Slashdot Mirror
Napster Being Sued by RIAA
Jason R was the first to write with legal battle news that the RIAA [?] has filed a lawsuit against the company that makes the Napster. They are seeking damages of up to $100,000 per pirated song - Napster says that their software exchanges no files, and that they are not legally responsible for any pirating done.
When will the RIAA start suing all the companies that have ever made stereos capable of duplicating cassette tapes? More importantly when will they explain the difference?
This is *almost* as frivolous as the HUD suing gun makers.
"Oh, they were/are a part of something that we don't like? Well, we'll just sue them."
It's crap like this that makes America a less likable place. Emigration to Holland, anyone?
-- Count Spatula: The Culinary Vampire "...because my cooking sucks."
If they dont, it would be benificial to us all if they opened the source however (one way or the other). If they open the source the RIAA can only really go after the servers themselves. Going after the logged on clients would not be easy I think.
(I thought the RIAA was already after them? Was this not mentioned before?)
Still, with the advent of things like Gnap, I think that this program is here to stay.
I hope more clients get banged out for Linux and other platforms A.S.A.P. Then the RIAA will not be able to do much....
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
Why sue? :-)
The napster people aren't sharing the mp3's they are just providing the tools!
napster is for distributing legal mp3's
what's next, are they going to sue the people who make FTP and HTTP software?? it's possible to share pirated mp3's with that too!
---
A friend of mine was just sent a nasty letter from ascap for distributing his own music on his website - music he'd published under ascap, and on a web page that clearly indicated this. He called their Nashville office and got a pretty prompt apology for the letter after he started musing that perhaps his catalog would be better off on bmi, or no publishing association at all since they aren't really generating much revenue to warrant putting up with nasty letters.
I thought that was kind of a trip - the 'artists' associations are causing more flack than the record labels.
Kind of a trip.
Well are they going to sue IRC too? Or ICQ? Or how about USENET, or FTP, or e-mail.
Oh wait, we can't sue those things, so we'll sue napster instead.
The only thing that napster does is allow any idiot to pirate music, compared to the "difficulties" of irc.
The Napster client forcing people to share songs is what has made it so popular.
If napster gets sued then someone else will just write an OS server and then that will be be it.
IRC hasn't been shut down, neither will an OS napster.
I have no doubt that the lawsuits will come to some conclusion, someone will cease and desist, and some lawyer will get paid. But what's real interesting is that you can't sue everybody, and I'm sure someone will fill the void once iCrave and Napster are gone. What's the broadcast status quo going to do then?
It's an interesting problem, also encountered in the field of emulation (console and arcade games). There are programs which have both legal and illegal uses. For instance MAME allows you to play old arcade games if you have the corresponding copyrighted roms. It is perfectly legal to use it as a hardware behaviour documentation database (which is its main aim) or to play games you own legally. It is of course illegal to download the thousands of roms you find on the internet. Everybody knows that it is the main use of MAME, even if it isn't the main target of the developers.
So, is MAME legal, or is MAME a contributory copyright infrigement?
This case seems to me very similar. Napster can as easily be used for legal and illegal purposes. Most people use it for illegal purposes, but that does not mean it is the primary target of the developers. So the results of this suit is going to have a farther reaching impact than only mp3.
OG.
It's because of this and other RIAA arrogance and stupidity that I'm going to start using napster. I'm also going to start burning CDs full of MP3s (650M could hold about 10 full albums) and sharing them with others just to spite these petty scumbags. Suck on that, RIAA.
-Legion
RIAA refers to Napster as "burglar's tools". But what is a burglar's tools? a crowbar? these are not illegal to make. Glasscutters? Perfectly legal. What's next... outlawing penises for being a rapist's tool?
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
It was only a matter of time before something like this happened. I am surprised that scour.net has gotten away with it as long as they have. I enjoy both applications, however it it blatantly obvious that illegal songs are being traded. I think fighting mp3's is a lost cause. The RIA should focus on something more important...like a new service or procust that encourages us to buy more music. Offer something that cannot be duplicated. I don't think that encryption is the only measure...obviously that doesn't last long... enhanced cd's were neato... i enjoy them when I happen to come across one. I think going after Napster and he kids that trade these songs is the wrong approach. Unfortunately I don't know what the right approach is either. --- jaxn
"Being alive is a crock of shit." --Kilgore Trout
Suing napster isn't going to do anything. What they should do is sue the operating system manufacturer, that provided an environment for napster to be created in the first place. Or even better, how about the computer manufacturers that allow mp3's to be created and distributed!
"May the Code bless you and keep you until the day of your Compiling." ~Requiem
This is how Napster can get themselves in more hot soup - change the source to link not just MP3's, but also JPG's. Nah - just kidding. :) I wonder if the p0rn hucksters care that Napster can and will infringe on their copyright. Just some ramblings.
In the beginning was the Cinema and the Cinema owners fought TV tooth and nail. They lost and the little box INCREASE the earnings at the box office. Later someone came out with VCRs and they fought that for years. Most people don't know this but the movie people tried to push BETA not because of better video quality but because there was some copy protection in it at the time. They were beaten upside the head and forced to take our money.
The RIAA has the same problem. They absolutely hated cassette decks. They tried to have CDR drives banned. At each step up the technology ladder someone has to bruise them and force them to accept more money. One of these days we are just going to give up and let someone who is happy to have it get our money.
These goys love to sue and the hardly ever win. This is the reason there is such a glut of new lawyers and a drought of technicians and programers. Who wouldn't want a job where your boss just tosses money at you to go harass someone a little with no hope of doing any real damage, except to your deep pocketed boss ?
Never mind the high retainers.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
The lawsuit was bound to happen. Ever since I discovered Napster I quit buying CD's. RIAA - backed by large music companies, probably will win some kind of injunction against Napster or force them to change thier programming so that they have some sort of copy protection program. This lawsuit sounds familiar to the one that sony has filed against the Rio... I wonder is the results will be the same.
Is it progress if a cannibal uses a fork?
Common sense dictates it can't be held responsible. The American "Justice" system, however.....
"You should never have your best trousers on when you turn
"You should never have your best trousers on when you turn out to fight for freedom and truth."
-Henrik Ib
You can't sue for that - you'd have to sue makers of hammers, guns, and anything else used by criminals.
Ummm... didn't I hear on the news this morning something about the Whitehouse putting together a class action suit against gun manufacturers ?
-- Steve
I fail to see how the RIAA may win this one.
Lets see, one can make mp3 file (legal and illegal) available via FTP servers, HTTP servers, IRC fserves, etc.
Will the RIAA sue the makers of the diverse servers?
Instead of colliding with a big corporation, apparently the RIAA prefers to sue smaller entities who, even though may win their case, may
plead guilty because of the lack of money to defend their case.
Last time I checked, there were loads of illegal material on free services such as Yahoo Geocities,
Angelfire, Xoom etc. and among them, were mp3s
RIAA better have lots and lots of bucks to sue each and every one of them.
Remember, tools are not malevolent. They are used in malevolent ways.
There's a freakin disclaimer on the napster website and when the client logs in. If disclaimers aren't any good anymore then what's the point?
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Sosumi. just kidding. DONT!
Yeah, but MP3s don't kill. . .
The point isn't whether or not Napster is pirating songs. The RIAA knows this, Napster knows this, and from the comments posted, most of the people on Slashdot seem to know this.
There are more than one reason to initiate a lawsuit. If Napster doesn't have the resources to fight a challenge by the RIAA, then the RIAA wins -- by default!
The RIAA has nothing to lose with this lawsuit. If Napster has good legal representation, then the RIAA will notice this and will probably back down, or come up with some sort of "settlement" that neither party will be able to divulge to anybody else.
This is just a classic case of the big corporation stepping on a little guy: look at all the money and legal resources the RIAA has... it's only reason to be is to initiate these heavy handed lawsuits to protect their member companies.
This is exactly like the etoys.com action against etoy.com; there's no hope for etoys.com to win in an evenly matched legal fight. But if the other party doesn't have the $$$ to fight it, then "I'm sorry. The suit was invalid, but you still lose."
Whatever happens, I hope that Napster doesn't try to make a deal with the RIAA. Look at how the RIAA managed to get the Lyrics Archive to "get back up" -- but at the cost that it now has virtually no lyrics whatever. Any deals with the RIAA means that RIAA wins, and everybody else loses.
I wonder if there will be a legal defense fund set up...
--
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
Sony Hitachi JVC etc RealMedia WinAmp X11Amp Quicktime *Microsoft* --might as well, everybody else does :) All these have made equipment or software capable of duplicating copyright audio
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
- The average CD costs $18. [Your store may vary.]
- The average CD contains 10 songs. [Notice that I am erring on the side of the RIAA]
- The worth of a song is computed by prorating the worth of the CD. Thus, each song is worth 1/10 of the cost of a CD.
- Lawsuit damages have some connection to value. [Stop snickering!]
That means that one song pirated on Napster has a value of $1.80. So, in order to have caused $100,000 dollars of damage to the RIAA, the song would have had to be pirated approximately 56,000 times! Have 56,000 people even downloaded Napster? If so, does anyone actually believe that nearly all of them pirated the same song?Of course, the answer is that assumption 4 is wrong. We all know that the legal system is like the lottery. Once you can prove someone has "screwed you over," it is your moral duty to extract as much money from them as possible. The amount need not have any relation to reality.
Actually, this is a little different. The RIAA isn't doing this to get money; they're doing it to put Napster so far into debt that they'll have to sell their relative's organs to get out. At the same time, they will manage to scare the pants off of anyone else who might cross their path.
I don't think that the RIAA suit tells that much about music as it tells about the status of US law. Apparently, to us stupid Europeans, if you've got a good enough lawyer you can get anything done, legal or not. The US system of suing everyone and everything is causing this storm. It's a hysteric reacton to an insane system and all these lawsuits happend because the legel system in the US favours suing.
What do you think would have happend if the RIAA would simply have called the Napster people and asked them; 'hey, could you implement some kind of copy protection scheme for those who want to use it?'. I bet that they'd have gotten their way, and much faster than by suing. Besides, as has been pointed out, there are a lot of other ways to get MP3's that are just as easy. So maybe the RIAA is only trying to set a precedent by attacking a small part of what they percieve as a problem? If they'd succeed in taking on a weak opponent they could move on to stronger ones with another weapon in their legal arsenal.
But what can you do if you have a system that let's a kid sue her parents for refusing to give her candy? (I still refuse to believe in that one, the thought of a country alowing things like that to happend and armed with nukes is way to scary.) Not to say that our law is perfect, one just has to look at the case where two thieves beat an 70 year old man to death with a frying pan and got out free by blaming eachother to see that, but at least people over here don't sue eachother all the time.
Phase 1: Where do you want to go today? Phase 2: This is where you want to go today. Phase 3: You're not going any
It's pretty sorry how self-serving the RIAA can be. Did they sue Sony for making duel-cassette boom boxes? Did they sue Panasonic for making boom-boxes that can tape a CD when you push just three buttons?
They can't do that. Those companies are part of their industry.
So why sue Napster, or, more stupidly, Diamond?
Because they can.
RIAA refers to Napster as "burglar's tools". But what is a burglar's tools?
:)
:)
I don't know the laws, IANAL.
And, that RIAA representative wasn't the brightest. But, napsters servers can be compared to a "thieving guild" or however it is spelled. It provides the tools, the server, the information on how, and the oportunity to - trade copyrighted mp3's illegally.
If they made the napster, and bound it to IRC channels and DCC chats, or something, then they could've claimed it was just a tool, and that they couldn't be helt responsible. But, because of them providing the servers and so forth, this just seems to much like a "Guild of thieves" in my eyes. Although, it is a guild I would like to be a member of.. in this case.
Even though I enjoy beeing able to find the latest hits and download them from the net -- that doesn't make it more "right" or "legal". otoh, if we could cut out "the music industry", and the artist made their songs and melodies on their own website, prohibiting redistribution... THEN we would be in a "good" society. The artists could then make a LOT of money on advertisement. Probably a lot more than they make today. Today most of the money goes straight into the music industry's pockets, and not the artists. THAT is why they are interested in quenching mp3's. They really don't care about the artists, even though that are what they say they do.
So, of course I hope that napster will win. I also hope that the music industry will continue fighting this battle, not realising that its a hopeless struggle (for them). That way, they will be ruined. And when they are ruined, then people will start distrbuting their own mp3's, from their own website, and earn money for themselves, not needing the stupid bloodsucking musicindustry.
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
In a similar vein, what if someone is using our network do distribute MP3's which they should not? Is it the network provider's fault that that person has the ability do distribute these files, or is the person distributing them the sole person to take responsibility?
With new methods for transmitting and distributing information being developed almost daily, I think the copyright groups are looking for ways to retain control, and for this I must agree with them. Copyright is important to help foster the growth of new ideas, and the ability to profit from them. Without this, people would have little motivation to develop new ideas, as it would likely be used by someone else, and they could claim all the work.
What needs to be done is for everyone to realize that for every tool made, there's going to be legal and illegal uses for it. What we need to do is go after those who do use the tool illegally, and make sure that what is illegal is clearly defined.
"It is the single most insidious Web site I've ever seen--it's like a burglar's tool," Ron Stone, a representative from artists' agency Gold Mountain Management, said in a statement. Damn huh... You've got to be feeling might stupid after saying something like this and getting it quoted all over CNet and Slashdot :) -- Merli
-- Merli
Come on guys... I really wish the RIAA would grow up... They go against mp3s, but they never go against Cassettes or MiniDiscs, or DAT...... Ohh wait, they would get laughed at for suing Sony or Panasonic, they gotta go after the little guys like Napster... They are not suing Real Networks for their Music Jukebox software that allows you to ripp cd's and encode mp3s, their not going after microsoft for providing a player that will play mp3 audio with their Windows 98 SE OS.... why go after Napster...... Get a life guys!.
The real battle the RIAA has ahead is proving that Napster was set up specifically to transport ILLEGAL MP3s. If they can do this, I think they have a very good case on their hands. What Napster has to do is focus on the fact that MP3s aren't illegal. There are many places you can get legal MP3s (see MP3.com), they have to show it's not the format, or their software, but they people using it. If the RIAA can convince a judge that Napster was written with the intent of transporting pirated MP3s, they can win this battle hands down.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
The fact that no Napster server is involved with the actual file transmission says a lot. RIAA might have a leg to stand on if Napster, even briefly, hosted the MP3 files in question or streamed the content from their server.
Napster creates a software tool that in and of itself does not infringe upon copyrights. The argument for its legality would be similar to those made for document copiers. The RIAA is creating more negative publicity for themselves.
On a related note, does anyone here read the recording industry trades (BillBoard, etc.)? If so, could you comment on the type of coverage these RIAA news stories get, and if it's positive or negative?
---- Politics: Kissing ass and pointing blames.
Here is an idea. Instead of restricting napster to only mp3's, make it sort of an ftp client where any files can be downloaded, and start marketing the program as an ftp client or whatever. Say something like "it does the same thing as icq file transfer or irc only better!" I think the whole problem here is that napster targeted themselves by making an mp3 only client and saying hey! Here we are! Download mp3's! Of course RIAA is going to be mad if they see something like that. My 2 cents.
Project Steve
The funny thing is is that most of the porn picutres you get off the net are infridgements of copyright law as well (scanned from magazines, stills from (or full) movies. Not that I would know anything about porn on the Internet. :)
Actually, I found the .sig to be very IN-appropriate. Or, more correctly, that it was ironic. He was advocating that the weaker participant fight with all his might, and NOT give in. His .sig seems to advocate the opposite. (Yes, I was going to post this seperately, but you seem to have beat me to the punch, and in the process, made a good arguing point.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
but given that napster never seems to have a disclaimer saying "Hey, watch what you download"
Actually, that above statement is not correct. When you log on to Napster it displays just such a disclaimer saying that Napster can not be held responsible for any illegal mp3's downloaded.
Project Steve
...I tried napster on a friend's Windoze computer, found something interesting, and ORDERED THE CD. That's fifteen or so bucks the record label would have never earned had it not been for napster.
Because RIAA can / To force NAPSTER to shutdown their servers.
And if they succeed?
Out of severe withdrawal symptoms, someone will develop an open-source version, thousands of servers will be out there, most out of (legal) reach of RIAA.
At some posh Y2K party, very rich lawyers will be toasting those suckers at RIAA for giving them endless wild goose-chase lawsuits to keep them busy well into the new millenium.
---
without guns we would still be using bows and arrows or spears to kill our food, without the invention of the gun we as a speicies would not have evolved so quickly. Believe it or not, the gun is responsible for the advancement of man. I say this because of the simple fact that I mentioned above. It was an all day venture to go out and hunt your food down in the old'en days, it took even longer with bows, arrows and spears cause of the distance you had to be to kill the beast, with the invent of the gun you get a reasonable distance, shoot, clean and eat, after all this you were left with more time to practice in other indevers, music, art, science... Hell, with out bow, arrows and spears we would still be killing our food with our bare hands, what kind of sociaty would we live in if we were forced to hunt our food cause some guy didnt think about domesticated meat animals in his spare time after eating? :) PS. Vegitarinism(SP?) doesnt count, veges are nasty horrible little things to be avoided at all cost.
"It is the single most insidious Web site I've ever seen--it's like a burglar's tool,"
DORK! it's not a web site. Geez. It's a different protocol. If you're gonna get quoted, know what the fsck you're talking about!
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Sony sells its minidisc almost completely on the basis of its ability to make copies. Every single commercial i've seen for the minidisc consists of nothing but the people making copies of minidiscs. They put a heavy emphasis on "mix tapes". Mix tapes.. riiiight. I'm sure that's really it. :P If the attraction is really in being able to make legal copies of things you own for the purpose of putting all of your good music in one, convenient place.. isn't that exactly the same idea as mp3? Isn't that what SDMI is designed to prevent? But the RIAA has no problem with the minidisc.
Phillips is currently selling a standalone CD writer that makes exact copies of CDs, and does nothing else. They boast about this in their commercials. Unlike conventional computer CD-R drives, which _can_ be used for completely legal purposes, or for making mixtapes of the cds you already own a la minidisc, the CD writer they're selling makes an exact copy of a CD you have already. There is NO POSSIBLE PURPOSE for this device except for making copies and then distributing them illegally. But the RIAA has no problem with it.
None of this is about copyright violation at _all_. (If it were, they'd go after copyright violations.) It's about the RIAA maintaining a monopoly; it's about elitism; it's about keeping anyone outside of the small group of ultrarich megacorporations from operating without going through the ultrarich corporations, or keeping small groups from gaining cultural power.
It's about destroying anyone who can't afford a lawyer.
(p.s. this is offtopic, but doesn't Phillips own some of the patents on mp3 or something? if so, where are they now? Not helping napster, apparently..)
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
The too high price of CD's is what creates a black market. The too high price of anything can create a black market.
We know the RIAA is counting (nay, depending!) on Napster backing down. The RIAA is the Microsoft of the computer industry - sue people just because you'd win the war of attrition. If there is ANY way for me to help, PLEASE contact me, I'd be willing to contribute a few bucks to a defense fund - Napster is a great product. As a sidenote, you might be able to raise the necessary funds by pledging to open source Napster if you got n dollars. I know it isn't the ideal situation, but the alternative is even worse. The key is to distribute the load and amass enough resources to stay afloat long enough to bring the media down to bear on the problem - they love stories about the underdog. The best we can hope for is bad enough publicity and lost sales as part of a possible boycott that they would back off.
Oh, come on, now. Is anyone here _really_ surprised by this? Napster has a disclaimer, and mentions that there are thousands of legal mp3's out there, but how many people (myself included) actually use it to get legal mp3's? *waiting for responses* ....I thing RIAA might have a point here (as much as I hate to admit it!) - they should be quite worried by this...
Napsters tools are no more inherently tools for pircacy than ftp is. Yes, it provides a mechanism for people to exchange information. Music happens to be information, so yes, it, too, can be exchanged. Illegally, if both parties are unscrupulous enough to do so. So what?
The "cp" command allows one to do the same (copy to disk and distribute at will). rcp and scp are even worse -- they do the same thing across a network. The venerable ftp protocol allows users to download information in binary format at will. Oh shit! So does http, come to think of it! Then there is IRQ, the most evil of evils. Poeple speaking freely with one another in realtime. Good Lord! Not just a piracy tool, but a conspiricy tool as well! Call the FBI stat!
The RIAA, in even filing this lawsuit, is effectively proposing the banning of the entire internet and all of the utilities and protocols which make it a usable medium for any type of information exchange. This is an attempt to do two things: (1) intimidate a small company with a large legal fist and (2), if they should be so lucky as to find a judge with sufficient sympathy (or a great deal of Sony stock in his portfolio), to effectively ban any tool that lets users exchange binary information of any kind ('cuz it just might be music).
If this doesn't make the absurdity of their lawsuit clear, nothing will.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
They mind as well sue computer makers for creating a device that facilitates music piracy!
Haahaa.. what a a joke.
I say we all start a big boycott against buying any cd's or music that the RIAA is associated with.
Anyway.. those are my thoughts..
BTW the RIAA seems closer to the empire than to Chewbacka. (or perhaps rahter the trade federation)
Oops sorry geek overload
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Anyone ever been to their web site? It's like Scientologists designed it or something. Just a bunch of links to propaganda sheets. They desperately wish they were cool. There are NO links to discussion or feedback, that I could find.
Last cool thing that came out of RIAA was the "LP curve" (improved fidelity and keeps needle from jumping off the vinyl on those disco beats).
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
When people compare suing the creators of Napster to suing the creators of FTP, I find one essential difference: Napster discriminates on it's content based on file format, whereas FTP does not. Like the story about Lycos denying Excite, Infoseek or Yahoo searches, Napster is responsible for all content that passes through their program because they have content discrimination. This is not a place they want to be.
I still maintain that a more general purpose type of Napster clone should exist, to fully realise the possibilities of this sort of file distribution.
Furthermore, I'm not a lawyer.
Gee, not to oversimplify or anything...
How about the garage-band who can now afford to press a whole ton of their own CD's?
You're falling for the same crap the RIAA is spewing at us.
The article quotes RIAA spokesman Ron Stone as describing Napster as follows: /. readers call a "moron," a "pompous fool," or simply "the public" His story is all too common: he thinks the Internet IS the Web, and that all activities -legal or illegal- on the Internet take place through the web. ("I mean, its not happening through e-mail so what's left besides the web? Gosh, this internet thing sure isn't all it was cracked up to be..") The RIAA is trying to make an example of Napster, even if it doesn't much care/know what Napster is, what it does, or how it does it. /. community about the whole Web != Internet thing is that a good percentage would rather the media/public not know where all the REAL pirated software and music can be found; the average teenage mp3 or warez collector thanks his lucky stars every day that the rest of the world doesn't know what IRC is.
"It is the single most insidious Web site I've ever seen--it's like a burglar's tool."
The funny thing about this is that Stone apparently has never seen Napster or seen it be used. (Napster, obviously, is a software package and not a website like audiogalaxy.com or something) He is what we
On a side note, I guess the only reason we don't hear much complaining from the
It is my feeling that the Napster issue is the first case where the RIAA and the media have actually identified a true, rampant, effective means of piracy, and my personal feeling is that while Napster may beat the rap, it would be better if they lost. Why? Because Napster brings piracy too far into the open. Thievery is a fact of life and is as old as civilization; good thieves know enough to not advertise their activities, even if they CAN play dumb. Napster was playing with fire, and should have known better.
Intercarve Networks, LLC
Last time I checked there was no official napster linux client. Fine, I went to freshmeat and found some linux clients. I admit I am not napster guru, so I do not know exactly how it works but these clients have to use napster's make-shift network. With all that said, is the RIAA going to sue only napster or the various authors of napster clients?
One solution would be to create an open-source program, similar to the ICQ, where a person logs on and issues a search for a song. All "TunezNet" users that are online at that moment and have that song in their database would be displayed.
If the worst does come to pass, this is a quite workable solution.
The foundation of this issue is one of control. The Internet cannot be controlled in its present form. Nor should it be.
Its growth is determined in part by the developer of the network, and for the moment that is America. Everyone is familiar with the illogical behavior of our legislators as they pursue their personal agendas, as they are walked down the path of dimishing freedom by their corporate masters.
There will come a time when people must decide if the gradual and continual reduction in personal liberties is an acceptable price to prevent Johnny from masturbating to downloaded porn.
I have hope. Call me foolish, naive, dreaming, but I do have hope. Hope that someone with influence, somewhere, will begin acting intelligently, rationally, and with respect for life.
Linus Torvalds and the creation of Linux are a herald for me, a herald that people care about producing not for money but for an intangible -- the quality of the product.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Now I don't feel so bad about going ahead with my plan to sue the makers of Apache, wu-ftpd, and anyone else I can think of for making servers to distribute illegal software!
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
Quoted from the cnet article:
"In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California, the Recording Industry
Association of America charges start-up Napster with violating federal and state laws
through "contributory and vicarious copyright infringement," because it has created a forum that lets online users trade unauthorized music files directly from their PCs...."
Odd, why aren't the developers of IRC, FTP, HTTP, TCP/IP, IPX etc, being sued as well? They too created "a forum" to potentially distribute pirated mp3 files. For that matter, home builders, carpenters etc as well, for they too provide "a forum" for the potential piracy of mp3's.
Lets face it, the RIAA is only concerned about money. And they're losing the war to keep music distribution channels under their own control.
And what of the Indie artists? Are they to suffer for the corporate greed of the music business as a whole?
Seems to me as long as the RIAA keeps its current attitude, there will always be a counter-movement to "open source" the music people want to hear.
Doesn't a black market imply money changing hands? I suppose that mp3's changing hands can imply some sort of barter, but there are plenty of people leeching, as well, who never intend to share their music collection with others.
Poor choices of words for a poorly thought-out lawsuit.
"During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I was riding the pogostick."
A good traveller has no fixed plans and is not intent on arriving.
A century or so ago there were no record labels but plenty of music. Then there was recording technology backed up by wide distribution but only big organisations could afford to do this. Now everyone can record and distribute widely and there is no need for record companies. That's all folks. The record companies were businesses built on a tecnology gap that has now closed. Why should we mourn their loss?
-- SIGFPE
If Napstar looks like it is going to loose the law suite than there is one last thing they can do. Though it wouldn't save their company, it would take the recored execs with them. If they publish the sourcecode and/or algorythms for their software then not also do the record companies have a new problem to worry about but also the government can't touch it. Published materials such as books are legal in the US, even those which tell how to commit crimes. Also if the major record labels tried to prevent information from being published in a book then every civil rights group in the country would be on them, an example of big buisness trying to buy away individual liberty.
SilverFate
[Y]our wisemen don't know what its like to be thick as a brick - Ian Anderson, "Thick as a Brick"
Agencies *did* sue the makers of almost every recording device at some time or another. Disney sued Sony over the VCR. There have been *many* proposals to add a tax to blank media to compensate for the loss of revenue due to "pirate" recordings. Yes, Phillips has a CDR deck, but why does it cost so much more than the equivalent CDR for a personal computer? Why do they have separate "music" CDRs? Minidisc was almost always touted as a data storage medium (oh yeah, and it can do music, too!). This is nothing new, but the last dying gasps of an industry trying to save itself from the empowerment of the artist. Good riddance!
I don't know about the rest of you kids, but when
I've found a track, by whatever means, that I
like, I'm more than willing to buy the CD. I'd
like to know what the rest of you folks have to
say on this line. Hmm, maybe a poll to this
effect?
Are you dumb? Don't be dumb. THINK!
ok guns:
how about stopping violence?
If I see you mugging an old lady with a knife,
all I have to do it pull out my gun and ask you
politely to stop. I am not being violent, just
threatening violence. Most of the time, when such
things are attempted...it tends to be VERY
persuasive.
In any case...yes guns are meant to kill. However
this is not a perfect world. Sometimes it is
necissary to be able to kill.
In any case...the criminals will ALWAYS have
guns. Nothing can be done about that as long
as they exist. So if you ask me, taking them
away from honest, law-abiding citizens is just
ridiculous. It reduces them to sheep, just
sitting and waiting for the arrival of the wolf.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
> For instance MAME allows you to play old arcade games if you have the corresponding copyrighted roms.
That's the problem. The old games are NO LONGER BEING MADE. How can the game companies loose money on a product that is no longer being sold [by them] ??? Illegal? Yeah.
What we need is FAIR-USE-COPYING for games. i.e. After 10 years, the game becomes public domain. That gives the game companies time to make money, and lets face it, if a game doesn't sell well in the first 10 years, how do they expect it to sell well after??
I think it would work.
Comments?
Here is an example to show that their argument against Naster is invalid:
You are a sys admin for a major university, you want to test the security of your system. To do this you use automated scripts since it costs to much to hire somebody to do it. Now if some one takes those same scripts and uses them to break into a system elsewhere, does that make those scripts 'evil', for lack of a better word, or are they a tool that was miss used by a [sick] individual?
SilverFate
[Y]our wisemen don't know what its like to be thick as a brick - Ian Anderson, "Thick as a Brick"
Very little of these types of lawsuits are discussed in Radio industry rags. 95% of the advertising in these magazines comes from the big5.
+&x
My .sig was set in Slashdot preferences. I was aware of it (saw it on preview) and found that it was totally ironic, and decided not to change it.
.sig didn't distract from the message: Nuisance suits are a way of life in these here Yew-nited States. It's one of the way that the big guys can legally step all over the little guy.
I hope that the
Another view of how these nuisance suits work (from the early days of microcomputers)...
A chain of stores opened up in the 70's called "Computer Shack." Tandy/Radio Shack sued, and they fought back. Tandy lost.
Then, Tandy sued in another state, despite the name was found not to be infringing on their name in a previous suit.
When they saw the handwriting on the wall, they changed their name. Despite the fact that they won the legal judgment.
So, you don't even need to WIN lawsuits. Having them be a sheer nuisance is enough to discourage activity that the "big boys" don't want you doing.
It's the golden rule: He who has the gold, gets to stomp all over them that don't.
I wonder what the Electronic Freedom Foundation and other similar groups feel about the RIAA-Napster thing.
--
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
When's the last time you picked a load of buckshot out of your Big Mac?
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
This is yet another example of how short sighted and frivolous the RIAA can be. As it's been said before, there are dozens of ways to exchange music online and in the real world, and they can't sue everyone for everything. Just because I can use a Slim-Jim to break into a car doesn't mean a locksmith can't use one to unlock your door after your lock your keys inside. Napster is a tool for finding music. Whether the users are scrupulous or not isn't for Napster, the RIAA or anyone else to decide.
If the RIAA was smart, they'd endorse and embrace similar technologies, maybe even throw in an encoder that rips cds to their lame secure music format. Or they could create something similar but better. People flock to better alternatives..though any product made by such a lame organization would probably be frowned upon by those in-the-know.
I also believe that services such as these can be beneficial to the RIAA. There have been many times when I've found music online, listened to it then gone out and bought the CD. Smart artists and labels are picking up on the trend and realizing the benefits to doing business this way. It's the old, fat dinosaurs that refuse to change their thinking that will lose their dominance.
This law suit is a last gasp of an organization that has out lived it's usefullness. The record industry is top heavy with a small group of artists making most of the money. This is changing thanks to technology. Those who were on top are scared. They may succeed in bringing down napster but the are losing the war. As a small producer of original music I have long resent the 'dat tax' The money is paid weather or not I record my own music. Record companies have added some kind of clause to record contracts to gouge the artist a little more because of internet copying. I can't recall it name. The point is Artist don't need record companies any more. Unless you are really popular, The copying can not hurt you. It's called 'exposure' Once your really popular it can't hurt you because you can sell out shows. It can only hurt the middle men.
Ever read 1984? In it there is a anti-goverment oganization that shields it'self by making sure that there is no central person. Even the creator of it only knew about 10 other people in the organization. Perhaps the same thing could be applied to MP3 trading? Say if when you log on you connect to one computer, find that's computer's "buddies" and on from there. Searching would be pretty high-bandwidth though...
That's like saying nuke have no purpose except turning the Pentagon into a big crater. Guns are a deterrent, especially in a country like the US where they're so widespread. Ask the average cop how many times they've actually fired their gun at a suspect. Then ask them how many times just having one prevented someone else from taking a shot at them.
Next, although it seems inconceivable, the RIAA stands a chance. Its going to be a fairly technical case, if they get a "non-techie" Judge they stand a very good chance of convincing him that they are right.
I am no John Grisham, but surely all the RIAA have to do is prove that the main use of Napster is to assist in creating illegal files. That to me doesn't appear to be too difficult, although I hope that Napster win out, but I very much doubt it.
Sony, etc. pay a fee to the major record labels for each piece of digital audio copying equipment and each blank dat, minidisc etc. that they make. That's why the RIAA isn't suing them. (This was worked out and put into law to, in theory, compensate the labels for the cost of piracy). The fees are distributed based on percentage of recording sales, i.e. the major labels get nearly all the money.
Did anyone else catch this in the original article?
:) This attitude worries me.
It has been an uphill battle: At least two federal
laws protect content "providers" from being held responsible for illegal activity over their networks.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but that seems to
say the protection laws are evil horrible things which hurt the little helpless RIAA
Drew Bernat __ ____ zathras.net | |
We should take as evidence the huge number of people who use napster, who have made it a success. Our government is by the people.. At some point the argument will be sustainable that most people want to copy music freely- and the government preventing it is a tyrannical act. Right now, copyright laws are more for corporations than people. Are we going to have a government for the corporations?
When I first used napster, I thought to myself that this surely can't last, and that I better get as much done as possible before it's gone.. I got the songs I couldn't find anywhere else..
So we need an underground napster. How about a PKI network where you have to be voted in by people already in the system. Each song would be encrypted with some 128 bit scheme, and to get the keys you have to prove your identity, presumably as a non-gov't, non-riaa person, to X people who are already on the system. It could be heirarchical, so If i bring in greg, I would have to approve everyone that greg brings in, then greg and I would have to approve everyone that they bring in. It's a private club, so we can exclude whoever we want.. When a song is transmitted, a key is generated and sent to downloader, encrypted to his private key, and the software ensures that no trace of the key is left after it's decrypted. It would take longer than the life of the universe to prove that a song was being transmitted over the system, unless they got sympathetic people on the inside... The server's database could be concealed too, such that if I was looking for a song by Dave Mathews Band, I would encrypt the name of the band and the name of the song, (MD5 it?) and look that up in the database. Doesn't facilitate browsing, and it would require strict naming conventions for song files, but it coule be used to obscure the key part of the cyphertext, such that you'd prolly have to know the name of the song to get the cyphertext to attack the public key alg.. A separate service could be set up that allows you to search for song titles, and gives you the exact plaintext you should use to get the key to search the database. This service would be by people who have absolutely no connection to the napster like providers, not even an email ever sent between them, not knowing their names. That service could be located offshore.
The great thing is that the encrypted napster db could be used for securely transferring any type of file, including software, terrorist bomb plans (g)
Open source the server, and have flat distributed server system such that any running server can find any file for you.
Who are you going to sue?
Wouldn't grow as fast as napster, but it would be impossible to prove that the server knew what files were being linked to by it's system- which is napster's problem. Comprimising the system by getting someone in would only comprimise his server.
chris
Surfing the net and other cliches...
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
Heh...let's face it. Napster is for piracy, and piracy only. Was designed that way from the ground up. There _could_ be a legal use for it, but NOBODY uses it that way. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great but I am honest enough to say that I recognize that it serves one purpose and one purpose only. Napster is a brilliant "gray area" idea, and could possibly be defended very well in court provided they have the cash. However, let's not lie to ourselves here about it's purpose.
What you're trying to say is that nukes are designed not to do big holes in the ground.
Breaking news:
-- RIAA has decided to sue all forms of OS, ftp clients, irc clients and servers, isps, the www and sound card manufacturers, to name a few. The RIAA claim that all these help spread pirated songs. They are especially irate with irc servers as these connect ppl in a common network (what brass !@!)
On a similar story the Union of Software Manufacturers are suing all cd-r manufacturers considering they help spread pirated software. The traditional faction also advocates suing floppy disk manufacturers. --
Agreeing with the post on napster not being able to pay for its legal expenses, I propose starting a fund for them. Given that everyone always seems to drop $0.2 around here, we should be good.
If you can gather enough advice from a lawyer friend (or maybe an free, open legal advice reposity. Any legal advice FAQ's (or HOWTO's) out there?) then maybe it would be worth rebelling in the face of expensive legal action by defending yourself. The benefit of a win is set precedence, a chance for an open-source legal community, and any little guy, to develop backbone against the market that has developed around defending your rights.
I have to admit that I'm all talk (text?) right now. I'm scared of lawyers and the power of their niche. I don't think I could stand up and defend myself against them, given that most judges and congressmen were once lawyers, and I'm a cynic who thinks nepotism and bribery will overcome the ethics of some judges. It just seems to easy for the system to ignore me there is no organized community to support me.
Since the government is responsible for the creation of complex law, it ought to divert some funds to create a online service to help simiplify the citizen's navigation of the law. But until a program like that appears on the scene, an open legal advice reposity is all we can hope for (VA Legal Systems, LegalCare, LegalNewbie?)
Sorry about the anti-capitalistic-lawyer slander, please don't sue me until I have some open legal resources with which to defend myself.
The way i see it is that napster could easily get themselves out of this mess if they changed their image. the way the program is designed right now is that the entire focus is on the transfering/search of mp3s. They have to drop this image. Their is no way in hell that a judge is going to believe that a program that was designed around transfering a file format that is capable of legal use but which is predominatly used for illegal means, is legal.
So the solution to napster's problem is to move mp3s to the background, move the chat feature more to the foreground (hell include an IRC chat). AND most importantly, allow for the searching, or at least displaying of more then just mp3s.
If someone looks in a friends "napster directory" and sees more then just mp3s, then it can be assumed that the program is used for more then just illegal mp3 distribution and is instead another file transfer protocol.
What napster should be is a community that allows you to chat and exchange files, not just mp3s.
How many other programs are out there that act similarly? ICQ, Cuteftp, any major irc client... There is no chance that these programs are going to be touched, because they are not built around the transfering of one particular format. I would like to see someone tell me that icq isn't capable of acting in a very similar method to napster. it probably does...
Anyway the entire point of this is to avoid a legal battle. Because no matter what, a company that has generated near zero revenue, is going to lose a legal battle.
Dear RIAA,
I am writing to express my frustration with the recording industry, including, but not limited to, and culminating in the suit against Napster.
I find it highly ironic that the Recording Industry is suddenly so publicly concerned about the "rights of artists" in copyright infringement.
What Napster.com does is make music available to those who enjoy it and appreciate it. What the recording industry does is make music they want to sell us available to us. You have, in general, shown an absolute disregard for musicianship and talent for half a century. Why do you purport to care now?
When one of any of the companies represented by the RIAA takes an artist's music and copyrights it themselves, changes it through endless bouts of overproduction, completely forces the artist to give up their artistic integrity for the purpose of selling some plasticized, poppy product to the public, it is stealing something much more precious than money from artists.
Napster's intent is obviously not to make their favorite artists poor, what could possibly be their motive for doing something like that? Napster's intent is to lessen the hold that the RIAA and others have over artists. Artists like Ani Difranco have shown that nationwide distribution and large fanbases can be attained without the help of the RIAA or huge management corporations, that artistic integrity can be saved, and that the buying public LOVES it.
Now a new medium has swept our entire society. The Internet is everywhere, boys, and you'd better get used to it. The RIAA can no longer dominate every aspect of music listening and enjoyment in our country and around the world. Smart kids who love music will figure out a way to share art with everyone, no matter what kind of bullying, laissez-faire capitalistic greed you try to pull on them.
Your quotes from artists are laughable. They're being paid by you! Not from their music! How much more are you making per record sold than artists like Creed? Don't kid yourself into thinking that music listeners all over aren't on to you.
You cannot stop us. When I was a really poor kid growing up in rural Missouri, the only way I could have access to music was by dubbing it on old tape recorders from my friends' recordings. I don't feel guilty for keeping the artists from making their $.0005, and keeping you from making your $8.00, because through that listening, I have developed a deep and abiding love for music. I buy CDs now, I listen to what I want to, and I've probably paid for an executive's parking space in revenues. Yet you do not sue the companies who make blank tapes for dubbing...you do not sue the computer manufacturers whose technology allowed music to be converted to MP3 format, you do not sue internet providers for making mass communication between listeners possible. Do you refrain only because you know it is a losing battle? Because you are simply very afraid of these intelligent and slightly sneaky kids who are undermining your very way of life? All of the above and more.
Your entire industry disgusts me. When your entire motive is to take total advantage of artists in the interests of making more and more and more dollars, how can you expect us to side with you against some kids who may be doing some wrong, but certainly have the music in first place?
You are going to need to seriously reconsider your entire way of doing business, to wake up and hear the dialup...America is on to you, and you're not going to stop it.
Sincerely,
Not to be picky, but there *are* legal uses for cd-duplicators. The two biggest contingents of legal users being tape traders and musicians. In case you were not aware a large number of bands allow and encourage the trading of their live recordings (Phish & Dave Matthews, are probably the two best known). These CDs are perfectly legal to duplicate.
Also it is debatable if making a mix-cd for your car falls under fair use, the RIAA seems to say no, but my personal opinion is that since I have duplicating equipment (not Philips, pro stuff which is even more *evil*. It ignores SCMS, and can write on non-consumer-audio discs), I might as well not put my original CDs through the torture chamber that is my car.
Fuck the RIAA. Stealing from them may be illegal, but in my book it is not immoral. What napster really needs is a way to send $.05 from the user directly to the artist for each download.
I know guys who trade warez on napster. They have lets say Macromedia_Dreamweaver_2.zip they just rename it to Macromedia_Dreamweaver_2.zip.mp3. Oh well... I just thought you would like this little tidbit of info
This is also why the DVD "crack" is such a big deal. CSS on DVDs is emphatically *not* copy protection - you can do a bit-for-bit copy of an "encrypted" DVD and it'll play fine in any player. In fact, you can even fiddle with the region codes in the copy so the copy will play anywhere.
Ok, so what's it good for? It won't stop people from pressing pirate DVDs - all players out there will play unencrypted discs just fine. And indeed, Hong Kong companies are churning out questionable-quality DVDs of the Star Wars trilogy and Episode I (in part because Lucas has repeatedly insisted that no real SW DVDs will come out until 2006! - another instance of someone needing to be beaten bloody to take our money).
So, that leaves us with one thing: it stops people from creating "unauthorized" (read: didn't pay big money to the DVD Forum's members) players. No wonder they're upset that the crack will allow a Linux(/BSD/BeOS) DVD player.
Here is my point. The Napster software only allows people to send files to each other. The Napster servers don't actually host anything. This is similar to irc servers that allow dor DCC connections between two clients. So does this mean we will start seeing irc networks and servers being sued for what useres on the do? Truthfully, 90% of pirating actually goes on in the land of IRC, both audio and programs. Or maybe we will see the makers of mIRC getting sued now for what end users of the program are doing while online.
Dear RIAA,
I am writing to express my frustration with the recording industry, including, but not limited to, and culminating in the suit against Napster.
I find it highly ironic that the Recording Industry is suddenly so publicly concerned about the "rights of artists" in copyright infringement.
What Napster.com does is make music available to those who enjoy it and appreciate it. What the recording industry does is make music they want to sell us available to us. You have, in general, shown an absolute disregard for musicianship and talent for half a century. Why do you purport to care now?
When one of any of the companies represented by the RIAA takes an artist's music and copyrights it themselves, changes it through endless bouts of overproduction, completely forces the artist to give up their artistic integrity for the purpose of selling some plasticized, poppy product to the public, it is stealing something much more precious than money from artists.
Napster's intent is obviously not to make their favorite artists poor, what could possibly be their motive for doing something like that? Napster's intent is to lessen the hold that the RIAA and others have over artists. Artists like Ani Difranco have shown that nationwide distribution and large fanbases can be attained without the help of the RIAA or huge management corporations, that artistic integrity can be saved, and that the buying public LOVES it.
Now a new medium has swept our entire society. The Internet is everywhere, boys, and you'd better get used to it. The RIAA can no longer dominate every aspect of music listening and enjoyment in our country and around the world. Smart kids who love music will figure out a way to share art with everyone, no matter what kind of bullying, laissez-faire capitalistic greed you try to pull on them.
Your quotes from artists are laughable. They're being paid by you! Not from their music! How much more are you making per record sold than artists like Creed? Don't kid yourself into thinking that music listeners all over aren't on to you.
You cannot stop us. When I was a really poor kid growing up in rural Missouri, the only way I could have access to music was by dubbing it on old tape recorders from my friends' recordings. I don't feel guilty for keeping the artists from making their $.0005, and keeping you from making your $8.00, because through that listening, I have developed a deep and abiding love for music. I buy CDs now, I listen to what I want to, and I've probably paid for an executive's parking space in revenues. Yet you do not sue the companies who make blank tapes for dubbing...you do not sue the computer manufacturers whose technology allowed music to be converted to MP3 format, you do not sue internet providers for making mass communication between listeners possible. Do you refrain only because you know it is a losing battle? Because you are simply very afraid of these intelligent and slightly sneaky kids who are undermining your very way of life? All of the above and more.
Your entire industry disgusts me. When your entire motive is to take total advantage of artists in the interests of making more and more and more dollars, how can you expect us to side with you against some kids who may be doing some wrong, but certainly have the music in first place?
You are going to need to seriously reconsider your entire way of doing business, to wake up and hear the dialup...America is on to you, and you're not going to stop it.
I had one of the first CDROM drives produced, a Sony (produced for the domestic market) that didn't even carry a rated speed. While it didn't have the four-pin soundcard connector we are familiar with today, it did have the capability to play audio discs through the included headphone jack.
Perhaps the restriction was placed on US equipment only?
.sig: Now legally binding!
...God is being sued! RIAA reckon that some of god's "arms", "legs" and "heads" are functioning together in an intelligent manner, at times to break RIAA regulations etc.
God openly admits to having created these "arms", "legs" and "heads" and putting them on the planet earth, but a spokesperson for god has stated while god did not actually break the law, he obviously deserves to goto hell.
What would be neat is if there was some way to create a dynamic network that didnt focus around one specific napster serve. Like, everyone connected would make up the server. Then the RIAA wouldn't even know who to sue, they would have to sue everyone connected to this dynamic network! =P
I'm surprised they havent tried just suing all ISP's and order them to stop letting people connect to the internet so that way we couldn't transfer ILLEGAL MUSIC !! accross the internet.
And where did they pull out $100,000 per song any ways? Out of their ass? I doubt the people who make napster have even enough for one pirated song. However, where is the proof that any illegal songs were even transmitted across napster? I HOPE NONE OF YOU HAVE DONE THIS !!
First of all, the Internet itself helps people to pirate music, so why not sue Algore? After all, he invented the darn thing.
Also, the article says that Napster will use the ISP defence...Naptster is not an ISP, this is ludicrous, they make software that makes it possible to chat and trade mp3s (mirc does the same thing, hello). The RIAA is just mad because of the EFFECTIVENESS of Napster to distribute Mp3 files.
""It is the single most insidious Web site I've ever seen--it's like a burglar's tool," Ron Stone, a representative from artists' agency Gold Mountain Management, said in a statement."
Wow, anyone this stupid should not be allowed to be quoted in articles. A web-site? Gawd! Ron Stone has obviously never see the software and is talking out of his ass.
Anyway, the idiocy of this whole thing amazes me.
If you don't like us, leave, fine, try www.zdnet.com
muahahaha
"All kinds of private exploitation is theft, in the sense that everything in this world belongs to all of us; and this so called Intellectual Property, or Software, is no exception to that."
(The Communist Juarez Argument).
The law is no measure of morality.
www.dumblaws.com
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but the artist the perform the songs really aren't getting ripped off anyway. The percentage that they receive from CD sales is small (most goes to overhead) and most of their money is made by touring and/or merchandising. Record companies are just afraid because they realize that the middle man can be now cut out of the picture. Artists that have realized this fact (Beastie Boys, David Bowie, etc.) have made mp3s available from their site. As a matter of fact, David Bowies record company was furious and had to ask him to stop giving songs away on his site because they were losing money.
"Gigantor the space age robot He's at your command. Gigantor the space age robot His power is in your hands. Gigantor the space age robot He's at your command. Gigantor the space age robot His power is in your hands."
RIAA sues FSF over "cp" utility
Los Angeles, CA
The Recording Industry Artists of America (RIAA) filed suit against the Free Software Foundation today in Los Angeles Federal District Court. In the suit, the RIAA, which represents a select cabal of huge multinational record companies, aledges that the FSF's "cp" utility -- which allows users to indiscriminately copy data from one location on their hard drive or other media to another -- is being used as a tool by music pirates. "I simply cannot believe this web site; It's like using a crowbar to pry off copyright locks on files I illegitimately own and hope to make a profit from! I have 2 hungry, bratty kids and a wife I'm pretty sure is having an affair at home, you know!" said Rod Stone, a representitive from artists' agency Gold Mountain Management. The RIAA is seeking $100,000 in damages for each song pirated by the "cp" utility. "Some users even have more than one copy of the same song on their hard drive!" commented one industry executive. The industry filed suit under the new Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), one of the most biased and unfair pieces of legislation ever. Cary Sherman, chief council and vice-president of the RIAA said, "We love the idea of using technology to suck the last possible dollar out of consumers, but 'cp' is not about that -- I understand it is even distributed 'free' -- it is about facilitating piracy and trying to build a business on the backs of huge multinationals." He added, "Not only does the FSF have no chance of besting us monetarily, but with the DMCA, we can now go after copyright 'infringers' arbitarily! Muhuhahahahhaha!"
No music trading actually takes place on computers owned by the FSF, nor does the FSF's "cp" utility monitor to see if users are copying copyrighted files. In fact, there is no restriction as to what kinds of files the "cp" utility can copy. It could be used to copy music, illegally decrypted DVD movies, copyrighted webpages, or child pornography and other illicit material.
In its counter-statement, the FSF pointed out that it did not orginate the "cp" utility. "That honor falls to either Ken Thompson or Dennis Ritche, I'm not sure which," sad Richard Stallman, chief of the FSF. "Of course, my version is better, and isn't encumbered by hoarder's copyrights." The FSF also pointed out that there are legitimate uses for the "cp" utility -- such as copying a data file to a floppy disk for backup. However, the RIAA was quick to jump on that claim. They stated, "How can we be sure the user isn't putting a copy of an emm-pee-three on to that floppy? Our multibillion-dollar-a-year-and-growing industry needs protection from money drains like that!"
A final point made by the FSF, which no one really paid any attention to, was that its "cp" utility doesn't really do anything unique anyway. Stallman commented that a "[competent] programmer could re-write the tool from scratch in less than a day -- it doesn't really do anything special." In fact, according to Stallman, everything the "cp" utility does could be done on a program-by-program basis using pipes and I/O redirection, or if you really wanted to, editing inode tables. "Of course, that would be very inconvient" added Stallman.
So, when the RIAA's... or whoever's standard of SDMI is officially executed, will companys be prosecuted if they do not implement this standard into CD players? For not implementing something that would make music more secure? In a way, Napster is creating a society that does not force consumers to adhere to copyright laws, as CD players that would not implement secure music would not force consumers to adhere to copyright infrigment laws....
There are two reasons why the RIAA doesn't have problems with minidiscs:
If I'm remembering it correctly, minidisc copy protection works like this: there's a two-bit field on each disc that indicates what kind of disc it is. When you make a direct digital copy from a CD or another MD, that field is modified so that the copy can't be used as a source for another digital copy.
Of course, none of this keeps you from making analog copies of MDs, but because MD audio is actually compressed every additional generation adds additional "noise" to the copies. What this does is keep people from distributing first-generation copies of music - exactly what happens when someone rips a CD into MP3s and sends them out.
fencepost
just a little off
I have hundreds of cassette tapes and LPs. I am not going to pay another $x for each tape/LP for the CD version of something I already own. I'm not going to pay twice for the same thing. If I own it, damn right I can download it.
hmm, better also think about shutting down the USPostal Service and UPS and FedEx, etc b/c someone could easilly mail/ship illegal goods!!
Napsters tools are no more inherently tools for pircacy than ftp is.
It seems to me that Napster's primary use profile is in fact the illegal trading of mp3 files that infringe on copyrights. Napster makes claims that its tools can be used legally, but buglar's tools can be used legally, too. And the possesion of such tools is illegal in many places.
Tools like cp, ftp and so on have by far their major use in prefectly legal applications. A brick can be used aid a burglary too; but that is not it's primary use.
I don't support the RIAA lawsuit, but all you Napster users would do your credibility a world of good if you'd quit trying to pretend that you are anything but music pirates. People don't use Napster to share free-to-trade MP3s, because free-to-trade MP3s are already easy to find -- the people making them go out of their way to make it easy. Napster, rather, is used for those "hard-to-find" MP3s, which is a nice way of saying pirated MP3s.
No, that would actually require you to think of the artist instead of your own selfish interests.
You asked why the RIAA "purports to care now." Well, why do you purport to care now? Does it help a thief sleep better at night if you can convince somebody that your piracy is a noble thing??
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
All these lawsuits filed by RIAA against say Diamond Multimedia, Napster, Lycos, couldn't these frivilous lawsuits be construed as an organized intimidation effort under the law and thereby be prosecutable under RICO? Just a thought. Having Big 5 record label and RIAA employees get hauled in on federal charges. HA. That would be hilarious Hangtime
i was actually thinking about the garage band/small software company thing, but decided not to put it in the original post cuz i thought it would take up too much space. what i think is:
first off, i seriously doubt this is the most cost-efficient way to press a lot of CDs. You could probably go to a service beaureu or something and not have to go to extreme amounts of bother making one copy at a time.
second off, the fact that the garage band has a source cd to copy to begin with kinda implies you already have access to some kind of CD-R drive, which would seem to make the phillips thing redundant. unless the phillips recorder has some kind of direct-record-from-tape thing, whcih i doubt.
third off, the target market is tiny. i'm sure there are a small number of people somewhere to which this device really is incredibly useful for legal uses and superior to the alternatives.. but these people aren't who Phillips is targeting, at least not with the commercials.
Of course, it's possible i'm completely wrong about these three things, but in any case i'd say the phillips thing is a good bit more likely to be used for illegal purposes than Napster is.
-mcc
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS THEFT
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
There is only one purpose for using a gun, and you're right as to what it is.
The problem here is that you think that violence is never justified. I disagree.
The basic reason IMHO that Americans have such a fundemental right to firearms is so that if it becomes utterly, truely necessary, we can overthrow our government, which will pretty certainly require the use of force. Wish it didn't, but if things are that bad, they probably will.
This is how it's supposed to work. Because the government derives its power and right to exist from a single source: the people. And if we don't like it then that's that for the government.
If I lived under an utterly oppressive United States of America (there is some debate as to whether or not we actually do; I don't, but we're probably getting there slowly much like the frog in the pot), it would be my obligation as an American to overthrow it so that I can live freely. Is this bad? No. It's good. It is a good use of violence or the threat of violence. Do you disagree?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Isn't this basically the same as the case against the Rio, which RIAA lost? They said it was made to let people listen to pirated songs and the courts said it wasn't made for that and Diamond wasn't responsible if some people did use it for that. I don't see a difference between this suit and that one.
If things like radar detectors are legal and those have no other use than to evade capture for speeding, how can something that is used to exchanged files be banned because some people might use it for exchanging illegal files? Like one of the other posters said, crowbars can be used for breaking into cars but they aren't illegal.
Making tools is one of the things human beings do well. That makes banning tools pretty useless, 'cause if we can't get them (be they lockpicks, handguns, or file transfer programs) we'll make them ourselves. It's our nature.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Give me a break! It isn't the guys at Napster who are doing the pirating, it's some of the people who are doing the pirating. I suppose you could sue Napster for helping people to pirate music, but I doubt it would win.
I've been using napster since it was in alpha (I remember when there were only about ten people on it) and I hope it stays around.
The recent lawsuit against the makers of Napster shows RIAA's arrogance. If you're going to go after someone for presenting a medium in which copyrighted music *might* be illegally copied, why not sue Sony for the MiniDisc? After all, the MiniDisc is a medium in which people can very easily make illegal copies of copyrighted music.
But no, Sony is a member of the RIAA, and they have the money and power to have such a frivolous and spiteful suit dropped immediately. You'd better stick to going after the little guys who can't afford to defend themselves.
The fact is, Napster is a a useful tool for sharing non-copyrighted music (in case you don't know what that is, it's music that artists release to the public domain without lining your greedy pockets). As more and more artists begin to sell their music directly to the public via pure digital media, your organization will die. I for one will enjoy the show.
Incidentally, I notice that you only have a few quotes from actual artists (not managers or agents, but the musicians themselves). Why do you suppose that is? Could they be as disgusted with your outdated business model and gouging as the general public is? Where are the quotes from internet-savvy artists like the Beastie Boys and Primus?
Cc: www.slashdot.org
-Legion
Why not turn it into a protocol? Because.. the protocol sucks.
Why not just layer this on top of IRC? Use existing IRC networks & channels? That way, it's not centralized at all.
Honestly, though I think that the software is not directly responsible, I have a beef with napster...
1) No sharing between servers. Lame.
2) Okay. I agree, when I install it, to use it for legal purposes. Fine. No problem.
3) As soon as I start it up, the first time, it scours my HD and shares EVERY mp3 it finds. Now.. how am I supposed to make sure only my non-copywritten mp3's are shared when napster assumes every mp3 on my system is for sharing? Sure.. I can change it later, but how rude.
It really amazes me how someone can take a common application, and simplify the heck out of it, and it becomes popular.
a-la: ICQ. WE had all those functions in IRC for a decade.. but it was more complicated than most people want.
Napster: We had all these functions in IRC as well, or at least, with a few bots... but it's too obscure for the common man.
It is sad that we can't just allow technology to grow unfettered, and that we have to have our music listening preferences dicatated TO us, the consumer.
RIAA: If you can't keep up with technology, you are obsolete. Why should I go across town to search for the CD I want when I can download it immediately without leaving my chair? It's not becaues I'm cheap.. it's because I'm lazy, and don't have a credit card to buy things online with, and I will not inconvenience myself to support your archaic business.
ARTISTS: I'll pay large to see you perform live in my city.
Napster *could* have had a mixed media setting.
So you can pick what media types you want to share.. that would have helped a lot.
Thank you for proving my point - Pointing a gun at someone and telling them to do something, whether it is to stop a crime or not, is very violent.
Why don't we get some of these class action suite happy lawyers to go after RIAA with a class action suite to stop their harrassment of viable companies, and personal use?
Something that I always found odd about Napster was that the file content one shared was limited to MP3s. Sure, that is the most likely thing to be traded, but couldn't they have avoided all of this by simply allowing unlimited filesharing? That way, although there system would actually allow a broader range of information transfer, the Napster system wouldn't be any more to fault for piracy than a college network. That's not to say that college networks don't corner the market on piracy, but what business has ever sued A school for MP3 distribution? By this means, Napster could split of lists of files by their file type and create ways to trade a number of other useful media too.
Those who use the word "bravado" rarely have very much of it.
"And many artists, from gold-record seller Ice T to unknown garage bands, are starting to voluntarily encode their music in MP3 for free distribution through sites such as MP3.com or to sell through digital music vendors such as EMusic and CDNow."
Artists now have an outlet that bypasses the record company, and the record companies are running scared. I love it! The record companies have been ripping off artists and fucking up radio with their play lists for long enough. Maybe their rein is over!
rickb
Rick B.
Thanks, RIAA. I had been having troubles finding some music that I wanted on Scour.net, and was starting to get annoyed. Now I just downloaded Napster and found what I wanted in 2 seconds, downloaded them in 3, and am playing them right now. Thank you for pointing out to me the existence of this wonderful software (although I don't like the Linux client so much and I don't have the gnome development package so I can't compile either of the gnome ones)
:-)
BTW I own these songs on CD or cassette, but I can't play cassettes in my computer and CDs are just annoying (and I'm too lazy to rip them to mp3 myself
"Software is like sex- the best is for free"
-Linus Torvalds
I am sure this has been said before, but it just can't be stressed enough. In almost NO way may Napster be held liable for what is transferred over the net. The problem that this shows yet again is that there is a large organization that knows it has absolutely no legal merit to sue Napster, but they also know that Napster probably doesn't have the resources to fight them off in a long drawn out legal battle. It's a problem in America's legal process, and it has to be changed. It is providing a way for whining idiots with big pockets to get rid of the small guy by suing them with no intent to win legally, but to drive them to legal bankruptcy. It's pure B.S. and I say we start boycotting any company that is affiliated with the RIAA and stand up for our selves. It's time to make an example of these barbarians! Whoever believes that this must be stopped reply here! There is strength in numbers! -Code
They sued Diamond Multimedia over their Rio player and lost. What makes you think that they are going to win here?
I already said that I don't support the RIAA's lawsuit, so why are you so defensive? Because I don't see cheapskate pirates like you as knights in shining white armor here to help the artists?
If you want to help the artists, then come up with a way to help them -- stealing their music isn't going to help them a bit. I think you just prefer being a thief.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I won't argue that copyright is enforcable via technology. It's not.
Furthermore, I resent the way the RIAA is trying to kill the web the same way they killed DAT,
and I really resent the burglar's tools provision in the DMCA.
But let me ask you this:
(1) Do you dispute that the members of the RIAA are losing revenue because of the mp3 revolution?
(2) Do you think it's okay if major label artists are losing money because of it?
Be honest with yourself about what side you take. Is it okay because you're "sticking it to the man"? Do you shoplift, too? Is it okay if you only shoplift from big chains?
whuppy enjoys smelling like diesel fuel
Heck, I'd pay 5 bucks and up directly to the artist for a good CD.. as long as the RIAA didn't get a nickel of it.
How many of you have downloaded mp3s from actual sites like mp3.com that are not copyright protected?
The songs on mp3.com are copyrighted. You are not permitted to distribute them, unless the artist overrides this restriction (and I haven't seen any that do). Of course, it's in mp3.com's interests to see their artists' songs distributed far and wide, so I doubt they'll crack down on anyone who distributes the files.
To answer your question, though: I think you'd be surprised. I've downloaded a few dozen songs from mp3.com, at least. I've also bought 5 D.A.M. CDs from them, and will probably buy more in the future. A lot of the artists on mp3.com are good -- as good as anything on the radio (which isn't saying much these days).
The vast majority of my MP3 files were ripped directly from CDs that I own. I've got several hundred CDs, and a couple thousand fully-legal MP3 files.
Most of the "illegal" MP3 files I have fall into two categories: rare/live/B-side songs from artists I adore, or one-shot singles from artists from whom I only like one song and don't want to buy a whole album just to get that song.
E.g., I have bought every Tori Amos studio album, and every single I could get my hands on. But most of the singles are out of print -- so the B-sides on those singles can only be had by either buying the single from someone, or copying it. In either case, neither Tori nor Atlantic Records gets any money at all. So why not just copy the B-side tracks?
If I could pay, say, $0.50 USD directly to Tori Amos for every B-side, live track, etc. that I've downloaded, I'd do it. And I think a lot of other people would, too (though the price they'd be willing to pay might be different, and of course the artist might not be Tori).
The same goes for the one-shot songs. There are a lot of one-hit wonder artists out there, or artists who only have 1-3 songs I like. Would you pay $0.25 for a copy of Tommy Tutone's "867-5309 (Jenny)"? Or The Buggles' "Video Killed the Radio Star"? A lot of people would, especially if it were easy and had no overhead. Even more would, if they knew the money was going to go straight into the artist's pocket, and not to some record company exec. But would you buy a whole album at $12-$18 USD just to get one of those songs? No, probably not, unless it's a Rhino Records compilation or something.
The next great innovation for the human race is going to be secure, anonymous, untraceable electronic currency. And it's going to turn the whole world upside-down.
-Legion
Yes, this is where "shot to the head" comes from. Still, you are killing something.
Uh, when you eat a plant you are still killing something. Food comes from living things. The way that cattle are shot is probably about the most humane way they could do it (its not like you could effectively guillitine a cow).
And, by the way, you don't have to eat things killed with guns to survive
Why would I mind if things were killed with guns or not? I don't see anything wrong with it, in fact, I have hunted, and probably will hunt in the future. I would now if I had the time.
Although a certain portion of meat products has generally been proven necessary. Try chicken - no guns used there...
I eat chicken, beef, pork, sheep, whatever. I don't see the fact that chicken is killed by a different means makes any difference to me. As long as it is done humanely, I don't care. From an economic standpoint, food processors should use whatever humane method is the most cost effective.
It is worth noting that people generally let fish die by suffocation which is not very humane and think nothing of it. Most commercial fish is killed that way too. I don't generally eat fish, but that is because I don't like most kinds of fish, not because I am morally opposed to it.
Most of the voices seem to be on the side of Napster just because the "big evil RIAA" is suing them. Many Slashdotters might be wrapped up in Open Source and sharing and all that good stuff they they forget there are things out there that are not to be distributed. :)
Napster seems to be positioning themselves as a way to "find your favorite artists" while bypassing all those no-name artists putting legit MP3s out there.
All the arguments keep pointing to the fact that there are Legit MP3s being tossed around, but I would guess that is a strict minority on Napster's service.
You cannot tell me that the RIAA doesn't have their priorities straight, because Napster (along with IRC, FTPs, etc) is obviously nipping at their clients' business. It doesn't hurt that Napster has their own servers that users connect to and is so visible it just sticks out there. How the RIAA did what they did is up for criticism, but _what_ they are trying to do shouldn't be. If you could do something that someone else can't, and you can make money off it, wouldn't you want it protected? Hell, a patent system (as well as copyrights, trademarks, etc) is discussed in Article 1 of the US Constitution!
Where do we draw the line? Unfortunately, I'm guessing lawsuits are going to be telling us Real Soon Now.
The last time a manufacturer was meaningfully alleged to be responsible for piracy resulting from the use of new technology was the famous Betamax case, which went all the way to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a defendant CANNOT be guilty for contributing to the infringement by a third party, whenever the apparatus being sold is capable of a substantial non-infringing use -- even if he has knowledge that the piracy might occur. In Betamax case, the Supes held that "time-shifting" broadcast TV by a consumer is fair use, and thus, there existed substantial non-infringing uses.
Of course, Sony lost to the Supreme Court of the Marketplace in the long run, but they set a virtually unassailable precedent for those who follow: if the thing can be used for non-infringing purposes, there won't be responsibility unless the defendant, itself, is actually doing the piracy.
Lawsuits like these are why we need a decentralized napster -- multiple independantly operated napster. I'm currently working on a solution that uses search engines that have no knowledge of what files they've indexed.
I'm also working on double-blind cryptographic anonymity for the actual file transfers, using mixmaster-like resenders.
See http://osiris.978.org/~brianr/anap/, where I'll be posting some of my ideas. There's also a mailing list. Send a message to list-anap-subscribe@osiris.978.org to join.
Actually I heard RMS is an asshole.
However that doesn't make his point invalid.
Piracy, while an accepted term, belies the
nature of the crime. Nothing is stolen, only
copied.
"Unauthorized Copying" *IS* a more accurate
term, the reputation of its advocate
not withstanding nor relevant
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Instead of just rallying around Napster, the real response would be to wage a publicity counter-campaign. Denials don't work very often, so trying to inform people that "!(MP3 == piracy)" and "!(RIAA == artists' rights)" is doomed to ineffectivity.
Let's take a page from the manipulators' book. Change the terms of debate. (Let's not talk about smoking pot, let's talk about inhaling.) If you can change the language of debate, you can change opinions. Sad, but true. Why not take advantage of it for a change?
What messages should be be popularizing? I wish I knew. Ideas, anyone?
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." --Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)
From what I've read of the comments, it looks at though Napster is on firm legal ground, if only they could afford a defence. This looks like a good opportunity for mp3.com to step in with some of their IPO $$$.
Other thoughts I've had are that Napster should have made their software more "general purpose". Advertise it as a way to trade pics (you know which type), and have it "conviently" also transfer mp3s.
Look at how many mp3s are flying around in IRC, but you don't see the RIAA trying to sue. The trouble with Napster is that it is too high-profile and it was only a matter of time before the RIAA took notice.
As others have already said, last resort is open-source the server/client.
GRH
Got HTML? Want LaTeX? Try html2latex
Napster makes claims that its tools can be used legally, but buglar's tools can be used legally, too. And the possesion of such tools is illegal in many places.
In Massachusetts, where I live, it's only illegal to own burglary tools if intend to use them to commit a crime. Many other states take intent into consideration.
So, the RIAA wants to sue Napster? What about Microsoft? Has anyone ever heard of SMB?? And did you know that SMB also works over TCP/IP??
Go ahead and try it - open up an SMB client and type in my machine's address - luxojunior.res.cmu.edu You should get a directory listing. No, it's not publicly available, but it could have been.
Actually, I was once at home on mid semester break and successfully started playing an MP3 from my personal stash all the way back at my college dorm address, right through SMB.
Yes, Napster might be a little faster (since it's direct peer to peer transfer), but it's entirely plausible with Windows Networking and SMB.
So, RIAA... how about suing Microsoft? They might actually have that $100,000 per pirated song you're looking for.
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
Brains are used in the process of distributing illegal mp3s - quick let's sue everyone with brains.
Many, many people here are missing the point. Other protocols such as IRC, FTP, HTTP, etc are primarily used and designed things other than piracy. They allow for things other than a small subset of files to transfer through them. Napster allows only mp3s. Although they try to say "hey, it's only for LEGAL mp3s!," anyone who isn't lying or retarded knows that its primary use is illegal mp3s. At the moment of this post, there are 149,590 songs available on napster. Can you really tell me that the majority of those songs are legal mp3s?
Lets take a search for "Metallica" and see what we find.. over 100 songs. All copyrighted. Now, I'll try out #Alternative on the chat part of napster.. within 2 minutes of joining, I see someone asking for a Counting Crows mp3. Also copyrighted. Now, I'll try a search for Liona Boyd, one of mp3.com's Featured Artists.. 1 song found. A 100:1 ratio of pirated:legal mp3s does not shine napster in a good light.
Face it.. napster was primarily designed for and is primarily used for the piracy of music. I don't like the RIAA or their tactics, but I simply must side with them in this case. Piracy is illegal. If I were a musician, I certainly wouldn't want my music being copied around without receiving payment for it.
of the patent I have obtained which gives me exclusive control for 20 years over the technology of harassing anyone who distributes or develops ways of distributing mp3's online.
:)
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Maybe Napster should just make their client open source, then no one will be able to stop it. There is already a linux client available. >:)
Perhaps the RIAA should sue Al Gore. After all, he invented the Internet, didn't he?
http://lime.audiogalaxy.com/betatest/
Ive tried it and it works well. It's just like napster minus the CHAT. Its Windows only right now but after the beta test they will have Win,Mac,Linux, and Solaris ports. I hope the Napster thing doesnt spook them.
I have to return some videotapes...
I a m a Napster user. Yes, that makes everything that I say in the next few paragraphs hypocritical. However, you know and the RIAA knows that Napster exists solely for the distribution of pirated music. If Napster could legitimately claim that they had not engineered their product to promote theft - and they can't, despite any disingenuous claims to the contrary - then maybe the defenders of Napster would have a point.
Let's suppose that I distribute a product called "Wickster." Wickster is a remote-control device that allows me to stroll by the homes of strangers, point the device at the house, and BLAM! all of the electronics in the house are rendered useless. I distribute 50,000 of them. Out of that 50,000, 49,800 are used by miscreants to nuke the televisions, computers, and stereos of anonymous strangers. The remaining 200 users use the device to test their own equipment for EMP susceptibility.
Oh, I did include a cheesey disclaimer to protect myself.
Cassette tapes are used by millions of people to back-up their own music collections. Guns are oned by millions to defend themselves and for target practice. Napster has no dual-purpose. Of the tens of thousands of MP3's distributed via Napster, HOW MANY DO YOU THINK WERE AUTHORIZED FOR DISTRIBUTION BY THEIR COPYRIGHT OWNERS?
Think about it.
Now, I applaud Napster. I hate the RIAA. I know and you know that the pimpled teen with 18GB of MP3's hasn't cost the artists a penny, because he couldn't have afforded all of the CD's they MP3's were copied from, anyway, on his McBurger wages. As many copies of Brittney Spears' latest drek exist to pollute our store shelves as existed before. Or she just might have sold a few more copies because he wondered whether her tits looked good on the cover of the CD after hearing her yodelling on the MP3.
Theft is theft. Legally, downloading MP3's that you don't own is theft (and, in some parts of the world, you have no right to make archival copies. I don't think the absolute right to an archival copy exists in the UK). When that law is changed (probably never), Napster will have legal legs. Until then, their case is rather defenseless.
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
Because you seem to think that everyone who utilizes mp3s are pirates, thieves and whatnot.
We are talking about Napster here, not mp3.com. Nearly everyone who is using Napster _is_ a pirate, a thief, or whatnot.
And if you like the music of Jeff Mills, but it from CDnow or some other on-line music seller. It doesn't make any difference that his CD's can't be found where you live. the Internet makes the whole world local.
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
that's ok. I'd trade guns for drugs any day.
Locksmiths have special access to a lot of information needed to do their job. I locked my self out of a rental car while traveling once by dropping the keys in the trunk. I called a locksmith. He was able to open the door with a slim jim, and then make a key by reading a code from the inside of the glove compartment, and a second code from a book that he carried.
It would be obvious that such a professional could be licensed to have such tools, just as many other professionals (say, doctors) have access to otherwise illegal materials.
Whats the difference between napster and IRC, besides the file search function? Besides that, why isn't CuteMX by Globalscape being included in this lawsuit? The point of the cassette/minidisc decks I don't think is valid. Napster provides a global means for which to distribute songs. Duplicating decks only allow for backup copies to be created, which (I believe) is legal. But again I raise the point that napster is nothing more then a glorified IRC system, with DCC built into the client. P.S. For those of you who don't know what CuteMX is, its a Media exchange system. Allowing you to distribute music, sound, video, and pictures. All of these media forms can be copyrighted. Both Napster and GlobalScape are mearly providing the forum, while the users themselves are actually performing the ripping.
-----Zephyre
So yes, Napster went through the motions of covering their behinds and many posters here are of the opinion that `they've done nothing wrong'. Because they've done nothing illegal other than to create some `enabling' technology in order to let people trade music files. So for the purposes of argument let's take it as given that the copying of music which one has not in some way paid for is immoral. And we can deduce that the laws of many countries takes this view too, since the activity is also illegal.
From their website: Just download Napster now to start building your MP3 collection today--faster and easier than you ever dreamed possible!
But who here believes that Napster really intended to make money from people trading legal MP3s through their server? I'm not sure exactly what their business model is here but c'mon, these guys are completely aware of the illegal status of 99% of the files available through their servers. Maybe they're intending to sell advertising through their client software, or were planning on charging for use of the network. But they're hiring people, so they've got to make some money out of this. It's a business, and its product consists almost entirely of ripping off record companies. They can claim that this wasn't their intention, but given the ease of the technology they've provided, and the scant provision for encouraging legal (or discouraging illegal) distribution of MP3s, this case is pretty weak.
A few people have reasoned, quite rightly, that suing a company for producing a product merely with the capacity for assisting in criminal activity is absurd. Of course I'd agree. But there's a very convicing argument saying that Napster wrote their software for the express purpose of making money out of music piracy, and that their legal get-out is on a point of technicality: that their servers hold pointers to other people's pirated music files rather than the files themselves, and that the RIAA ought to attempt the impossible, and go after the people actually holding the files. But at the end of the day, since this technical difference makes little difference morally (given our above assertion), it is only an irrelevant technicality. I guess it raises the question as to whether any technology which has a clearly illegal purpose should be legislated against. A pretty sticky question if you ask me; but I think you have to agree that Napster's sticking two fingers up to the RIAA in this cleverly-designed system hardly makes it any less moral, at least on the grounds that the law sees.
I'm just trying (slightly clumsily) to show a point of view here, and make people think things through a little more, rather than state what I necessarily think. Go on, pick me apart.
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
Perhaps the next time you guys get invaded, you'll refuse the tens of thousands of Stens, grenades, etc. that would be shipped to the resistance fighters. Hint: Ask some people that were Resistance during WWII, and you may get a slightly different viewpoint.
Oh, wait...we're in a brave new world, and there's no war anymore.
That bit (the forty-three times more likely garbage) is from the (discredited) Kellerman study. Check some more modern statistics, showing for example:
Great declines in violent crimes in states that have allowed concealed carry
a 400% (yes, 400 percent!) increase in violent crime in Australia after the Aussies allowed some misguided emotional politicians to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning firearms.
You're right about the lawsuit being a useful stick for the RIAA regardless of whether they have any chance of winning in court. However, there is a counterpoint to that argument.
Napster is a corporation that is not only easy to sue but may even be lucrative to sue. It is a sitting duck in corporate waters.
To avoid that particular stick you must either not be a sitting duck or else not swim in coporate waters. If you can avoid both, all the better.
The above metaphor maps directly to a solution that we know well: the RIAA could do nothing against open-sourced napster-type systems distributed through newsgroups and mirrored on thousands of servers across the world. There need be no identifiable people nor companies to sue, no money to make, no injunctions to serve. They would be entirely powerless to do anything about it.
Napster is comparatively vulnerable because its source is fixed, closed, and corporate, but we're already nearing a less vulnerable solution in gnapster, and much better total solutions could easily be devised. Let's get to it.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Your points have little relevance to the suit. Everyone knows that these tools exist and I'm sure the RIAA would love to destroy them, but how? I think the suit is BS, but I don't think the RIAA is dumb for filing it, just immoral. I mean, they have a very strong vested interest in protecting their business. Napster is an overwhelmingly larger threat to them than FTP. FTP Mp3 sites are largely the domain of w4R3z d00dz. Napster has been enormously popular with all sorts of normal, CD-buying people. Plus, there's no obvious thing to kill with stock FTP. If they bring down Napster, they're set.
--
--
"Insert witty quote here."
I have noticed that in the past all of this 'cry' about mp3s has been made. I think that they are catching too much flack. The only justification that the RIAA has to sue on, is that the music industry has been depleted since the release and distribution of mp3s. I know that I personally have some mp3s, yet I still go and buy cds. It is important that we prioritize, and that we realize that this has little to no effect. For all that we know, the musicians don't even care. For example, Dave Matthews Band says that it is alright to distribute mp3s of live performances, just don't sell them. Music should be loved and free, if people want it in CD format, they can still purchase it that way. Another astounding fact is that ever since mp3s have been released the music industry has been flourishing .
Also, Napster has got the right idea. It is a very well written program, that teaches 'sharing', a value we seem to have lost in our gradual decent to unmorality.
We need to maybe look to other methods of blame, rather than waste millions of dollars on this bureaucratic horsecrap.
My little sad piece of the internet: www.mtndewd
Actually, I'd wager that counting bytes/day, illegal file transfers constitute a majority of ftp traffic. The vast number of warez and mp3 FTPs out there swamp the relatively few remaining major legal FTP sites (the majority of software the typical person downloads these days is downloaded via HTTP).
Even if not a majority, pirate sites make up at least a quite large percentage of total FTP traffic.
So ban FTP then?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
OK.. I've held this in long enough. Sorry if it was said before here in this thread. Mark this up, mark it down, do whatever you want to do, moderators.
First off, to those at the RIAA. Fuck you. Got it? Just go fuck yourselves. You feel so big and powerful there in your goddamned ivory tower like pope of the fucking parade. You just don't get the idea, do you?
Second, you're saying NAPSTER ("program", "this program") is pirating MP3's. Whatever. Are you smoking crack over there? This is among the idiocy I hear from Anti-Gun advocates (the retort, PEOPLE KILL) well, PEOPLE TRADE MP3's! Can't you see the fucking difference you bunch of fucking fuckwits? Do you have your head planted so far up your ass you don't know what's what? If you do this, I want to see the governments of the WORLD to SUE the FOLLOWING COMPANIES: SONY, RCA, MAGNAVOX, TOSHIBA, EMERSON, and any other COMPANY THAT SELLS VIDEO MONITORS! You know people look at KIDDIE PORN on those things! Also I want them to sue all the KEYBOARD MANUFACTURERS for contributing to the HACKING COMMUNITY! If no one had a KEYBOARD the WHITEHOUSE, CIA, and every other place on the INTERNET would have not been hacked. Kevin Mitnick who? we would be saying.
SUE THE GOVERNMENT FOR INVENTING ARPANET!
NEXTLY, SUE ALL THE MODEM MANUFACUTERS! Same reason. SUE THE PHONE COMPANIES!!! Same reason.
Fuck you, RIAA. You think you know it all. Come to grips with yourself and get a goddamned clue. The more negative publicity you give yourself, the more people are going to screw you over.
Signing this only reinforces my beliefs.
-m, a very disgruntled non-AC.
Well.. this move is certainly not surprising, as we all know. The recording industry cringes each time another mp3 player comes out onto the market. And Napster was the first convenient, main-stream method of obtaining mp3s. Being relatively easy to use, it's popularity grows quickly. What gets me, is that the recording industry is fooling itself if they think that they can ever stop the trading and pirating of mp3s.. people will just take it underground again. It will be a ring of little naplets ;)
This could put the RIAA and artists in a very tight position. It essentially says that a program that provides facilities for massive pirating is perfectly OK. If Napster were to lose the suit, it could send a message to all people developing similar programs or clients. However, if they win, there'll probably be a flood of like products, possibly even non-free ones. Once people start paying for these, it becomes even more illegal. In that case you would essentially be paying the company to help you pirate copyrighted material. Yes, I know that some music is free, but of all the people I know who use Napster, not a one of them uses it for legal mp3s. Also, considering the popularity of mp3, we might have another Microsoft on our hands...with the monopoly on the "copyright infringement" market. -Derek "blight" To un-spamify my email, replace the x's with the following letter, in order: ltsf
Morally Napster wouldn't stand a chance?
Depends on who's morals. I think that screwing over the record companies (and the system in general) is a fabulous idea. But then again, I'm sort of anarchistic that way and am not in favour of the entire existing intellectual copyright system. However, that is not really the point, the point is that people's moral viewpoints differ on this, and almost every other subject, so making all-inclusive statements about the morals of Napster (the program) is just as silly as saying that law dictates proper moral behaviour.
.sig files are vain
RIAA *has* problems with minidiscs, CDRWs, and other recordable medias. Every media sold already has pre-levied RIAA TAX.
I have always wondered: How does RIAA accomplish this? They aren't a government agency or anything, so it isn't by law. Do they simply bully all possible manufacturers, or what?
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Anybody else notice that the first steps in ending the 'old west' mentality of the internet have all been taken by corporations? Pirates don't fear the FBI, instead they fear the RIAA, SPA or MPAA sueing them for everything they've got.
If the internet is to be policed (which is inevitable), who would you want to police it?
I'm just saying that even if there were no guns, we'd still be able to enjoy meat products.
I'm not so sure about that in the long run. If we give in on one thing, sooner or later the militant PETA-philes will be pushing for legislation outlawing the eating of meat. Sure, they'll start with just banning hunting. Sooner or later they will outlaw eating cows (because eating beef offends Hindus) and pigs (because eating pork offends muslims and jews), eventually it will be poultry and then fish.
It is a slippery slope that we shouldn't go down.
At any rate, I disagree with your point in that I don't believe guns are only used for violence, and I think that even if it was possible to eliminate guns that it wouldn't eliminate violence from society. I think that eliminating guns would be a huge mistake in the long run.
I refuse to buy music cd's because of many reasons. One of which is the fact that the industry does not treat its consumers with respect. Now i understand the complications of my illegal mp3 activities, but i cannot justify spending $19.99 for a cd at Record Town. If i go to Record Town's competition (which is a tiny little music store with virtually no selection) i can get cd's for $17.99. I am from Plattsburgh, NY if anyone wants to know...
Now this is absurd, these prices are so high that it becomes financially impossible for me to exist in their market. Therefor I am left with 4 options:
1). Use my student loan to buy cd's...
2). Steal cd's from Record Town, or mug old women for cash.
3). Quit listening to music.
4). Pirate Mp3's
I decided to choose option 4, because i like old people, and i have a smaller chance of being caught, and the punishment is far less severe if i do.
So how can the industry counter this situation?
Plan #1 -- The current Approach.
Well they could try to block programs like napster, or they could try to censure the internet, but we all know that is destined to fail. after all i could just zip my mp3's and then encrypt then and send them anywhere and nobody will be able to track the fact that im pirating music without lots of investigation.
Plan #2 -- A better approach?
Lower music costs, (which wont happen because of a virtual monopoly int the industry) or create some other way for consumers to feel better about their purchases. After all I would argue that a main reason why people pirate is becasue they feel swindled by the industry. Now i do not know how to do this, becase after all this is the trick. but if there was some way for the industry to include some other frill with the cd, then maybe people would buy them more. Maybe this could be as simple as a flyer in each cd, or a mailing sent to your house... maybe even free guitar tabs, who know the limits are endless...
So my basic point is that the industry needs to make consumers feel good about consumption, until then im going to continue to steal my music. Now if i go to a show and the band is selling stuff there like T-Shirts, stickers, cookies, etc... I will buy that to show my support but i will not pay $19 dollars to some middle mad who is taking a huge cut out of the sale.
"The importance of using technology in the right way has never been more clear."
Just getting it on the record that Webnoize broke this story, not News.com.
Guns (or should I say "Arms") are the means by which we defend our Constitution, and the freedoms we hold so sacred. Though there are a lot of idiots who misuse their right to keep and bear arms, by senselessly shooting up school yards or churches, I prefer those consequences to the alternative: A government similar to that of Nazi Germany. Don't say it could never happen.
It scares me that the Clinton Administration is getting away with raping the Constitution, in the name of doing what "they" know is best for us.
What scares me even more is how the media is feeding off of it - the way they promote their Clinton-esque "violence is bad, let's ban guns and that'll solve the problem" agenda.
What scares me even more that than is the fact that the public is buying it. But slowly our freedoms are being dwindled away, right in front of our eyes.
The Constitution was set up as a set of checks and balances. Every branch of Government balances out the others, to make sure one never gets TOO much power. That was the spirit of the Constitution, and it is in that same spirit that the first and second amendments were included. The Constitution must remain intact. Please don't listen to the propaganda from these spin doctors who will try to convince you otherwise.
Does it bother anyone to know that the Clinton Administration is doing all it can to disarm America?
And that he has all these friends in the media working in conjunction with him to promote his agenda? (Small example: Clinton turned to Hollywood producer friends, who helped him create a more convincing image during his Monica Lewinsky denials, and had his producer friend - I forget the name - design his "Set" when he addressed the country and admitted the truth of the affair. From the flowers in the picture to the soft lighting, He had every base covered.)
Isn't some of this looking a *little* familiar? We saw how Hitler used the media to promote his agenda (ie: Leni Refenstal's "Triumph of the Will"), and it worked. He took control of Germany, and nearly all of Europe before anyone had a clue as to what happened...
Something totally off the topic with RIAA, but I'm gonna post to this anyway ;-) I live in .nl for over 13 years now and I can't wait till I can move to the states, canada or Australia. Maybe .nl has a better Law system, which makes it harder for companies/people to sue just anyone they like for something totally insane...that's great. But there are so many great things you will NOT find in .nl and that are common in the US or wherever... My point - Every country has it's benefits and disadventages (and yes, so does .nl , BIG way), no matter where you are, you'll run into problems that you may not end up in if you were 'in that other country'. Please do not promote .nl as the heaven on earth... Cheers, Stepan
stepan
What we need is FAIR-USE-COPYING for games. i.e. After 10 years, the game becomes public domain. That gives the game companies time to make money, and lets face it, if a game doesn't sell well in the first 10 years, how do they expect it to sell well after??
What you are suggesting here is that the copyright expire after 10 years; by definition, it falls into the public domain after copyright expires.
Someone made a good point about this, being that businesses plan things on a 3-5 year schedule; if they don't expect to turn a profit within that amount of time, they don't do it. Why, then, do they need 95-year copyright protection for things they intend to turn a profit in within 5 years?
Given that the actual intent of copyright (any patents) is to encourage more works to be produced by offering some limited-time protection to make it worthwhile, it would seem that a timeframe closer to 10 years might actually be reasonable from a public-policy perspective.
Unfortunately, many have become convinced that the true purpose of copyright (and patents) is the perpetual enrichment of those lucky enough to have valuable enough "intellectual property" be able to rest on their laurels instead of producing new works.
Disney has already made plenty of money from Mickey Mouse; does extending the copyright really encourage Disney to create new works to eventually enrich the public domain? No. Disney will consider new works just as any other business would -- will we make money on this over the next few years?
Clearly, copyright protections far exceed the bounds and purposes intended by the Constitution. They now serve to enrich the few at the expense of the many. It isn't right, but that's what happens when corporations can use their money to drive the political process to their own ends...
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay