

That may be true, but there are enough people out there that really do think like that to justify my statements.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-31 01:37 · Score: 1, Insightful

It did lose its value because copyright gives you a monopoly and a monopoly can charge more than the free market will bear. Why should taxes I pay be used to protect your IP when I get nothing for it?

IP is worth what someone will pay for it. No more and no less. For some, that may be a thousand pounds for others they may require you pay them for the complete waste of an hours' worth of their life.

IP protections are a pragmatic consideration NOT a moral one. There is no moral right to stop people copying your stuff. There is also no moral right in doing the copying. Morals do not work here. Pragmatic concerns are all.

This one goes a lot deeper than piracy by salesgeek · 2005-03-31 01:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

Yesterday I was discussing this case with a friend who is a VP at a major broadcast media company based out of Indianapolis. His perspective on the case was chilling:

Peer to Peer has the potential to eventually make it possible for individuals to run their own broadcast media because it makes the cost of bandwidth trivial. We could be put out of business by hundreds of people running media outlets out of their basements.

This whole battle never made sense until he explained the major media perpective - they are very afraid of what happens when you are able to bake yur own shows and then stream or podcast them. Right now, most individuals can't afford the bandwidth... but as the newer P2Ps become more popular... the cost of the bandwidth isn't the issue any more. And when anyone can crank out a program... at decent quality... it becomes very hard for large corporations to compete successfully.

--
-- $G

Re:This one goes a lot deeper than piracy by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-31 02:16 · Score: 0

So? If they can't compete sucessfully, then they deserve to crumble and die. Hand-set printing presses couldn't compete successfully with the typewriter. Typewriter manufacturers couldn't compete successfully with word processors on personal computers. If they want to stay in business, then find new ways to make money. Maybe this new source of competition for them will mean they will start producing better movies/TV shows/music.

Competition is a Good Thing.
Re:This one goes a lot deeper than piracy by EvilNight · 2005-03-31 02:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ah, someone found out the truth.

I just can't see how this is a bad thing. If I want to make shows in my basement, and distribute them via the internet, it is none of the big media's business or concern. Last time I checked, they did not have the exclusive right to be the sole broadcasters and media content creators in America. Let's be honest here, shows like Wayne's World or Mr. Rodger's Neighborhood are quite doable for next to no budget in a basement scenario. Their fears are quite justified.

Maybe they'll have to compete on quality again someday. What a goddamn greek tragedy that would be.

--
Hell is being intelligent in a world full of idiots.
Re:This one goes a lot deeper than piracy by CFTM · 2005-03-31 03:24 · Score: 1

I know other posters have already touched on this point but I can't help but be redundant ... I'm on /. afterall and I have to make MY point!

To me, that's quite possibly the most insidious thing I have ever heard. I mean no direct disrespect to your friend, but to the institution of mass media I am completely and utterly appauled. We exist in a free market economy; this free market economy was the reason why these mass media outlets were able to rise to the top. They had some sort of advantage over all the other guys who were doing media; maybe they produced better stuff, maybe they just convinced people through advertising that they had better stuff, maybe they really sucked and we were all too stupid to realize it and supported them but the fact is we're a free market economy. There concerns about this are justified in the sense that they need to prepare to COMPETE with this not crush it before it happens. That's not free market, that's socialism.
Re:This one goes a lot deeper than piracy by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-31 03:32 · Score: 0

We exist in a free market economy

Technically speaking, we're really the farthest thing from a free market given the tens of thousands of pages of laws regulating our economy. That aside however...

In their minds the free market economy exists to provide them with limitless profit. In their minds the world owes them the right to Get Rich Quick. In their minds they're not required to respect the natural rights of their fellow human beings. Indeed, in their minds, their fellow citizens are nothing more than indentured servants to be compensated with just enough money to provide for their own housing and food. What self-respecting slave owner wants to spend his time providing food and shelter for his subjects? In their minds they, personally, are the only ones entitled to the opportunity to advance their lot in life.

And they write the rules, too.
Re:This one goes a lot deeper than piracy by chord.wav · 2005-03-31 03:52 · Score: 1

Remindme of this quote:

"..The consequence is that mainstream media still dominates public opinion - and reputation molding - because it is brief, consistent, and seemingly coherent. It's the difference between a floodlight and a laser. The floodlight may illuminate more broadly, but the coherent, parallel light of a laser punches through steel.."

Nicholas Carrol - Spining the Web, the realities of online reputation management
Whole thing here

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by CDarklock · 2005-03-31 02:07 · Score: 1

I personally liked this quote from the article:

"If you steal, you are wrong. You should have to deal with the consequences. We have plenty of laws on the book to make sure that happens."

That's smart. It underscores what a lot of people forget... that piracy via P2P networks doesn't really need to be specifically outlawed, because it's already illegal.

--
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by zotz · 2005-03-31 02:12 · Score: 1

"I should be the only person allowed to decide who gets to copy the music I've made (=duplicat the results of my work)."

Why exactly? There are plenty of other people who produce things from their intellect the way you produce music from your intellect who are offered no protection for their creations.

If you answer is because the law says so, you then need to tell us why the law "should" say so.

"And it so happens that I choose to only allow those who pay me for the work that I've put into it to do so. By stating that I should now allow anyone to make copies you are taking away my right."

Let's imagine that all copyright law was abolished tomorrow.

What will you do? You could perhaps sign a contract with people you hand over your work to specifying the terms of the deal you both agree to. So, you will now not have published your work and the world will not have rights to it.

Some may be totally against copyrights (or at least some think they are and some are) but I figure most who are against the current state of affairs are just that. They would be happy to support a more sane state of affairs.

Many people (many of them ordinary people) around the world are working hard to bring about a change for the better. Many are giving of their time, many of their money.

"Let's just say that the IP gravy train has ended."

He may be right. (I don't like the "IP" meme however.) He may not be. I would like to see the current state of affairs drastically changed. However, I would also like to see it become easier for the single artist/practioner to make a comfortable living doing what they love.

I have little faith that either of these will happen while the current big boys have their way.

all the best,

drew

--
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by SilverspurG · 2005-03-31 02:23 · Score: 1

With that price they are given the rights to share the video

In all reality it is impossible to dictate what someone does with a product which they've legally purchased and tangibly own. I for one do not wish to play cat and mouse games for the next 70 years that I'm on this planet. Everyone has the right to share whatever they've bought because it's natural. The alternative--litigation after the point of sale--is destructive, alienates customers, and creates criminals and strife where there was nothing but peaceful commiseration and sharing.

If the media companies feel they're getting a raw deal by selling a product which is easily shared for $15 then they're free to raise the price at the point of sale or pursue the cat and mouse game of proactive media protection. Litigation over a product after the point of sale is both intolerable and preposterous. If large companies want to have the same rights as citizens then they need to learn that there is no right to extort citizens in the name of profit. Businesses either thrive or they don't. It's not up to the government to provide protection for a business model which technology has made obsolete.

As an addendum I legally own better than 99.9% of my music and video collection. I do not have illicit (under current law) copies of any movies or more than about 30 tunes. I do not participate in p2p apps (I don't trust that p2p programmers are properly skilled in the concepts of network security) nor do I publicly offer any of my collection to the open network. I'm just sick and tired of the whining coming from people who feel they can regulate the rain and the air. "The road to hell..." and all that.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by zotz · 2005-03-31 02:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

"They should probably be punished the way that speeders are.

Instead, this "crime" of copyright "theft" is treated almost like a capital crime."

Not even speeders. Go back to it being a civil issue and to having to prove damages.

That will remove a lot of opposition.

Bring the copyright durations in check. (Reduce them drastically.)

That will remove a lot more oppossition.

When you run ads (or any other efforts) trying to "educate" the public on copyright issues, tell the truth and tell both sides. Explain to them whay copying they do is considered legal for once will you?

That will remove even more opposition.

Keep you whole catalog (all works for which you own the copyrights) available to the public at or below current mass market prices for the current hits. This could easily be done via a POD (publish on demand) company.

Still more oppostion gone.

Stop playing these region games. Or at least find a way to have them stop shafting the people of the various regions. Honestly, if there is no legal means for people in a country to buy your content, STOP complaining when they copy it without your permission. (You won't give it!) Along with this, take language issues into account.

Opposition waning further.

Get the drift?

Finally, stop opposing others who are creating and giving away their works to others who are willing to share similarly.

all the best,

drew

--
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by zotz · 2005-03-31 02:38 · Score: 1

"Well, I have the standard issues with the concept of copyright violation as "stealing," but I don't have any innate problem with the idea of copyright violators being civilly prosecuted for such violations of civil rights.

I do have some problems with fairly recent changes to the law and its perception (such as civil rights violations as criminal theft of property) which broadens what is protected, for how long it is protected, what may be done to protect it, criminalizes violations and makes abhorent means available to prosecute violations."

Hear! Hear!

Isn't this now a federal crime? If convicted, aren't you now a felon? Will you lose your right to vote? If so, not only will you get burned by a crazy law, but when you get done, you will no longer have the right to vote and try to change things. That's a cool plan, right?

all the best,

drew

--
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free

Betting on bandwidth remaining expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-31 03:09 · Score: 0

Peer-to-Peer aside, you might want to mention to your friend that betting on bandwidth remaining expensive is not a good career move. I tried to find a graph of falling bandwidth prices, but I am sure that many people on Slashdot are far more qualified to discuss bandwidth prices than I.

Re:Betting on bandwidth remaining expensive by rhandir · 2005-03-31 05:43 · Score: 2

Here's your graph, from 2000: http://www.phoneplusmag.com/articles/i061p20.gif
If you'd like something more recent, I can't help you. But if you check http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=C0_15_1 you should be able to find somtething.

Lost cause... by TheGreatGraySkwid · 2005-03-31 03:20 · Score: 1

'...take an active role in pressuring your local representatives to do "The Right Thing".'

I live in Texas, you insensensitive clod!

--
The Humblest Mollusk on the Net

Major broadcast media's decline: bring it on! by Anonymous+Meoward · 2005-03-31 04:07 · Score: 1

Not that I want your friend to become unemployed, but I've pretty much opted out as a customer of American mainstream broadcast media. Doing so is surprisingly easy these days.

There are still some decent content on U.S. TV (the Simpsons, almost anything on Turner Classic Movies), but 90% of it is crap that I easily ignore. We're cable customers, but we can barely justify the expense, other than the broadband access.

Public and internet radio fill the music and news requirements in our house. And there's the Beeb..

If Big Broadcast Media choked to death on its own vomit, we might not even notice it.

--
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by jacquesm · 2005-03-31 06:04 · Score: 1

There's nothing harder than to have to give up 'easy money' and to go back to working for a living.

Nothing wrong with it either, it happens to almost everybody who had 'easy money' at some point in their life and forgot to plan for what they were going to do if it ever failed to come in.

Sounds like instead of whining here on / you should go out and try to find some employment before your 'kid starves'. I've been there at some point in the past - that almost starving kid -, no housing and so on and fought my way out of it, whining was not an option. Which makes me think that you either don't have a real problem just yet (you'd have no time to whine) or you're out of touch with reality and somehow hope for the gravy train to start up again.

Honest advice: Shut down that computer and go and do something that makes you some money today instead of bitching here.

--
MP3 Search Engine

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by jacquesm · 2005-03-31 06:18 · Score: 1

so now we get to the meat of the matter. It's ok to use the internet as a distribution medium when it suits you, but others can not use the internet as a distribution medium when it suits them...

that's not fair.

Oh, and on the subject of 'rights', as the RIAA where Janis Ian's last royalty check went, she's waiting for it and while not exactly starving I think she has a 'right' to that check, more than you have a 'right' to your sales. You fantasize what your sales would have been in some alternative universe that would have come to pass had those evil peer-to-peer people not shared your album, but in real life you have to admit that you really don't know what sales would have been. Maybe they would have stayed level, maybe they would have gone down, maybe they would have gone up... but you'll never know which. All you really know is that your sales tanked and that you draw inference from the fact that your files where shared on p2p networks at about the same time that you 'lost money', but that's not proof, it's just conjecture.

Maybe the music sucks, maybe the peer to peer thing really did kill it, nobody knows.

But bitching about it is not going to change anything.

I write software for a living, I got burned badly once so I don't do open source. Closed source works for me, makes me good cash, even though my customers can copy the software in a heartbeat.

I also use the internet as a medium for distribution, both to reach my customers as well as a way to run services at a level that I could not dream of if the net would not have been there.

I did have to 'change my approach' because of the net, and am now much more service oriented (and that's still in development, even after 6 years) than I used to be.

Piracy of any 'intangible' is going to be a matter of fact. The hard part for you seems to be investing a good chunk of cash into something that you *hoped* would pan out.

If I only had 10K I surely would not spend it on something as risky as a small time record release, I'd save it for a rainy day and go to work on something that would not involve a gamble of that magnitude. I know that's hindsight, but really enough other people have been there and done that so claiming ignorance about the reality of file sharing on the net after napster hit is really not an option.

--
MP3 Search Engine

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-31 06:21 · Score: 0

You sound like a bitter, hateful, pathetic little troll. Just because programmers who wouldn't settle for proper compensation had their jobs outsourced to programmers who would settle for proper compensation doesn't mean that you have the right to reproduce someone else's work to sell it for your profit.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by CFTM · 2005-03-31 06:26 · Score: 1

I agree that you should be paid for any intellectual property that you produce, what I do not agree with is the draconian approach currently being taken by the *IAA. The issue here is really about the nature of a free market economy as well as freedom of information and protecting our civil liberties. From my perspective, those are the issues that we need to be dealing with. It does us no good to focus on stealing because that is just a sidenote, in my mind, to what the case is really about. Just my two cents ...

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-03-31 08:30 · Score: 1

There's nothing harder than to have to give up 'easy money' and to go back to working for a living.

If it's so easy, why isn't everyone making music, then?

I have worked really hard to get where I am, musically, today. Harder than you can ever imagine. Somehow it's now right for everyone else to take the results of that work for free, because they can.

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-03-31 08:34 · Score: 1

I agree that you should be paid for any intellectual property that you produce, what I do not agree with is the draconian approach currently being taken by the *IAA.

You know what, I am not perfectly happy with the RIAA, either. But then again, I have nothing to do with them, either. That doesn't mean I take it lightly when someone suggests that all the work I've done in the past 20 years is now worthless because it can be so easily distributed over the Internet.

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by jacquesm · 2005-03-31 08:43 · Score: 1

Agreed, music isn't 'easy', but once the dough starts rolling in you don't actually have to go out and do much to get that recurring income.

I know it takes a lot of effort to make good music, everybody that knows me will readily agree I'm a lousy musician :)

Still, music is a *luxury*, and to be able to live off making music a bigger luxury still. For the longest time (pretty much until the advent of the record player) living off your music meant touring and performing. None of that 'steady life' feeling while being able to rake in the dough.

Music does not really count as a marketable skill unless you have tons of connections or are literally able to dedicate your life to it. But even then you can not reasonably expect to have a 'right' to make a living of it.

Look at this whole episode this way: If you have spent 10K and lost it you have gambled a lot of your kids potential food, and the copy cats are not the ones who are to blame, you are. I know that's harsh, but by externalising the blame for the situation you are really trying to sidestep the issue, which is: what are you going to do about it ?

Obviously music as a living is currently not in the cards, so I hope there's other stuff you can do besides that. I commend you for trying, but no harm in failing, 8 out of 10 business ventures fail, and 2 of the 10 will manage to sustain themselves. One in a hundred or so becomes a cash cow.

Another thing is that even though you've lost 10K you should probably count your blessings. If this thing had been moderately successful you might have done it again at the expense of a lot of time, which you could spend better at making back that cash you just lost and moving on to something with more profit.

Music as a hobby ? Great ! Music for a living ? No thanks, too many factors out of your control.

I really wish you good luck, it's not easy to have a kid (and possibly a spouse) and literally no food on the table. But it says more about your planning abilities (as it said a lot about mine when I found myself in that situation) than about the 'meanness' of those who pirate your music.

To them, it's just another song, if they weren't playing yours they'd be playing someone elses, to you it's your life. I can see both sides in perspective, time for you to move on and check your priorities. Unfortunately there is no automatic right to an income from ones hard work.

Come to think of it when I worked hardest I earned the least and vice versa, which is one thing I never really understood.

--
MP3 Search Engine

Patents by PunkOfLinux · 2005-03-31 08:57 · Score: 1

I agree with the people who say that they are taking advantage of everyone. Frankly, I doubt the artists care as long as they get enough money to live comfortable. I know for a fact that I (personally) with a 1k a year budget, have BETTER things to spend my money on than a 15$ cd with 10-12 songs on it, most of which suck hardcore style. Really, lower your prices. YOU'LL MAKE MORE MONEY THAT WAY!!

--
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-03-31 21:05 · Score: 1

Agreed, music isn't 'easy', but once the dough starts rolling in you don't actually have to go out and do much to get that recurring income.

None of that 'steady life' feeling while being able to rake in the dough.

It's not really like that, in my experience. You'll have to be constantly out there gigging, doing interviews, etc. Every new album sells for a few weeks, but then there is normally a sharp decline. To even release an album per year requires a huge effort, so you have to live off just one product for a long time. Personally, I don't know anyone who would have got rich by making music, even all the "name" bands I know only have average income, even though the media would like us to think otherwise. Even a lot of the limousines and other crap is normally provided by the record company as an 'image building' effort, not by the artists themselves.

I know that's harsh, but by externalising the blame for the situation you are really trying to sidestep the issue, which is: what are you going to do about it ?

What I'm going to do is stand up for my rights. When people start saying things such as "there's no such thing as IP" or "it's my god-given right to share [your work]", I voice my opposing opinion. Distributing copyrighted material without consent is illegal, and it should stay that way. I'm even fine with the large fines when it's done at an outrageously large scale. That's what I'm raving about. I don't mind friends sharing with friends at all, but the efficiency of P2P is outrageous. I could log on to a P2P network right now and download my whole catalog with just a few mouse clicks. Do you really think that's fair? Are you honestly saying that my right for getting compensated for my work isn't being stumped on?

The fact is, there have always been people who were prepared to pay for my music. It has given me an "OK" living, just like it has for many others. I don't think that the value these people saw in this music has vanished - they still get enjoyment from my hard work, and if it weren't possible for them to get it for free, I'm sure they'd still carry on paying a modest sum of money for it.

Granted, there are some people in the music biz making lots more money than they need. But they aren't even the tip of the iceberg. Besides, jealosy is as bad as greed in my book, so to me basing one's opinion on IP or whatever on Bill Gates, Britney, 50cent and such alone is just ignorance.

But even then you can not reasonably expect to have a 'right' to make a living of it.

I don't expect that at all! I'm perfectly fine with people not buying my albums. I'm not fine with people who do not buy my albums, but download them off a P2P, listen to them for enjoyment, share them to a 100,000,000 unknowns while claiming that it's their "right" to do so for whatever reason. There's a difference.

But it says more about your planning abilities (as it said a lot about mine when I found myself in that situation) than about the 'meanness' of those who pirate your music.

I still fail to see the logic in this. It's hard to make "buying" easier than from a P2P. When you've got the exact same product obtainable with the same amount effort, one of which costs money and one which doesn't, what are you going to plan, exactly? There are still people who aren't using P2P and buy CD's instead, but what about 5 years from now? 10 years? Why should I carry on making music, if the public opinion persists that as soon as an album is recorded, it's worthless and everyone should be allowed to freely make copies of it. Why should anyone?

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by jacquesm · 2005-04-01 05:59 · Score: 1

> Why should I carry on making music, if the public opinion persists that as soon as an album is recorded, it's worthless and everyone should be allowed to freely make copies of it. Why should anyone?

That is an *excellent* question to ask, and the answer appearantly is 'no'. Nobody forces you to be in the music business.

The problem here is that times change, and what was a potential living (even potentially lucrative) may not be a living next year. So, if instead of 'standing up for your rights' (which does not seem to have any tangible effect other than that it lets you blow off steam) you shift along with the changing times then I'm pretty sure you'll be able to get some food back on the table. 'Standing up for your rights' may feel good but it won't feed you and your family, simple as that.

I don't even think that most people sharing your album via peer-to-peer are doing so out of malice, they probably do so because they think the music is nice and have no idea who you are or what your situation is.

One thing I would do if I were a musician is to release the files myself, make sure they're lousy quality and put a url in the filename where you can get the album. That way you use peer to peer for yourself instead of having it use you.

Think of it as free publicity. And sure, there's tons of 'leeches' out there, people that will use your services and do anything to try not to pay for it, and if you're in a line of business where all you really do is produce bits (after all is said and done, the fact that both audio and video are 'information' does not really help here) makes making a living off those bits without a proper control mechanism impossible.

And no laws or anything at all is ever going to change that, to the 'common man' it's just a feeling of getting back at the music companies and the insanely rich (the ones that are in the news all the time) for fleecing them for years.

Sure, nobody forced anybody to buy cd's, but that's the way people are, usually a little less than rational.

Again, if you insist on making money off music then you're fine in doing that but that road right now is full of perils, better dig up some other marketable skill that is less easy to pirate.

For me it meant a switch from licensed software to a service model, the music equivalent would be to go touring and charge for access. But you have to be damn good and have a bit of a 'name' to make that work and I don't know if that's an option.

Also you seem to generalise about 'all' people that would buy your music. Keep in mind that if you sell your music over the internet that you are literally selling it to the people that have the means and opportunity to do that which you fear most (pirate your music). If you were to do
mail order and catalogue sales only that chance would be a little smaller.

Most sales in the music world are 'repeat sales' to people that already know you and that you can hit up easier the next time around (provided you can produce something of constant quality). So based on that you can use your existing customer base to get some recurring cash in the knowledge that a few weeks (or days, or sometimes hours) after you do your release it will be on kazaa or whatnot. And if that risk is too large then you will just have to adapt and move on to something else, it happens to almost everybody at least once, and the thing that I have noticed is that the people that eventually make it and those that do not differ in only one respect, they don't whine or bitch, they act and move on.

Cut your losses while you can, cross out the money you have invested, take up that new hobby of yours called 'music' that you may or may not make some money of one day (but probably not any time soon) and get it over with...

--
MP3 Search Engine

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Anonymous Coward · 2005-04-01 07:06 · Score: 0

Adjust the sale amount and the medium properly In a surprised move today the recording industry announced that all CD's would hence forth cost $250,000 each. "We tried to charge a fair amount to each consumer on the assumption they would respect the copyright laws, but it turns out that they define 'freinds' as people they have never had contact with before a digital agent contacted his digital agent via the internet. Fortunately this wise sae 'SilverspurG' informed us the trick was adjust the sale amount to compensate for our lost revenue. Voila! Our new sales goal is 3!

Its like a 3 year olds view of communism, your stuff is share stuff, my stuff is mine.

Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light by Flaming+Foobar · 2005-04-03 22:17 · Score: 1

That is an *excellent* question to ask, and the answer appearantly is 'no'. Nobody forces you to be in the music business.

The ultimate result of devaluing art is that no more will be made. I consider that a step backwards, but it seems we are heading back towards barbarism, anyway.

The problem here is that times change.

No. The problem is that some people want something for nothing. But you can't simply wish the concept of intellectual property (it's just another term for content!) away, no matter how much you'd like it to vanish.

So, if instead of 'standing up for your rights' (which does not seem to have any tangible effect other than that it lets you blow off steam)

Copyright law still exist, don't they? There are two parties arguing. One is for copyright and the other one is against. If myself and others who support artists' rights shut up, there'll be no more copyright law next year. So my standing up for my rights does have a defensive effect, even though you wish not to see it.

For me it meant a switch from licensed software to a service model, the music equivalent would be to go touring and charge for access. But you have to be damn good and have a bit of a 'name' to make that work and I don't know if that's an option.

Again, I'd be fine if the world was suddenly full of artists doing free gigs and giving out their music for free on the Internet. I'm perfectly fine with open source software. In fact, I applaud and embrace the OSS movement. But it's their choice to give away their work. I still feel it's wrong when people make illegal copies of Microsoft software, even if the company is filthy rich.

The world didn't get where it is today by giving up to anarchy. Your suggestion of changing profession is silly at best. I'll do it when people think my music sucks and they prefer something else. Not when they decide that it is their god-given right to benefit from my hard work while stumping on my constitutional rights.

--
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done

Slashdot Mirror

Interview With Mark Cuban About Grokster

209 comments