Mark Cuban was one of the few dot-com millionaires smart enough to cash in his chips and leave the table before the bust.
He went on to buy the Dallas Mavericks and make a big jackass of himself ever since, but the sort of jackass who is fun to have around at a party.
He has been fined by the NBA for unsportmanlike conduct more than any other owner... probably more than any team owner in the history of sports.
He recently produced a "reality TV" program which was sort of a low-rent version of the Apprentice, in which he gave a million dollars away, making the contestants do really stupid shit and eliminating the losers on the basis of his own fickle whims.
--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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.
Re:They seem to disagree
by
Propagandhi
·
· Score: 4, Funny
That quote MGM quote should read: "I don't want Betamax to apply here."
Have to account for the lawyer spin..
Re: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
orson_of_fort_worth
·
· Score: 4, Funny
There's a few of us around here who are against stealing. We were hired to serve as sacrifical lambs.
Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light
by
CSMastermind
·
· 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?
No no - Gelf magazine. Like an adult Gelfling, from The Dark Crystal. It's the magazine for those with the essence of life.
Why they are covering it is beyond me.
Re:I'm gathering up the torches, you get the light
by
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.
Re:So, what's it to him?
by
CSMastermind
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Well if you read his blog entry covered on/. here: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/27/14 11245&tid=98 you'll know that he owns alot of digital content. If MGM wins this case they could potentially shut down a valuable means for him to get that content to his customers.
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.
Re:legitimate uses of P2P
by
kubrick
·
· Score: 5, Funny
If they think free porn is cool, they could post nude pictures of themselves on their blog.
Please, don't encourage them.
-- deus does not exist but if he does
Re:legitimate uses of P2P
by
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.
Re:legitimate uses of P2P
by
FidelCatsro
·
· Score: 2, Funny
We could call it Blorn , the *insert troll faviourit website about goat* changes from shock trolling , to Blorn journalism and becomes legit art
-- The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Re:legitimate uses of P2P
by
WarwickRyan
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
>Continuing with this logic, we should outlaw guns
Finally a good idea.
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...
Re:Golf Magazine?
by
Scrameustache
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Gelf magazine. Like an adult Gelfling, from The Dark Crystal. It's the magazine for those with the essence of life. Why they are covering it is beyond me.
The RIAA is secretly run by Skeksis executives.
--
You can't take the sky from me...
Mark Cuban's blog.
by
IconBasedIdea
·
· Score: 4, Informative
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.
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)).
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.
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: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: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: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.
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
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.)
The RIAA says music sales are down, more specifically they say sales of the top 100 cd are down and this is DUE TO PIRACY.
Well by Sales the Mean "Items Shipped to Stores" !
So all they Really Mean is Stores Stock Less.
In the US Nielsen Ratings are based on "Individual Sales to Customers" so are these REAL sales down?
"Soundscan recorded 146 million CDs sold in Q1 2003, against 160 million in Q1 2004 - an increase of nearly 10%. Figures for Q2, released this summer are expected to show yet another increase. The RIAA, on the other hand, are claiming a 7% decrease in revenue - but that's purely through managing shipments and returns."
Nope, Sales are up !!! By this more realistic definition Music Sales are up.
=> Therefore if we are to believe the RIAA but use a more realistic definition of sales then: FILE SWAPPING HAS INCREASED POPULAR MUSIC SALES.
It is about controlling the means of distribution.
Here is an Very Rigorous Academic Study of File Sharings Effect on Record Sales. The Conclusion:"File Sharing Has A Negligable Satistical Effect on Sales". http://www.p2pnet.net/zero/FileSharing_March2004.p df Here is A Japanese Study with much the same conclusion. http://www.iir.hit-u.ac.jp/file/WP05-08tanaka.pdf So the Lies are exposed, the **AA are just out to keep cartel control, make sure we only watch and buy what they have. Read How Exhorbitant Liscense Fees for Samples have crippled Modern Music in the excellent fast paced read. http://kembrew.com/documents/mcleod-freedomofexpre ssion3.pdf Freedom Of Expression by Kembrew McLeod also details many other ways in which Irresponsible Litigous Intellectual Property stifles research, innovation, cost millions of lives worldwide due to drug patents and holds back the development of important medicines for breast cancer due to human genome patents.
I think that P2P has revitalised Culture and learning, it has made the world a richer place and everyone has benefited from this, leechers, artists and business' alike.
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: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.
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:no dangling from gallows!
by
WhataFreak
·
· Score: 2
Maybe that's something for you to think about. Perhaps these "plutocrats" aren't always the terrible people that some stereotype them to be. Just food for thought.:)
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:no dangling from gallows!
by
SilverspurG
·
· Score: 2, Informative
they can continue to extort obscene profits from us for healthcare
Continuing on that thought...
There are about 3 major insurance companies in the world. Those three have dozens of subsidiaries. Those dozen subsidiaries have hundreds, maybe thousands, of corporations. What this means, however, is that the effect on profit margin anywhere can and will be compensated anywhere else. Consider the late 90s and into early 2000 when the bust happened. Those businesses were insured. Some investors, usually those closest to the top of the investment chain, recouped losses through business insurance. That was very costly for the insurance companies holding the policies. They can't be expected to take a loss, though, so they must recoup the losses somewhere.
It's no coincidence that the cost of health care began skyrocketing as the stock market tumbled. There's no coincidence that the cost of gasoline began skyrocketing as the stock market tumbled. It's little more than a pyramid scheme of recouping losses from one investment by raising the prices of another. Ultimately we, the American public paying car/home/health insurance, will pay to rebuild the vacation homes and posh resorts devastated by the earthquakes on the other side of the globe. I have no problem philanthropically helping people in need but I don't relish the idea of seeing my auto insurance rise on my paltry salary while a spoiled brat with a gigantic ego sips pina coladas in a beach chair that I (indirectly) bought.
A pub in my home area had a bumper sticker,"We screw the other guy to pass the savings on to you." Alan Greenspan, George Bush... they're just the figureheads for a group of people who are screwing the general populance in order to pass the savings on to themselves.
If one would write a computer simulation of the business world with our current taxation system, and another computer simulation of any two-bit MLM or pyramid scheme, the code would probably be indistinguishable.
-- fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Re: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.
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...
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.
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.
-- -- $G
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: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:Betting on bandwidth remaining expensive
by
rhandir
·
· Score: 2
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
Who the hell is Mark Cuban....?
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.
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!
There's a few of us around here who are against stealing. We were hired to serve as sacrifical lambs.
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 no - Gelf magazine. Like an adult Gelfling, from The Dark Crystal. It's the magazine for those with the essence of life.
Why they are covering it is beyond me.
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.
Well if you read his blog entry covered on /. here: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/27/14 11245&tid=98 you'll know that he owns alot of digital content. If MGM wins this case they could potentially shut down a valuable means for him to get that content to his customers.
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.
Read Mark Cuban's Blog where he talks more about this.
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Gelf magazine. Like an adult Gelfling, from The Dark Crystal. It's the magazine for those with the essence of life.
Why they are covering it is beyond me.
The RIAA is secretly run by Skeksis executives.
You can't take the sky from me...
Cubes has plenty of opinions on everything at his blog, but here's some more MGM v Grokster for you all... http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000237029704 /
http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000890030093 /
http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000523038163 /
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.
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.
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.
I still maintain that he's a megalomaniac who loves attention, but I also have to say I don't mind his efforts on behalf of our side of the issues. Besides, if I had been anywhere near as successful as him during the bubble I would be as bad if not worse (and I trip on my ego daily) - so power to him. Good thing though that he's helping fund, and not actually stepping into court himself to do the arguments.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
King Canute 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.)
The RIAA says music sales are down, more specifically they say sales of the top 100 cd are down and this is DUE TO PIRACY.
:
e ction=distribution&id=1222
p df e ssion3.pdf
Well by Sales the Mean "Items Shipped to Stores" !
So all they Really Mean is Stores Stock Less.
In the US Nielsen Ratings are based on "Individual Sales to Customers" so are these REAL sales down?
"Soundscan recorded 146 million CDs sold in Q1 2003, against 160 million in Q1 2004 - an increase of nearly 10%. Figures for Q2, released this summer are expected to show yet another increase. The RIAA, on the other hand, are claiming a 7% decrease in revenue - but that's purely through managing shipments and returns."
Nope, Sales are up !!!
By this more realistic definition Music Sales are up.
=> Therefore if we are to believe the RIAA but use a more realistic definition of sales then
FILE SWAPPING HAS INCREASED POPULAR MUSIC SALES.
Here is a Link with the sources http://digital-lifestyles.info/display_page.asp?s
People listen to more music than they buy.
The More Music People Listen to, the more they buy.
ADD in the spectacular rise of iTunes and Music Sales are through the roof.
File Sharing promotes music and increases sales.
Artists Win, The RIAA, wins, File Swappers Win, P2P wins - Everyone Wins !!!
It is about controlling the means of distribution.
Here is an Very Rigorous Academic Study of File Sharings Effect on Record Sales.
The Conclusion:"File Sharing Has A Negligable Satistical Effect on Sales".
http://www.p2pnet.net/zero/FileSharing_March2004.
Here is A Japanese Study with much the same conclusion.
http://www.iir.hit-u.ac.jp/file/WP05-08tanaka.pdf
So the Lies are exposed, the **AA are just out to keep cartel control, make sure we only watch and buy what they have.
Read How Exhorbitant Liscense Fees for Samples have crippled Modern Music in the excellent fast paced read.
http://kembrew.com/documents/mcleod-freedomofexpr
Freedom Of Expression by Kembrew McLeod also details many other ways in which Irresponsible Litigous Intellectual Property stifles research, innovation, cost millions of lives worldwide due to drug patents and holds back the development of important medicines for breast cancer due to human genome patents.
I think that P2P has revitalised Culture and learning, it has made the world a richer place and everyone has benefited from this, leechers, artists and business' alike.
"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?
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.
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
Maybe that's something for you to think about. Perhaps these "plutocrats" aren't always the terrible people that some stereotype them to be. Just food for thought. :)
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
There are about 3 major insurance companies in the world. Those three have dozens of subsidiaries. Those dozen subsidiaries have hundreds, maybe thousands, of corporations. What this means, however, is that the effect on profit margin anywhere can and will be compensated anywhere else. Consider the late 90s and into early 2000 when the bust happened. Those businesses were insured. Some investors, usually those closest to the top of the investment chain, recouped losses through business insurance. That was very costly for the insurance companies holding the policies. They can't be expected to take a loss, though, so they must recoup the losses somewhere.
It's no coincidence that the cost of health care began skyrocketing as the stock market tumbled. There's no coincidence that the cost of gasoline began skyrocketing as the stock market tumbled. It's little more than a pyramid scheme of recouping losses from one investment by raising the prices of another. Ultimately we, the American public paying car/home/health insurance, will pay to rebuild the vacation homes and posh resorts devastated by the earthquakes on the other side of the globe. I have no problem philanthropically helping people in need but I don't relish the idea of seeing my auto insurance rise on my paltry salary while a spoiled brat with a gigantic ego sips pina coladas in a beach chair that I (indirectly) bought.
A pub in my home area had a bumper sticker,"We screw the other guy to pass the savings on to you." Alan Greenspan, George Bush... they're just the figureheads for a group of people who are screwing the general populance in order to pass the savings on to themselves.
If one would write a computer simulation of the business world with our current taxation system, and another computer simulation of any two-bit MLM or pyramid scheme, the code would probably be indistinguishable.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
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.
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...
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.
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
"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
If you'd like something more recent, I can't help you. But if you check http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=C0_15_1 you should be able to find somtething.
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.