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
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.
Rather...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"We didn't agree with Betamax in the first place."
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: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.
Slashdot Mirror
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?
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.
"We didn't agree with Betamax in the first place."
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".
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