Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Cracks Down on Internet2 File Sharing
Daverd writes "Hundreds of students at 18 universities nation-wide have had lawsuits filed against them by the RIAA for filesharing over Internet2." The official RIAA Press Release and commentary at MSNBC is also available. From the article: "i2Hub has been seen as a safe haven, and what we wanted to do was puncture that misconception," said Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA. "This has been a subversion of the research purposes for which Internet2 was developed."
Yes, we all hate the *AA's but they were breaking the law, and bastardizing a research network.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
Who didn't see it coming? It was bound to happen.
You just cant keep 100 TB of files "hidden" for all that long. Considering all the press it got last year, I'm surprised it has even lasted even this long.
Also, don't forget our friends in the MPAA. In a short post by the author of the news.com.com article: "According to the RIAA, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) will be announcing similar action later today."
In case you don't read the article, here are the universities in question: Boston University, Carnegie Mellon University, Columbia University, Drexel University, Georgia Institute of Technology, Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Michigan State University, New York University, Ohio State University, Princeton University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Rochester Institute of Technology, University of California at Berkeley, University of California at San Diego, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, University of Pittsburgh and the University of Southern California.
Go RIT!
...RIAA was concerned about that Internet2 wasn't used for research only, and 'decided to help'. How kind of them...
Just don't download music and don't buy it. Most of it is crap and you DON'T need it. Seriously, if the RIAA once be a bunch of bitches about then send a message to them saying that you aren't going to help make their Beverly Hills Mansion payments or help them buy another diamond ring for their many hos.
-Dipster
Friends of mine have been confronted with demandings of some thousand s for sharing songs. No case was taken to court so long, and most of the time a smaller fee was payed to end the story
It is not clear if sueing someone based on illegal evidences (gotta have gotten your Adress over your IP from someone... hm... provider...) is legal...
Always run = ON
There is also an official press release from the people at i2hub, here: http://press.i2hub.com/i2hubpressrelease-4122005.p df.
i2hub doesn't host any files centrally, nor do they keep any indexes of files on the network, so they should be fine. P2P lives on another day.
How did the RIAA get access to Internet2 to begin with?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Oh! Thank goodness! RIAA to the rescue again! I was losing so much sleep over this and cannot fathom people sharing files.
*DING*
Oooh...the Star Wars Episode 3 soundtrack is finished downloading...BRB!
I am a meat popsicle.
I agree that this has been a subversion. What the heck was the RIAA doing on I2 in the first place! Find out how they gained access to it an remove thier hind end! I2 should be the sole domain of students and teachers and not accessable by industry.
How did they gain access to i2 anyways? I thought it was for educational use, and not for commercial use. Those bastards.
Is there a second internet, or is it something like bittorrent or some small group that runs on top of the internet? Is it like what the french have?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
"This is Lars Ulrich, drummer of Metallica. Last week, he purchased a gold plated shark table to be installed in his basement club. But because of file sharers, he has to wait another week. This is the home of P. Miller, his wife, and his 4 year old son. All little TImmy wanted was an island in French Polynesia with giraffes and wild horses running free. But this year, he'll have to settle for his own island in the Bahamas with white Siberian tigers." -South Park, changed a bit. The students did do wrong though. 19535^13 megabits per second should not be used to share One Night In Paris.
Since when is it the RIAA's job to enforce the Internet2 terms of service (or spirit or whatever)? Has Internet2 actually complained about all the file sharing?
Uhm, 1999 called and they want their bullshit excuses back. The general concensus on /. for several years has been that individual infringers should be punished and not the technology. Here, you have the RIAA doing just that, instead of trying to get I2 banned or restricted.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
In fact, forget the Internet3!
The only thing I hate more than hypocrites are people who hate hypocrites.
I remember back during the lawsuit when slashdotters were complaining that the RIAA wasn't suing the actual infringer. Now that they are suing the actual infringers, why is everyone complaining.
And no, the RIAA isn't going to sue you for making and mp3 rip of your friend's CD (although they would be within their rights to do sue). They are going to sue those who are doing the largest amount of copying. That used to be bootleggers, but it is now everyday Joe college students sharing hundreds of gigabytes of copyrighted material to everyone else on the Internet.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
I believe you meant to say:
"Yes, we all hate the *AA's *AND* they were breaking the law, and bastardizing a research network."
The RIAA is not an academic/research institution, and therefore had no business being on the I2 to monitor file sharing activity in the first place. They were abusing the network and probably breaking laws governing access to restricted computer systems to be on there at all.
But of course we all know it's perfectly all right to break in to other peoples' private networks, as long as you've got plenty of money and lawyers and lobbyists to back you up.
I'm sure the bribed/threateded/etc one of the I2 instutions to let them snoop traffic. What may be interesting is if someone chooses to fight these lawsuits. It may well be against the university's privacy policy to do what they did. I looked at ours, and letting any thrid party, except law enforcement with a warrant, monitor the network would be a violation.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Time to tear it down and start working on Internet3.
Unknown host pong.
Does anyone have any invites for Internet 3?
Slashdot Headline, 2010: RIAA cracks down on all network protocols.
/bin/cp binary on unix systems, CD and DVD burning devices, pens and pencils, and the freedom to hum and whistle tunes. The RIAA is working hard to enforce a mandatory cutting of vocal cords of all new babies born in the US, and the amputation of their arms so as to make their ability to infringe on Holy Copyrights more difficult.
In their everlasting and Glorious Crusade against music piracy, the RIAA has successfully lobbied congress to make the entire concept of networking illegal, as it has the potential to violate music copyright. Also covered by this broad new bill passed by congress are all forms of LAN protocols such as NFS and Samba. Computers will no longer be allowed to exchange information in any way.
Also covered by the bill is the
RIAA expects total victory over the human race within ten years.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
I wonder who narc'd everyone out?
Slashdot , News.com.com and i2hub.com did.
"This has been a subversion of the research purposes for which Internet2 was developed."
That kinda cracks me up. Wasn't the INTERNET created for military and research purposes? I guess we've already subverted that. Come on RIAA, you can sue, but at least know what you are talking about. Internet2 was created to replace the Internet. For now it's mostly about testing the technologies though, but the same goes from the Internet. It diversified. Oh well. Cool beans if you ask me.
WASTE - The Secure P2P
From the article it said that they weren't divulging how they got this information.
I don't think that the schools are ratting people out because of liability reasons (if the school is monitoring the network, then they have to report EVERY illegal action they see. If they don't monitor the network, then they don't have to report anything... )
The RIAA is certainly not a research institution, and if they are trying to get access to internet2 to "test" it for content delivery, then I can see an argument, but I think the (obvious) real motivation is just to catch filesharers. And that is morally wrong. Even if the filesharers are breaking a law, two wrongs don't make a right.
I'm not sure who is in charge of internet2, but I sure would like to hear that organization tell the RIAA that they're not welcome on internet2 if they're just going to spy on people. If the RIAA starts spending money on new (open) technologies and provides test services for students and researchers, etc... then that might be something. Until then, the RIAA should stay off internet2.
Back in November of '04 the RIAA petitioned to become a member of the Internet2 community. I don't know if they ever got their own network connection, but I remember them asking for one.
...when no matter how hard they try, no matter how many laws they buy, no matter how many sleazy tactics they pull, the amount of music shared over the internet keeps *increasing* rather than decreasing. From 12-year-old girls to 72-year-old grannies, everyone seems to be getting in on the game and no amount of whining/threatening/suing by the RIAA is making so much as a dent in the traffic.
Seems it's time to re-evaluate the situation and see if the law - and perhaps someone's business model - is in need of change.
(cue RIAA apologists)
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Based on the latest earnings of the m ovie industry I think we have just seen the opening night of "Laywers In Space"
shouldn't those behind inet2 have some way to tell the media corporations to "fuck right off" of the technology so it doesn't end up like the media/advertising whore that is internet 1?
Music, unlike diamonds, does not rely on a natural resource. I've yet to figure out why the hell people just don't switch to independent music. You'd be amazed at how good this type of music really is. You can go to a show for $0.00 to $10.00, RECORD it if you want, TRADE it at will usually, and the MAJORITY of the money goes to the artists!
The key here is that the MUSIC INDUSTRY is SUING the people IN COLLEGE who should simply REVOLUTIONIZE the industry! Go to your local jam band concerts, frequent the college shows, screw the big labels, use your own mind and broaden it. If the money goes independent, then so will the artists. And the artists who want to keep making sixty cents for every ten bucks their parent company makes can go right ahead. They're done getting my money.
Yes.
That has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter if you are charging money or not. It is still a violation of the copyright owner's IP.
Where the hell did this idea that it's okay if you don't charge came from?
If they feel it's worth the time and money, yes. Fair Use does not allow copies to be made in order to give to someone else. You may make backup copies of your copies for your own personal use.
I think you need to do a little research.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Internet2 isn't AOL - it's a research consortium with the government, top universities, and companies like Cisco, Nortel, Global Crossing, Microsoft, Qwest, Sun, etc. I think the students are going to be in *big* trouble on this one, and it could mean AUPs for everybody with stiff pentalties. They might even pull out some anti-hacking laws against these students.
Tristan Yates
(italian gangster voice) Bambino, you forgot the #1 rule of illegal file swapping... you must ENCRYPT.
Capisca? (slaps swapper's head)
Translation:
They were idiots. It's their own fault they got caught.
BTW, I also see Harvard and Princeton. I like that. Those are the guys who are damn good at shit like Law and turning a simple argument into a 5 year long case.
Harvard Student: "But your Honor, we have not examined how this law relates to the 1892 Kapskern case"
Judge: "Kapskern??"
Harvard Student: "Yes, it set a precident about if the tomatoe is a fruit or vegitable, and there are many parallels between that question and the question of sharing music".
Judge: Irrelevent, find something else.
Harvard Student: We motion for a continuance so we can file an appeal to this decision.
Judge: Case postponed for appelate review, we'll recovien in 4 months.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
If I take a Maxtor 300GB portable usb drive, plugs it into my pc, loads up with movies, and ships of to a friend? Huge capcity, overnight, or in a few days at least. And besides, ??AA has no real chance of uncovering such transfers.
Well, realistically. What about VPN? Having hard encryption easily obtainable, it should be trivial to share files with friends. If a key is signed by a large enough number of friends, trust it. Otherwise, discard. If a p2p net included strong cryptographi, and trust levels and/or ratings to users, it would be far more difficult for ??AA to eavesdrop those connections. At very least, they'd have to build up a trust, which would probably mean sharing...
Assembling etherkillers for fun an profit
Is it really possible that the RIAA would get I2 itself banned or restricted? Somehow I can't see that happening...
Aston Games
Time to start working on I3.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Huh?!? What's wrong with games, porn, and sharing of non-copyrighted files? No, sharing of copyrighted data without permission is the only muck they should be trying to clean up.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
for which the Constitution's copyright clause was conceived?
IIRC it was mainly one to make people create, not litigate...
If the founding fathers had imagined industries suing hundreds of students into oblivion (with copyrights extended into eternity), they would have scrapped the clause altogether, straight from the drafting board, back in the 18th century...
What did you expect, when the researchers are measuring the speed in units of DVDs! Here they boast about transfering a DVD in 4 seconds
And no, the RIAA isn't going to sue you for making and mp3 rip of your friend's CD (although they would be within their rights to do sue).
I have strong doubts that they will be within their rights to sue. I suspect this will fall well within fair use.
I don't know of a single attempt to prosecute a case like this. Do you?
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Is it just limited to students and faculty, or can it be ssh'ed into. How does it work?? What credentials do you need to access internet2?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Oh, wait, that is internet copyright infringment. Right, research. I had to download that Britney Spears album. For research. I needed to test my latest P2P app...
I see the http://members.internet2.edu/JoinInternet2.html page. But How does someone log into internet2. What is on there? Is there a cahce of internet2 on google or somewhere else?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
...*AA don't belong on I2. They aren't researchers, they aren't proper party to its development, their desires aren't germane to what I2 is for.
In addition to avoiding spending a single penny on any of their crud, sooner or later, they are going to go upgainst one or more people who will fight them tooth and nail in court in a to-the-death legal slugfest of attrition. All they are doing is making themselves look like greedy bastards.
I'm not paranoid that they will eliminate file sharing whether legal or questionable, or wipe out fair use altogether. I'm confident they'll lose in the end. It just amazes me that they can be so dense as to think lawsuit frenzy will win them converts to their arguments or make enough people fear them. They ain't the government and don't have its police powers, no matter how many suits they file.
How did they get on I2 and why? Is there an action that can be taken against them being there? Fine, supposed IP was being shared. Shotgunning lawsuits was not the answer. And to attack universities where the ratio of anti to pro corporate/ip-Nazi sentiment is so lopsided? They need to receive a Darwin Awards Lifetime Achievement trophy.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
I'm not doing all the work for you, click the link.
For context, click Parent.
There is no way the i2hub will be shut down haha. The fact that it is high-profile is one of its strengths as well as its weaknesses - people do share many legal things on i2hub also. For example, unlicensed anime, linux isos, books (speed = much better than say Project Gutenberg's website), and many other things.
The RIAA is just trying to be a bully once more but it won't work...the i2hub is not the RIAA's-music-sharing-hub, it is much more. So fuck off RIAA.
Also, I am not quite sure whether the RIAA is allowed to snoop on i2hub anyways.
And furthermore, all of the music coming from the big labels suck ass - go find some real music - college is one of the easiest places to learn of music outside of the big labels.
extending the story below. I liked the bit about
...
Quality digital content is a key driver that makes consumers embrace new services. You invest billions in your pipes and cables and satellites but without content you have empty pipes and boxes.... and Tony Soprano couldn't have put it better. "Nice content-carrying pipes you've got here. What a shame if anything were to happen to them... "
Excuse me Mr **AA, where's your content? The kids want product and they're gonna download it from wherever. I2 pipes, or even I2 styled pipes outside of the academic network, are ideal for this. I'll hazard a guess that most of the p2p downloaders would pay for a guaranteed quality file, over the distinctly spotty quality of some of the crap out there. Your duty, Mr **AA, to the consumers of the world is to provide quality content at affordable prices. Otherwise you'll just end up chasing fire engines
Isn't "file sharing" the reason we have Internet2? Or, Internet1 for that matter?
Nowhere in the article does it say that the shared files were copyrighted or pirated. Or music, or movies. It's only said that the I2 could allow super-fast doing so, but it does not say what was actually shared, or how the sharing was discovered.
I'm sure that there must have been illegal activity. However, unless it's clearly stated in the corporate media, people might start thinking that any and all file sharing is illegal, and this is simply not true.
It's a matter of keeping the public perception of the actual problem unmuddled.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
I am not aware of any attempts to prosecute a case like this, but I highly doubt that it is within fair use rights. If the person were ripping the MP3's for themselves, it is clearly within fair use rights. But letting other people make digital copies of a non-free copyrighted work is almost certainly not within fair use rights. However, almost no one would ever expend the expense and energy to litigate it.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
Copyright infringement occurs when you copy someone else's protected work.
Really?
Audio Home Recording Act of 1992:
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
Emphasis mine.
Clicky thing
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925
There's a little catch you would have learned in any standard civics or government book.
If a law is passed which conflicts with a previous law, the previous law is repealed simply by the passage of the new law. The DMCA damages fair use and so forth, and, like it or not, those laws were nullified to the extent that the DMCA overruled them.
For example, let's say we pass a law saying that the use and posession of marijuana is legal. Previous laws regarding marijuana are nullified. We don't have to go back and say that such-and-such sections of such-and-such bills are repealed, it just is by virtue of the newer bill.
I have boycotted ALL music purchase, If I can't listen to it on the radio, it doesn't get listened to in my house. Screw the RIAA! They have lost a customer for LIFE, I haven't purchased a CD in three years, and counting.
If Kerry was the answer, it must have been a stupid question.
The UN - The largest "political" cause of death.
and that's where what they look for comes into play. the sharing of the files is most likely not research, while downloading is. they don't sue you for downloading (hell, you could own the cd and just don't feel like ripping it to mp3 yourself for all they know), they sue you for sharing. it's the distribution that's illegal (and that they can more easily use to win a lawsuit against you).
please me, have no regrets.
I am curious about how the *AAs gained access to a restricted research network. Granted those people who were sharing non-research related files were probably violating the terms of use as well, but that does not excuse the unauthorized breaking and entry of the *AAs, if indeed that is how they got in, into a private research network. Couldn't the *AAs be busted too for breaking in or paying an insider? This is a legal grey area at the very least.
anyone know if this is actually effective?
Encryption only stops anonymous 3rd parties from overhearing the connections. It doesn't stop someone inside the network (i.e. with a valid account) from accessing someting that the system is designed to let them access.
There is NOTHING that prevents anyone from paying someone with an account to "look into" something for them. Even if the universities gave *AA the finger, there is 100% chance of finding some college kids willing to use their access to help the *AA for some $$$$.
Since they have valid access (i.e. the ability to dl the music, no matter how encrypted it is in transit) the game is over.
Encryption only works when you carefully grant access to a group and preclude everyone else. It is next to useless on a large file shareing system because they grant access to EVERYONE.
Spell check? Why bother. That is what grammer/spelling Nazi freaks who waiste band width posting "spell right" are for.
However, that use has to be by the consumer, not the consumer's friend. Thus, a person can make a recording for himself (or his family), but 17 U.S.C. 1008 would not cover giving the rip to a friend. (According to the Senate Report on the Audio Home Recording Bill).
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
How come no one just creates a p2p network where all data is encrypted with a simple algorithm. In order to access the files that you have downloaded to examine the contents, you have to "crack" the encryption on the file with a readily available tool. RIAA could never check to see if any files are copyrighted, because they would be violating the DMCA is they broke the encryption on the files.
Who is the RIAA to determine what is acceptable use of a research network? Their purview is the protection of the Copyrights they hold. Period. End of transmission.
For an experimental network such as the I2, the Universities and ARPA are the sole authority on the manner of use, so long as no laws are borken. And, FWIW, the article didn't actually say what exactly was the nature of the "illegal activity".
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
So the commercialization of the Internet(1) wasn't a perversion/subversion of the communications medium the Internet(1) was developed for?
"Never upset a goalie, getting hit with a blocker is an unpleasent experience - facemask or not." -Me
I mean, it's not like they'd LIE on their application to get on Internet2, right?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
...you're a distribution house. F*ck the RIAA, encrypt, obfuscate, bounce, authenticate and pay the artists directly (if possible), buy directly from the artists (if possible) and, as a last resort, buy the occasional cd thru traditional means. I'm sure there are others tired of being bullied into authoritarian contracts (ie big business capitalism), tired of seeing artists and the public being shafted by years of corruption, and, at the same time, being slapped for participating in a better solution than that being offered by the majors. It's starting to look like the war on drugs more and more... only there's alot more Nixons. A discrace to genuite artists. Tho, i suppose, if you're deluged by the sheer number of corporate sellout whores peddled thru corporate sellout channels, while drinking your pepsi, you'll no doubt be quite oblivious to this poison. It's about time that the RIAA publically acknowledged that the current state of musicality (the current state of societal music awareness, past and present) would be much less than without internet distribution. Get off your asses.
Distributing TV shows are legal? I don't think that is correct.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Somehow I can...
The best cure for insomnia is realizing that it is already time to get up. EsteEncanto.com - Blog on technology, urban
1. As a matter of conscious, illegal trading of music needs to stop. Period. Viable market alternatives are already in place which allow one to download/try music for $1/song.
2. DVD(s)/Movie p2p trading is even worse. 'Nuff said there.
* 3. Those of you who steal on a regular basis using p2p programs ruin it for the rest of us. Much like the ritalin pill poppin' kid in grade school who ruins it for the whole class. Now all of us legal p2p users get monitored because of a few bad apples who abuse the p2p intent.
But letting other people make digital copies of a non-free copyrighted work is almost certainly not within fair use rights.
I don't agree. Do you have reasoning/sources to back you up?
Can I make a copy of a music CD to play in the car? What if me and my wife share the car -- do you think it's legal for her to listen to it? What about if it's her car and only she uses it? Can I make a copy for my mom who doesn't live with me? for a friend? Can I make a copy not knowing whom I'd give it to?
It's not all that simple.
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Great. Let us know when they stop going after the technology.
Oddly enough this is the same argument KaZaa and other P2Pers use on regular broadband. The "Yeh Ol Because I can" argument. Here's a clue spunky. It's not the job of illegal P2Pers to test the network. Any more than it's the job of speeders to test the high-speed capabilities of the highway. You want to do illegal P2P speed tests, then get your own network, and get off the network I'm paying for.
I'm not saying it is their job. I am saying that the traffic is all routed over the Internet2 anyway. The universities do this because they want this bandwidth they paid for used.
Second of all, this is not the same argument as consumer broadband. That DOES hurt other people using the network, and has been shown to do so. Your argument is not parellel, especially the comparison to the highway speed tests. Speeding on a highway causes deaths. I do not believe many people have died from downloading the latest version of Ubuntu, which, btw, is a LEGAL use for i2hub...
The RIAA members are the middle men and are scared to death of a technology that will cut them out. Thus the constant flailing around. They smile at DRM and don't seem to realise that the likes of Microsoft and Apple will be their direct competitors in a few years time. They sue people for filesharing which makes the public hate them. They are as doomed as SCO is, but it will take longer for the axe to fall.
***... bzzz... ---
this just in!
problems with Internet 2 exactly the same as problems with Internet 1!
more at 11.
--... bzzzz....
Any number of reasons exist for a student or an employee to know that the school's facilities are being used to traffic music on the I2. Any number of reasons also exist for someone to pass the information on to the attornies representing either the RIAA or the school.
In fact, I'd wager that a condition of employment at the school is to not engage in or facilitate illegal activity. It would be pretty hard for a network admin to learn that some kid was illegally moving tens of thousands of files through his servers, then keep his mouth shut, and not be vulnerable to charges of aiding a criminal activity. Fear of getting caught covering that up would be a strong motivator to report the activity to the school.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Also, nothing in the DMCA explicitly damages fair use. The only time that fair use is mentioned in it is when the bill specifically notes that the copyright protection circumvention provision specifically DO NOT limit a person's fair use rights. Of course, there are ways that it indirectly affects fair use rights, but only in causing barriers to be able to exercise those rights (such as having to circumvent copyright protection to make a backup of a DVD).
Finally, 17 U.S.C. 1008 has nothing to do with fair use rights anyways. That section places an explicit limit on what type of actions can be brought against a user. While people argued that the right to make such copies were within their "fair use" rights before the passage of the Audio Home Recording Act, this bill made it such that copyrights did not provide an action against such copying specifically. The bill did not, as it could have, made home recording within the fair use rights deliniated in 17 U.S.C. 107.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
The RIAA will never find me on Internet3!!!
The Good Life
how do we know that the files weren't planted by the RIAA? Anti-Piracy Bureau of Sweden Planted Evidence
I believe you should have said:
"Illegal File Sharing is not an academic/research activity, and therefore had no business being on the I2 to share files in the first place. They (the students) were abusing the network and probably breaking laws governing access to restricted computer systems to be on there at all."
The students were doing something illegal. They were doing it on a system that was not established for that kind of activity. They were breaking the rules of the I2 system, so to say that the RIAA had no right for policing the I2 system is nothing more than a double standard.
Personally, if you want to complain about the RIAA having to police I2, complain about the jerk-offs who made it necessary to police I2.
Good point. When I said other people, I should have noted that I meant, other non-family members. The Audio Home Recording Act makes it so that it is non-infringing to make a copy for oneself. It does not explicitly state that it is OK to make on for ones family, but the legislative history of the bill implies that it is ok. However, I have never seen any governmental opinion that it is OK to give someone who is unrelated a copied work.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
Can I make a copy of a music CD to play in the car?
Yes.
What if me and my wife share the car -- do you think it's legal for her to listen to it?
Yes. As your wife she shares ownership of your license to that music.
Can I make a copy for my mom who doesn't live with me?
Nope, you've now begun to distribute copyrighted material.
for a friend?
Nope
Can I make a copy not knowing whom I'd give it to?
Yes, you can make a million copies if you want, so long as you distribute.
It's not all that simple.
It's not that hard either. If your friend wants to listen to a song, you can loan him the original CD (and not retain any copies for yourself). When he is done he can return it to you. He can also record the song off a radio broadcast and listen to that.
Beyond that, there are different levels of violating rules. Copying songs has been going on for decades, the difference is the internet allows violations on a much larger scale. Sure burning a CD for a friend is a violation, but it's probably too small to be prosecuted. However, making a CD available for worldwide distribution probably will get some attention.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
What do you think the Internet originally was?
The correct nomenclature is "donation;" in the form of generous "forgiveness" of not suing and "contributions" of dead stock/tax writeoff of CDs that would've otherwise cost their "members" a fortune to warehouse.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
I guess now we have to start using trust networks for using filesharing, since illegitimate purposes have made other forms impossible.
It was just last Novemeber that they were asking to become members. I have to consider that fair warning to the users of i2.
My iPod made me do it. It's a tool of teh d3\/1|!
Since ths is a matter of civil, not criminal, law, no one can give you a precise answer for every hypothetical situation you dream up. Besides, your examples of personal use don't apply large-scale copying of thousands of files for distribution to, potentially, everyone on the planet. Just because you won't show up on the radar when you make a single personal copy doesn't mean you can extrapolate that and claim 10,000 copies are fair use.
I've had to resort to legal counsel on a few occasions regarding fair use. If you do something that has been done before and resulted in a successful claim of fiar use, odds are you, too, can claim fair use. That won't keep you from being sued, but it will help you win the suit.
On the other hand, if you do something that a number of people have already done under an unsuccessful fair use claim, odds are almost certain that you will be sued and will lose. One certain way to lose, I learned for those lawyers, is to make many copies of something and distribute it to many unknown people.
So, yeah, you can make a copy of a CD to play in the car and no one will sue you. (A rather wasteful outlay of cash, don't you think.) Is it fair use? Who knows? But no one is going to attacj you with lawyers.
But, copy thousands of CD's and host them in a grab bag on the net and you have blown any chance of claiming fair use and given a lot of people good reason to sue you.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
How come no one just creates a p2p network where all data is encrypted with a simple algorithm. . . . RIAA could never check to see if any files are copyrighted, because they would be violating the DMCA is they broke the encryption on the files.
The DMCA doesn't outlaw breaking encryption, only 'circumventing' technological measures (including encryption schemes) that protect copyrighted works. Since a protocol is a method of operation, and thus cannot be protected by copyright (see 17 USC 102 and Borland), the DMCA wouldn't apply. Nice try though.
geek. lawyer.
In a related note, the **AA has also resorted to stopping local traffic in various major cities and asking drivers to prove their recorded CD-R's came from *legal* sources. If a driver or passenger is unable to present the actual legal media on demand, a citation for $50,000 will be delivered on the spot for each song on each CD-R, and the **AA will attempt a citizen's arrest. When one local motorist asked if this violates any Constitutional right, a piece of duct tape was promptly placed over their mouth and they were hauled away.
I still get my MP3's from there, when necessary. You don't have quite the selection P2P has, but you do gain security knowing those idiots can't track you there.
right on ... copyright was only allowed
to promote the arts and sciences, not
to promote money-making
Here is an article about the issue that was published in yesterday's edition of The Tartan, the student newspaper of Carnegie Mellon, one of the universities targeted by the RIAA. There was also an editorial written about the issue. (Note: The Tartan's website cannot be rendered in Internet Explorer. Please use a standards-compliant web browser.)
Also, below is the full text of an email that was sent to all students on April 4 from Carnegie Mellon's Chief Information Officer Joel Smith.
-------- Original Message -------- To: The Carnegie Mellon Community
From: Joel Smith, Chief Information Officer
Subject: Illegal use of copyrighted materials on Carnegie Mellon's network - your *personal* liability
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 22:33:47 -0000
We are writing to remind the entire campus community of the University's commitment to the protection of intellectual property and copyrighted material. When it comes to illegal copying of digital materials - whether music, video, text, or pictures - the University imposes its own penalties (disciplinary action, loss of network connectivity) on anyone who is found to be using Carnegie Mellon's network for such purposes.
Moreover, the trade organizations that are charged with protecting copyrighted materials, e.g. the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), are aggressively searching for copyright violators on the Internet and *will take independent legal action against such violators.* Peer to peer file sharing activity using the Carnegie Mellon network is accessible to their monitoring. Past actions by these industry associations have resulted in substantial monetary penalties imposed on the individuals involved. See:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2003/05/ 02/news/8154.shtml
In fact, according to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, penalties can range from $750 to $150,000 per song if songs are the items being distributed illegally.
Please be aware that the target of these actions is not the University, but rather the individuals engaged in the violations. As an Internet service provider, following the results of court rulings last year, the University is obliged to respond to subpoenas from organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA requesting the names of individuals who operate computers illegally sharing copyrighted materials. Do not be misled by the fact that Verizon, as an Internet service provider, won its case for not providing user names in response to certain kinds of "John Doe" subpoenas. The ruling allows the RIAA and the MPAA to discover the identities of copyright violators from Internet service providers (including universities) as long as they follow certain legal procedures.
Simply put, if you are engaged in illegal use of copyrighted materials (usually done by peer-to-peer file sharing using programs like Kazza, LimeWire, BitTorrent, and others) and the University receives a proper subpoena asking for the name of the person who registered the computer being used for such purposes on the Carnegie Mellon network, we are legally obligated to supply that name. The result may well be that the RIAA or MPAA will take legal action against *you*. There is nothing the University can do to shield you from such action.
Since your identity on the network is based on the match between your name an the IP address and *MAC* or *hardware* address of your computer, it is a very good idea to be sure that all and only the computers you physically control are registered to you. You can check the list of computers you have registered to your name using Computing Services' NetReg system. Go to http://netreg.net.cmu.edu, click on the Enter button at
| Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
Considering that UMass is indeed listed, I have to wonder if you're a product of that institution. :)
"This has been a subversion of the research purposes for which Internet2 was developed."
I never would have expected them to be so honest about what they were trying to do...
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
Yes. As your wife she shares ownership of your license to that music.
Whoa, hold on there. First of all whether my wife automatically shares ownership of everything I buy is, as far as I know, state-dependant -- in some states this is so, and in some states no.
But the main point is, which license? I did not apply for or receive any license. I went into a store and bought a physical object. I did not agree to any contracts. I did not click on any EULAs. So which license are you talking about?
As far as I am concerned I own that particular musical recording. True, law imposes certain restrictions on what can I do with it (e.g. redistribute), but that's common to all kinds of ownership. But there is no licensing involved.
Can I make a copy for my mom who doesn't live with me?
Nope, you've now begun to distribute copyrighted material.
Yeah, I understand that's your position, but how about some support for it? Preferably in the form of a court opinion since that's really the only thing that matters?
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
But you see no problem with taking resources that I (and others) payed for for your own purposes. In the eyes of the general public, illegal P2P slid by most people because it wasn't affecting their pocketbook....
Sorry that'll never justify illegal P2P activity on Internet2.
I guess we'll just have to wait for the Supreme Court to decide MGM v. Grokster to see if there is such justification. Lower courts have already ruled in favor of Grokster.
As for your money being wasted, society stands to gain a great deal if a truly anonymous P2P architecture is developed and implemented. Think freedom of speech issues - think human rights and the great firewall of China, etc... Internet2 is the perfect host for such development. The parent poster argued that P2P was not a legitimate use of Internet2, I showed that it could very well be. I also denounced copyright infringement.
Your position seems to be that because the technology can be used to commit acts of copyright infringement, then your tax dollars should not go to funding its research. That position is so short-sighted as to be absurd. By your reasoning, we should not even fund research into new types of higher density writable media, as they might (and inevitably will) be used by some people to make illegal copies of things. Imagine the losses that society might suffer were we all to believe as you do.
See the War on Drugs for an example.
However, I have never seen any governmental opinion that it is OK to give someone who is unrelated a copied work.
:-)
:-) )?
Well, I've never seen a court opinion saying that it's illegal to give to my buddy a copy of a CD (or tape, or cassete) I own. So we're even
That's actually the exact question we're talking about: can anyone cite a court opinion with regard to the legality of making a copy for a bona fide meatspace friend (as opposed to a gazillion of copies for all my internet friends
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
For some reason I think that if they really cared about their customers then they wouldn't sue them, but that's just me...
It IS legal to tape a TV program for a friend and share it with them them . . . err, at least in the country I currently live in, Canada. It has certainly been legal for quite some time in the States to tape TV programs for yourself, so it's a grey area as to whether you can distribute them afterwards . . . yes, in the case of downloading TV programs it's currently considered illegal, however, enough various legislation that it would be a tough case to call, if someone downloaded a program that they missed and it went to court.
There are strong legal arguments to be made on either side; of course, our current society being corporate-minded and money-fuelled, it probably would end up falling on the side of Big Business. (Call me a left-wing liberal if you will, but try disputing that current law and judicial decisions tend to heavily favor corporations over individual consumers' rights -- whether you think that's okay or not is another question, naturally, as was noted in reverse of sorts by parent).
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
for faking a crime with the intent to make it harder for authorities
How would anyone be able to prove intent? You could say the intent was to punish people illegaly downloading music (and you could say as much in all the files downloaded). In fact I would say a few honeypots would be a great money-making scheme for an industrious student. Hmm, perhaps it's time to go back to grad school...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I wonder if people realize that many campuses don't provide student access to I2. Indiana University's Indianapolis campus is one of the primary I2 nodes, and is where the Abeline NOC is located, and WE don't even grant access to I2 to just anyone. i2hub works, but it works on commodity internet that's just like any other company broadband connection. I doubt the RIAA is that concerned with I2 abuse, anyhow. They're more concerned that OH NO someone might download a song and THEN go out and buy the album. :P
I'm a geek girl. Seriously.
The problem with file sharing is uploading, not downloading, right?
What if a program setup a share on your computer, allocated lets say 10GB to it. What happens is, you connect to a network and the share is filled with data. Legal files, illegal files - you have no way of knowing. The share was protected and encrypted so that even you could not see what was on it(the only people who would know you had the data were people who were downloading files that were on your share) - I'm not smart enough to fill in the details, but I imagine this could be done w/ private & public keys, etc.
So basically you're providing bandwidth to the network. In return, you get an equal amount of bandwidth to download the files you want - but you never upload those files back to the network(unlike the way BitTorrent works).
Grossly ineffecient? Sure. But this seems like it would basically be a legal way of doing P2P. You would just have to delete your share and start over if requested by the RIAA or MPAA. But since you wouldn't know the content was illegal until they said, I think this falls under the general law that allows ISPs to operate
Send RIAA execs back to kindergarten.... share children.
1. Select your closest friends (4 to 5?).
2. Among you, designate a buddy, preferably the guy who lives closest to the library, as Library Dude.
3. Have Library Dude check out as many CDs as he can. and rip them with cdparanoia (or cdEx or EAC for you Windows people, I guess) to counter all the scratching.
4. Distribute QUALITY rips among yourselves. If you have to, have Library Dude or one of your cohorts burn a DVD weekly or bimonthly or monthly, whatever the rate turns out to be.
The caveat with this system is that the libraries tend not to have the newest of the new. Perhaps you can frequent your local used CD shop and swap original CDs with your friends' friends (whom you can't trust with any other part of the project), which is perfectly legal under first-sale doctrine. The benefit, on the other hand, is that you get entire albums and quality rips.
In fact, university clubs would be ideal for obtaining new material - form a "Music Listeners Group" and hold regular swap meets using members' existing stashes of legit music so you always have something new to put in the stereo; this might even eliminate the need to store the music, conceivably. Funds could also be pooled to procure used CDs and scratch-repair devices.
-insert a witty something-
That is all i have to say. Screw them. Steal it all and run them out of town.
Never used to feel this way until they started acting like this.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I2 wasn't started because it was a research network... I2 was started because it was fast and cool and sounded that way on grant proposals.
Which begs the question... does piracy subvert the coolness of the network? Or does piracy enhance the coolness of the network?
Of course, the answer to that depends completely on where you've been indoctrinated, and if you're currently in a rebellion-against-indoctrination or embrace-the-indoctrination mood.
Of course, the Supreme Court has the ability to overturn its decision in Betamax, and it did take the appeal of the Grokster decision.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
...you do not talk about Internet2.
:^)
Second rule of Internet2:
you DO NOT talk about Internet2.
There's a reason this was submitted under Anonymous Coward... Explain to me again how we ruin it for the rest of you? If you're going to buy all your digital media "legitimately" you have nothing to worry about, so don't ever preach to me about what to do and what not to do. If you claim never to use P2P programs in the first place I fail to see how you are affected by this in any way.
Blah people. I2 is just another backbone, except it's semi-private. Why is this simple fact so difficult to understand?
LOAD "SIG",8,1
I am so annoyed by the repeated coverage of the **IAs and their various lawsuits. The whole topic is boring.
What would be interesting would be hearing about peer-to-peer gateways set up in Russia (or wherever), enabling users to share files on their machines via some anonymizing servent in Russia. Of course there would be some small monthly fee to American users (payable, say, via paypal) to cover bandwidth (which is getting cheaper and cheaper anyway).
This will certainly happen. The **IA's can then go F themselves.
Um, 1800 called and wanted its laws and legal concepts back.
IP law is outmoded and outdated. The idea that you can restrict other people from using an invention, artistic or scientific is heinous and shouldn't be tolerated. This is especially true when current technology means that making a copy deprives no one of the original.
We should be finding new ways to compensate artists and inventors, instead of selling out and letting monopolistic greedy manipulative commercial companies "own" our ideas.
Tell me, if someone stole a loaf of bread would you consider it reasonable punishment to ship them off to Australia? No, it would be considered draconian. Why then is it acceptable in this day and age to bankrupt an individual who copied some music?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Maybe you should read section 8, clause 8 of the constitution. For those too lazy to look it up, here it is:
[Congress shall have the power... ] "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Notice the phrase "exclusive right". How do you think they expected the exclusive right to be preserved, by asking nicely?
But the main point is, which license? I did not apply for or receive any license. I went into a store and bought a physical object. I did not agree to any contracts. I did not click on any EULAs. So which license are you talking about?
License - official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing
When you pay your money, you get legal permission from the copyright holder to listen to the music under the terms of copyright law. The physical object has no meaning, beyond existing as a medium to contain the information.
202. Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object.
Yeah, I understand that's your position, but how about some support for it? Preferably in the form of a court opinion since that's really the only thing that matters?
It is illegal as it impacts item 4 of sec 107. By allowing your friend to copy the music, it impacts the potential market for the copyrighted work.
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
As somebody who subscribes to a legit music service, as well as somebody who pays taxes, I'm a bit miffed at the attitudes of those who are rationalizing the file sharing of copyrighted material because:
Ripping Metallica tracks and sharing them isn't legal. Period. There is no fair use in taking a copyrighted work, duplicating it and distributing unlimited copies of it. Falacious arguments about the virtues of illegal media file sharing work to undermine what legitimate fair use rights we have left.
For all the whining about the crap content **AA puts out, it seems like an awful number of people are interested in getting their hands on it for free.
What do you think is going to happen the next time a congressional appropriation is required for I2 maintenance or expansion, and the **AA lobby start spewing stats (legitimate or otherwise) about the percentage of I2 used for "illicit" sharing? Do you think your congressman who receives large campain contributions from the **AA is going to stand up for the rights of educational institutions (especially given the Republican majority)? Universities and other I2 management entities need to do better job of policing their publicly-financed infrastucture.
END FLAMEBAITWhen you pay your money, you get legal permission from the copyright holder to listen to the music under the terms of copyright law.
I believe you are wrong. When I buy a hammer do I get a license from the manufacturer to use it under the terms of the applicable safety regulations? When I buy a book do I get from the publisher a special license to read it?
In exactly the same way I do not have and do not need any special license to listen to music on the CD I bought.
And if you still think there's a license, perhaps you can point me to its terms..?
It is illegal as it impacts item 4 of sec 107
LOL. The section lists factors to be used in determining whether certain specific use is fair use. Nowhere does it say that anything which impacts any listed item automatically make it not fair use.
In fact this section is written very vaguely on purpose in order to leave the courts with free hands in deciding what's fair use and what's not.
So, no, that's not much support for your position...
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Oh I get it now... YHBT. YHL. HAND. right? Nice. Mod parent funny.
In all this endless discussion about law and who 'owns' music, let us not forget that RIAA has no moral right to own music anymore.
By indefinitely extending the copyright period by paying off the politicians, the RIAA companies stole the public domain.
This is the biggest theft of artistic work in history.
As a result, they have no longer any moral right to claim to own music copyrights.
Copyrights are based on the principal that there is finite period of copyright ownership for artistic material. Since they broke this fundamental legal pricipal, we have no moral obligation to accept their claims of ownership of any artistic material, regardless of how old or new it may be.
The rule of law is a balance: destroy the balance and you have destroyed your legal protection.
Download all you want!!!
See, They (RIAA/MPAA) really really hated napster. Why? Everyone was on Napster, so if you looked for something you found it. easy, illegal, Cool.
Now they want to fragment the file sharing networks. They're not stupid, they know they can't stop pirating completely, the goal is to make it harder, less worthwhile so people who have limited time and a budget (working people) to figure out the p2p method de jour and will just pony up th 99 cents for a sure bet good copy.
If you make a network VPN with 10 of your friends that not a real problem for them, much like the mixed tape of yesteryear. Heck if you put your mp3 on a password protected web site and tell a few of your friends, they'll never find out.
If your "sharing" your files the the hundred of thousands of anonymous strangers, they have a problem.
Make it harder to find what you want,
1 by making people less likely to make content available (more leaches)
2 Making many smaller networks with not enough content.
The problem is mainly that setting up a server or p2p is republishing. Everyone is publishing stuff they don't own the copyright too. Expect the law will catch up at some point.
Damnit, mods! I have a better question for you. Why is THIS guy modded insightful? He can't spell "independent," and he assumes that all "independant" (sic) music is metal, thanks to the (also unwarranted) assumption that the independent scene where he lives is representative of the scene in general. And "99% of everything is crap" is an overgeneralized cliche. It does not apply, to some extent, to independent music, because much independent music is so because its creators don't want to "dumb down" their work to popular taste.
Granted, the RIAA and major labels also help some good music succeed. (Radiohead, for example, ought to be dear to the heart of many a Slashdotter.) But these organizations inspire a culture of shallow, creatively bankrupt greed in popular music that indie music--so it seems to me, a casual observer--does not have. The lawsiuts against downloaders, as well as the unwillingness of the labels and their association to move to a new distribution system (such as Voluntary Collective Licensing) that might cut into short-term profits, are reflections of this greed. And they're also damn good reasons to give the RIAA the finger for the time being, in spite of Mr. Insightful's "argument."
Colleges are a place where the internet is at it's backbone. Colleges are where it is easy to see what a population wants and desires. I know this view is not popular among most big artists. But maybe these artists shouldn't be making millions apon millions. And this confrentation of the peoples will and the ability of technology is where the showdown is being made. I love live theater, but I cannot imagine that it is as large of a business as it was in 1904, prior to TV and Film. We cannot fight the movement of technology by slaying the broadcast studios.
Internet2 is the future for connectivity. The bandwidth allotment is not a questionable option it will happen. The telco's cannot control the rest of the world, we are lagging behind others in overall bandwidth but that is only due to our outdated infastructure. Give the people their bandwith and they will trade music and videos.
The money needs to be made in another method.
This is only a issue because the people do not
agree with the situation and how it is beind handled.
Might as well give RIAA its wishes and make all copyrighted material Secret so that No One may access it under any circumstances. Again, P2P = Radio = TV, EXCEPT that P2P is NOT controlled by media giants. Think Pay-O-La or Creating a Demand or Censorship or the Long Lists of Artists that have been or are being screwed by the media giants.
Maybe you should read section 8, clause 8 of the constitution. For those too lazy to look it up, here it is:
[Congress shall have the power... ] "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Notice the phrase "exclusive right". How do you think they expected the exclusive right to be preserved, by asking nicely?
True, but another important phrase is Congress shall have the power. Notice how it doesn't say Congress must excercise this power? The kids that the RIAA and MPAA are pissing off today will become the majority of voters tomorrow.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
It's much like the drug war in that you can go after the users (who in this case are generally also producers (pirates? arr)) with all you've got, but it just creates a vacuum that will be refilled until people find interest in something else.
The general concensus on /. for several years has been that individual infringers should be punished and not the technology. Here, you have the RIAA doing just that, instead of trying to get I2 banned or restricted.
Just because a bunch of people agree on something does not make it correct. Its good to challenge the general concensus from time to time.
No, it's not controversial, it's illegal.
:)
In many, if not most cases, the two are synonymous.
Whether it should be illegal is of course up for debate
Hence the "controversy" angle
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
When I buy a book do I get from the publisher a special license to read it?
You get an implied license giving you all the rights granted under copyright law. If you look at your CD it probably has a little area where it says "copyright Sony Music" or something similar. The comparison to a hammer doesn't make sense since it is a physical object, the closest comparison would be when you buy a hammer, you own the hammer, you don't own the design of the hammer if it is innovative and protected intellectual property (patented).
And if you still think there's a license, perhaps you can point me to its terms..?
The terms are those of copyright law the publisher retains certain rights, and you have certain rights.
In fact this section is written very vaguely on purpose in order to leave the courts with free hands in deciding what's fair use and what's not.
True it's handled on a case by case basis, but show me a case where a non-educational reproduction that impacts the potential market for sales has been upheld. In Playboy vs Frena the court found "PEI's right under 17 U.S.C. Section 106(3) to distribute copies to the public has been implicated by Defendant Frena. Section 106(3) grants the copyright owner "the exclusive right to sell, give away, rent or lend any material embodiment of his work." and in Harper & Row vs Nation Enterprises "More important, to negate fair use one need only show that if the challenged use should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work."
There are fair uses (ie mix tapes, backups, adaption to run on other devices, etc), but making copies and giving them to friends is not one
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
File-sharing software should move to ipv6. Perhaps that would be the kick in the pants the internet needs to go forward.
"How come no one just creates a p2p network where all data is encrypted with a simple algorithm."
There are several, using strong encryption. The best I've seen is Waste. Due to its nature, you really only want to invite trusted sources because it's nearly impossible to get rid of someone once they're on.
Neither your or my tax dollars pay for my I2 connection at my private, $30k a year university. Nothin like pissing money away while doing lots of drugs and amassing large quantities of music and movies.
where's this cave you apparently live in?
I'm (stuck) in a college town (@ Penn State,) its the only major town within a 45 min drive. ALL of the bands here are independant, and very few are metal, let alone any popular ones. That's been the case for years around here... blues, ska, regae, rock, funk... not metal or punk. Hell, even JAZZ bands are more popular (thank heavens)
Almost sounds like I'm plugging bands in this town... so I might as well! Check out his band of young-ins... only half of which are old enough to drink at the bars they play at. The Nightcrawlers - http://www.the-nightcrawlers.com/audio/african_ec
Penn State.
On the I2. In bed with the RIAA. Ex-MPAA honcho Valenti was chummy with the prez (Spanier.)
Spanier and crew are probably trying to make this look like Penn State is the white-knight here... not to mention making the other PA universities (CMU and Pitt) look bad!!
Exactly. The recording industry is a monument to subverting the copyright system to provide perpetual income for people who create nothing. Not to mention subverting the legal system itself by buying legislators. Record companies have absolutely no moral ground to stand on, they just have a big stick to hit with.
The answer is for the geeks in these universities to make a friend in business or law. Teach these new buddies all about file sharing and how much fun it is. Then when they start getting harrased by the *AA we just have to wait 4-6 years until they graduate and have them start suing and legislating and calling for reform.
So everyone go out tomorrow and buy a law student a beer and show em where they can download a bit torrent client.
Bet this
>You get an implied license giving you all the
>rights granted under copyright law.
You don't need any license or permision to read the book since there is nothing in the copyright law that forbids you to start with. Besides, if the law granted you rights, why on earth would you need a license to start with to get them? Do note that copyright laws do NOT grant you any right to read or pretty much any right at all. What it do is give some specific actions as an (almost) exclusive right to the copyright holder. One such right is copying. Reading is NOT such a right. Reading can hence NOT be a copyright infringement since it is not listed in the copyright law as being such, hence it is irellevant if you have such a premision or not. The fact that you find a webpage that has no clue what it talks about is irrelevant.
>The comparison to a hammer doesn't make sense
>since it is a physical object,
So is the book really. At least all the books I have bought.
>The terms are those of copyright law the
>publisher retains certain rights, and you have
>certain rights.
Gee, you quote a relevant law and then don't bother reading it???? But instead base your whole argument on a completely different web page instead? Now, go back to the link on the copyright law you found and see if you can find anywere anything that gives READING as an exclusive right to the copyright holder that he needs to grant you a license to do. Please get back when you find such a thing in the copyright law. You may also do the same for listening to a music CD while you on to it.
Except that he's not distributing copyrighted material. He's time shifting publicly broadcasted material, which is a right explicitly granted under copyright.
He didn't. His source might have (or not). But his source does not have the distribution rights (the right to create a temporary stream to the reciever's computer). A copy of an illegal stream/copy is still illegal. For example, many countries require a back-up copy to be made from your copy. If your friend owns the same CD, 100% identical, you can't make a back-up from his.
Also note that timeshifting is explicitly deemed legal by precedence (sony vs betamax), not directly in copyright law. Note that this is not the same as a right. If it were to fall under another paragraph (e.g. DMCA-protections) which prevented you from doing so, the Betamax decision does not negate that.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
You don't need any license or permision to read the book since there is nothing in the copyright law that forbids you to start with.
You must be granted permission somehow to have a copy of a book or song in the first place. When you purchase music or a copy you enter into an implied contract where in exchange for money you are granted license(legal permission) to use a copy to listen to the music. Nobody else has a right to that copy, only you have the license to use it
You make it sound like getting a license to use music is all bad. CD broken and no backups? You still have the right to the music contained as you didn't buy the CD you bought a license to the music the CD was just the medium to get it to you, though the RIAA is challenging this.
So is the book really. At least all the books I have bought.
Ever purchase an e-book, nothing physical there. You can do whatever you want with the CD, if you look at the quote I cited, the CD itself is a physical object that isn't protected. What is protected is the information and expressions contained. Only intellectual property can be protected by copyright. A hammer is not protected, it's design is (under patents), a CD is not protected, the music on it is (under copyright)
ow, go back to the link on the copyright law you found and see if you can find anywere anything that gives READING as an exclusive right to the copyright holder that he needs to grant you a license to do
Unless you are telepathic, how can you get a copy to read or listen to? You have to obtain the information somehow. The point was you can't legally give a copy of a CD away (without transferring all your rights to the other person), unless granted such license by the copyright owner.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
>You must be granted permission somehow to have a
o de17/usc_sec_17_00000106----000-.html
>copy of a book or song in the first place.
Huh??? What do you mean? Are you talking from a copyright perspective or from a general property perspective? In neither case I see a problem though, once you buy the book, you are the owner of it both as a physical object and as a copy of the copyrighted work. No extra permission needed to "have" it.
>When you purchase music or a copy you enter into
>an implied contract where in exchange for money
>you are granted license(legal permission) to use
>a copy to listen to the music. Nobody else has a
>right to that copy, only you have the license to
>use it
You need to read up on purchase laws of your country. A purchase is a change of ownership, after which you own it. Again, I assume you think that copyright would in any way change this. Again, go read the copyright law, there is nothing of such in it. You are basically just making up completely false ideas about copyright with no basis in the law. Please find ANYTHING in the law that support what you say.
>You make it sound like getting a license to use
> music is all bad.
No, I say that you don't need any license at all to listen to a music CD (be it your own, your friends or whatever). From a copyright persepctive you only need a license when you want to create new copies (in cases it would otherwise be infringement, this is not always the case), to distribute copies, and to make public perfomrances and in other ways make it available to the public in ways exlusive to the copyright holder. That is it, read 106 in the first chapter of the US copyright law for this (or if you live in another country, find the similar part in the law of that country. I will even provide a link for you:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc
That is it, anything else you are free to do with a work without needing any sort of permision. Note how listeing to the music or reading the book is not on the list (or anything equivalent to it).
>Ever purchase an e-book, nothing physical there.
I was talking about "book", normal books. Of course, just like it applies to music on a CD, it applies to a book in an electronic form. You still don't need permision to READ it.
>What is protected is the information and
>expressions contained.
You, however, seem to have a very wrong idea on what that protection includes. It ONLY includes the rights listed above in the link I gave you to the copyright law. Those are the things given as a right to the copyright holder, no other rights. So reading a book is NOT an exclusive right of the copyright holder and hence anyone can do it.
>Unless you are telepathic, how can you get a
>copy to read or listen to?
I can for example buy it in a store. I assume you are familiar with that concept, it has existed for far longer than copyright. It is how I get hold of not only books, music CDs or hammers, but pretty much everything in my house that I own and use. You should try it some time. There are other ways as well, one can borrow the book from a friend or library, someone can give it to you and so on, lots of possibilities.
If you want to have further discussion, at least learn what rights copyright grant to the copyright holder and don't make up additional ones.
However if everyone does this it will push up the cost of used CD's :(
To Slashdot or not to Slashdot. That is the question (that will cause me to fail an interview)
That's incorrect, theft and larceny are synonyms for one another. Both UK law and US law have similar definitions, I believe yours varies slightly from state to state but the basic structure is the same (I've supplied references to state legislatures in the past on this topic but Google is failing me at the moment).
Let's create Internet3 just for file sharing!
My University added Internet2 routers just as I was graduating. If I remember correctly, when you send a request to another Internet2 site, say utk.edu, the Internet2 router then determines if the traffic should be sent across I2.
Can students really choose to use either the Internet or I2 if they're going to communicate with another Internet2 enabled school?
-Sumit
Meanwhile, all the people at schools that don't have famous names, but do have direct Internet2 access (like the place I just graduated from, which it thankfully dawned upon me now NOT to name, BEFORE I named it) can keep sending movies and music to one another at massive speeds. Keep up the good work $.
Ah, but your looking at slashdot as if it were one person. No crap some people said that. Now DIFFRENT people are saying this. And, although I disagree with them, this is not a contradiction. (Yeah and hopefully people just stop buying riaa cds. Go see Good Bands )
Damn the man!
>>Then you get criminally charged with obstruction of justice, for faking a crime with the intent to make it harder for authorities to weed out the real violators.
You forgot to add the IANAL tag at the end of your statement. I say this because you obviously are not one and have no conception of jurisprudence.
The parent poster sets up a file server and names a file "Brittany Spears". You claim that he is obstructing justice and faking a crime. You then go on to say that he is making "it harder for authorities". As happens all to often, you have confused the RIAA with a law enforcement agency. They are not. They are a lobbyist group and while they can buy judges, they are not ones themselves. This is an important distinction that you would do very well to remember the next time you post so blithely.
Next, you claim that he is "faking a crime." Interesting. I'm curious as to what crime you think he is "faking." Copyright infringement? Filenames are arbitrary and not subject to copyright law. Proffering copyrighted product without due compensation to that product's rightful owner? The parent said that it wasn't Brittany Spears' music. Fraud? What was he alleged to have attempted to gain (an integral key to the crime of fraud)?
For someone who claims to be a "Wordsmith", you demonstrate little understanding of the words that you actually use.
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
In neither case I see a problem though, once you buy the book, you are the owner of it both as a physical object and as a copy of the copyrighted work. No extra permission needed to "have" it.
What part of "implied" don't you understand? When you purchase an item you enter into an implied contract, no signing need, there are understood rights and limitations. When you buy a CD or book, there are implied limitations that you only own a copy and that you don't have distribution rights.
A purchase is a change of ownership, after which you own it.
You don't own the copyright, you are granted limited ownership and use of a copy. Ownership means you can do whatever you want with somethiing.
From a copyright persepctive you only need a license when you want to create new copies (in cases it would otherwise be infringement, this is not always the case), to distribute copies, and to make public perfomrances and in other ways make it available to the public in ways exlusive to the copyright holder
For those cases you need an explicit license, something in writing from the copyright holder
So reading a book is NOT an exclusive right of the copyright holder and hence anyone can do it.
I never said you need a license or permission to read a book, but you need some sort of legal permission to come into possession whether purchase from copyright holder or transfer of license beyond first sale.
can for example buy it in a store.
That is a transfer of license. The store has to give up all rights to that particular copy once you buy it. The copyright owner has no right to regulate after first sale (from copyright holder to store/distributor), but all previous terms and conditions still apply (you can't make copies and distribute)
If you want to have further discussion, at least learn what rights copyright grant to the copyright holder and don't make up additional ones.
At least have an understanding of terms like "implied" and "license." I'm not saying copyright owners have rights above and beyond what is outlined in copyright law. I am stating that through purchase you are in fact limited by those laws and that you are granted an implied license from the copyright owner only for use under those conditions. Any change to those implied terms requires an explicit license between the parties (ie EULA, or broadcast license)
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
where's this cave you apparently live in?
A suburb with crappy bus service somewhere in the south of Portland, OR. When I walk around Portland, most of the ads for that I do see for band concerts on buildings and power poles are for metal or punk bands (with a few occasional Rap events advertised as well).
It doesn't help that my friends do not necessarily share my tastes in music (most prefer Metal, Country, Punk or Emo (or similar angsty stuff).
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
>What part of "implied" don't you understand? When
>you purchase an item you enter into an implied
>contract, no signing need,
Yes, it is a deal or contract between me and the shop, no one else. I get whatever I bought, and they get the money, ownership changed.
>there are understood rights and limitations.
Only those specifically agreed upon at the purchase or those in place by law.
> When you buy a CD or book, there are implied
>limitations that you only own a copy and that you
>don't have distribution rights.
The reason you can't distribute it is due to the copyright law saying so, nothing else. There is no "implied license to read it" as you claim since there is nothing that forbids it to start with. Neither is there any implied license to "have it" since normal slaes laws deal with change of ownership (and it is an issue between me and the shop, has nothing to do with the copyright owner).
>You don't own the copyright, you are granted
>limited ownership and use of a copy. Ownership
>means you can do whatever you want with
>somethiing.
I have never claimed you get copyright on something you buy, stop making up things. YOU are mixing up owning the copyrigth to a work and owning a copy of a work. When I buy a copy, I get FULL ownership of that specific copy. I do however not gain any ownership of the copyright. Owning the copyright gives you a few exlusive rights to the work, making new copies is one such, owning specific copies is NOT, hence there is no need to grant a license to own a specific copy of a work, neither can the copyright holder grant it since it is not an exclusive right of him.
>I never said you need a license or permission to
>read a book,
Strange, since what I initially replied to was this, written by you:
"When you purchase music or a copy you enter into an implied contract where in exchange for money you are granted license [yahoo.com](legal permission) to use a copy to listen to the music. Nobody else has a right to that copy, only you have the license to use it"
This was in reply t me telling that one does not a license to read a book. You neither get, nor need the, implied, license you mention. Neither is it illegal for someone else to read the book. Anyone I want to can freely for example borrow my book and read it without any permision from the copyright holder.
On top of that you claimed:
"You must be granted permission somehow to have a copy of a book or song in the first place."
There is no need for such a permision. By simply selling the book in the first place, they lose ownership and I gain ownership (usually through the store first having ownership). There is no license in it or permision any more than I need permision to be in possession of a toaster. Again, read the copyright law, possession or having something is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder.
So...
> but you need some sort of legal permission to
>come into possession whether purchase from
>copyright holder or transfer of license beyond
>first sale.
This is not really correct, possession and ownership is dealth with by normal laws, you get, in this case in posession through a purchase.
Another case is me buying a book and then giving it to someone as a present, no need for that person to get a permision from the copyright holder to get into possession of it.
To sumarixe, possession is not a right of the copyright holder and once he sells or gives away it, by whatever means, he loses any ownership or possession or right/possibility to control it further unless he at the same time enters into a specific contract which at least in my experience has never happened when I have bought a book or music CD.
The only thing he keeps is the copyright to the work which ONLY prevents new owners from making new copies of it, distributing them and making public performances of thw work. That i
"Expect the law will catch up at some point."
No it won't.
By the time the law has catched up the 3 miles it's away from current technological practise, it'll be 9 miles behind of the technology (and it's implications) we'll be using by then.
Even now, systems such as Freenet are being developed, which will pose new legal questions in the future.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
And sure, I borrowed LPs from friends and recorded them - so I guess I've been a "pirate" since I was a kid.
But you know what? I'd still go out and spend my pocket money on singles and lp's. The tune that plays over and over again from the RIAA, whining on about how the artists are suffering, frankly I've been hearing it since I was knee-high and It's played out.
The artists should take the RIAA's funding and put it into something useful - like perhaps some research on how they can distribute their material and have people download it *legally* - but then I guess the fact that this would cut out too many of the music industry middlemen who are leeching 95% of the revenues and put the RIAA's CEO (what's he on now, still US$1M a year) out of work...
You'd think students would be smart enough to use P2P software that provides both encryption and anonymity, wouldn't you.
You'd be wrong, though!
http://www.internet2.edu/resources/Internet2Overvi ew.htm
contains "Download of 'The Matrix' DVD" slide. I know that this is merely an example and not really the issue at hand, but amusing nonetheless, and leads to an important question: at what point is the act and the intention no longer separable for legal purposes? Or further, the act, the intention and the end-results/side-effects?
Dear China,
Please take a pot-shot at American capitalism by developing a secure, crypto-protected p2p IPV6 application. I know you're going to build it out of dead Tibetan monks and the bones of Taiwanese children, but still.
Notice the phrase "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". How do you think they expected the progress to be promoted, by hiding it behind lawyers?
There are two ideas stated in that clause ("to promote the progress" and "secure the exclusive right"), and the first is clearly the more important.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz