They seem to disagree
by
CSMastermind
·
· 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.
P2P is not illegal
by
Mantus
·
· 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.
no dangling from gallows!
by
Cryofan
·
· 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
Cryofan
·
· 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
Nashville Copyright Activists
by
SonicSpike
·
· 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.
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
·
· 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.
Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light
by
El+Camino+SS
·
· 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
Re:So, what's it to him?
by
Ctrl+Alt+De1337
·
· 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.
King Canute comes to mind
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· 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.)
Where did they get their stats?
by
Mr.+Ophidian+Jones
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
"90% of files transmitted were copyrighted files."
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:legitimate uses of P2P
by
shark72
·
· 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.
Well, depends on what you mean by disagree.
by
einhverfr
·
· 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.
Re:legitimate uses of P2P
by
WarwickRyan
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
>Continuing with this logic, we should outlaw guns
Finally a good idea.
I take extreme offence to this
by
gnu-sucks
·
· 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...
This one goes a lot deeper than piracy
by
salesgeek
·
· 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.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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
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.
/.'ers.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.)
"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?
"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.
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
>Continuing with this logic, we should outlaw guns Finally a good idea.
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...
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