Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light
by
Eptisam
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Our side is not to sue when unlawful behavior takes place?
Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light
by
Lu+Xun
·
· 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
CSMastermind
·
· 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:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· 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
·
· 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.
legitimate uses of P2P
by
bcrowell
·
· 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.
Modern altruism
by
FlyByPC
·
· 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...
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
·
· 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
jamienk
·
· 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!
Rather...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"We didn't agree with Betamax in the first place."
Re:Golf Magazine?
by
filtur
·
· 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.
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:P2P is not illegal
by
lemnik
·
· 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)).
He's helping fund the fight
by
Fox_1
·
· 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
Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light
by
tricops
·
· 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
·
· 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.
I see that future too...
by
Kjella
·
· 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:Past is prologue
by
WhataFreak
·
· 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:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light
by
kfg
·
· 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
Re:Tempest and the tea cup....
by
zappepcs
·
· 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.
Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· 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
Flaming+Foobar
·
· 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
·
· 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.
Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light
by
SilverspurG
·
· 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
Anonymous Coward
·
· 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.
Re:Where did they get their stats?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· 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:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light
by
zotz
·
· 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:This one goes a lot deeper than piracy
by
EvilNight
·
· 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:Tempest and the tea cup....
by
jratcliffe
·
· 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:no dangling from gallows!
by
WhataFreak
·
· 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.
Slashdot Mirror
Our side is not to sue when unlawful behavior takes place?
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!
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?
No, our side is the one that knows the difference between stealing and copyright infringement.
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.
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.
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.
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!
"We didn't agree with Betamax in the first place."
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.
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.
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)).
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
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!
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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
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.
"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.
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.