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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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"
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?"
- 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
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
yes they can.. Hanson and N'sync are living proof.
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.
...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.
---
"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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?"
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?"
I think ultimatly it will help the record companies more than hurting them. Or at least the indie artist.
You've just stumbled across the point here. MP3 will, in fact, help the indie artist. This is precisely the reason it needs to be stopped.
Think about it, people have been copying music for years. Never been a big fuss about it before. No industry wide crack-down on manufacturers of cassette recorders. Record labels DO NOT lose all that much money due to illegal copying, and they know it. Music piracy is not the threat they are fighting off here, regardless of what their press releases claim.
They are also not trying to protect artists. How do record labels make their money? By exploiting artists, not protecting them. Now all of a sudden there is a way for budding artists to distribute their music on a large scale WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE ESTABLISHED SYSTEM. This is the threat that the RIAA is attempting to fight off. The problem with MP3 is not piracy, it is the fact that it allows artists to distribute music and deny the record labels their cut.
What you're trying to say is that nukes are designed not to do big holes in the ground.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Incorrect. Napster was designed for the sole purpose of transferring mp3 files. Since these files never pass through Napster's servers, they have no way of enforcing copyright laws, as they never actually see the files. If you look, there are quite a few legal mp3s on Napster (mostly from relatively unknown bands such as those at mp3.com). The fact that more people choose to trade illegal mp3s than legal mp3s is something beyond Napster's control.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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
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.
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.