you raise a disturbing possibility, but then you leave it at that. how does the MS rejoinder, which seems to me pathetic in the extreme, since it is obvious to anyone with even an iota of intelligence that no one on either side expects a dialogue, show that the open source/free software advocates have stepped into an MS PR trap? That's my first challenge.
Second challenge, please explain better why you think that "spin" is necessary. Spin is alien to the entire thrust of open source/free software, as your other respondants have noted. How are you going to spin a response which is basically nothing but facts? Are you enough of an expert in these matters that we - or, more importantly, Bruce Perens - should be worried by what you say?
No more challenges than these. If you can respond, maybe you're not a troll.
A statement that addresses businessmen, while important, is only part of the picture. My feeling is that equally important, if not more important, is the simple show of unity (I would say solidarity were I more of a radical;).
Mundie's statement directly attacks free software/open source as fragmenting. Perens et alii's response not only shows that the Linux business community is united, which would not be such a big deal, but also that people like ESR and RMS are also on their boat. Don't underestimate that. It's BECAUSE they are "the worst people" that their signatures on this statement are going to carry huge weight. You think that those signatures will lessen the impact of the statement in the business community; on the contrary, there are business leaders galore on the statement; ESR and RMS add political weight, conceptual weight, and further, unify even the far fringes of the Linux/open source/free software community under this statement.
I feel the same way about this "fostering discussion" comeback comment as I feel about that second letter from the DVD-CCA to Professor Felton at Princeton stating that they didn't really intend to sue.
Except that it's about a million times more pathetic.
It does require effort to band together, and unless there's a common aim - real or artificial - the returns aren't going to make it worth the effort.
THE SHIT IS WORK FOR HIRE. FUCKING PERIOD.
on
Is Law Copyrighted?
·
· Score: 2
I didn't think it was possible to be any ANGRIER at the fucking judges who are making these decisions.
All right. For all their hooliganism, one can see that the MPAA and RIAA do have a certain legitimate beef - the problem with them is that they're trying to handcuff the public. And you have to remember, they're private corporations. That's their nature. Not to give a shit about you except insofar as you're made of funny green paper.
But THIS. THIS is too much. IF THE GOVT HIRES A COMPANY TO WRITE THE WORDING OF A LAW, WHAT ARE THEY DOING ALLOWING THEM TO RETAIN COPYRIGHTS TO THAT WORDING?
What now? These corporations start to charge anyone who wants to read THE LAW THAT APPLIES TO THEM?!
I can see it now, they ENCRYPT the law, and you can only read it on Windows, and someone wants to read it in Europe on Linux for a school assignment, and so decrypts it, and then there's a lawsuit under the DMCA for decrypting the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF THE LAW!
What I find most disturbing about this is that it's basically a no-news piece (maybe they're going to adopt a different license, they think it's a good idea, but that's about all they say) about a Linux company which comes off making MS sound like they've got some really good points about Open Source and the GPL, when all Mundie really said is that you have to sell things in order to make money (things like software, as opposed to services based on that software); and he makes an attempt to co-opt into the hype of "open source" with this "shared source". It's fucking weird as others have posted here, since they owe their livelihood to the Linux kernel and the GPL it's licensed under.
It's also disturbing to hear Love agreeing, or being portrayed as agreeing (he probably does agree) with a statement that claims to be committed to intellectual property, as though the GPL could get anywhere without copyright. It all really means commitment to MS' version of IP, yada yada..
By the by, I just want to say that I am SICK and TIRED of hearing the phrase "great software". Great means you paint Les Demoiselles d'Avignon when you're young and hungry and sell it for not a lot, and when you're old and rich you splash a few dashes of paint on a plate and sell it for a cool mil. Fuck your great software!
That's true about the definition of "free". One could argue that being able to milk as much money from the market as you can in a capitalist society would be an important freedom.
My other observation though was that if you still want to keep the financial "freedoms", why isn't current copyright good enough? You can just say "I grant the right to others to distibute cost-free"? Unless what you're really doing with the license is stating that no one can make money from distribution of your work, and you are reserving the right to any money that might come from other uses? That would be sort of radical, since most people (it seems) assume that the only market value a work has is through distribution - that that *is* its market value, and if that's gone, it's worthless.
Note, I'm not saying that to be inflammatory, and also note, I have not read your license.
I base my claim simply on that if you want to reserve the right to determine how others use your work, then you are not distributing your work "freely".
The real point of a free license is that you are giving end users (so to speak) the same rights you have yourself as the author. If you want to distribute your work in a way that does not allow the end users the same freedoms as you, then you aren't distributing under a "free" license.
If you want to distribute your work over the net, but still stay in the catbird seat when it comes to financial negotiation, copyright as it stands is for you. That strategy is simply good business. Lots of people do it. You build your reputation with free (as in cost-free) stuff, then if anyone likes what you do, and wants to use what you do, you can demand a paycheck.
A free license for creative work is definitely a different animal than one for software. But like all agreements, you have to know what you're getting into before you sign on. If you don't realize that a certain license allows anyone to make money from your work without having to pay you, and you use that license anyway, well, you're screwed. You were ignorant, that's the way it goes. In cases like that, you'd best remember that Kipling poem about being a man, you won't get much more comfort.
that these Russian hackers are apparently the ones behind the/. story here which was posted in March. That was apparently the first time public knowledge of these attacks had been leaked to the public.
Now note that these two guys were arrested in November, per the MSNBC article.
Whoa.. these hackers were neutralized half a year before there was even public knowledge of their hacks. Kind of weird when you remember that Ars Technica got all hot and bothered about their scoop "The Great Hack Attack", that these sorts of attacks had only been a matter of time; and now we know that when Ars was standing up on the box, the attacks had been stopped.
Permissible acts of encryption research. - Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure as applied to a copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of a published work in the course of an act of good faith encryption research if -
(A) the person lawfully obtained the encrypted copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of the published work;
(B) such act is necessary to conduct such encryption research;
(C) the person made a good faith effort to obtain authorization before the circumvention; and
(D) such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 1030 of title 18 and those provisions of title 18 amended by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.
Let's see: the scholars recd the copy lawfully (they didn't infringe copyright to get it); their act was not just necessary for research, but was research itself; I am sure they are making a good faith effort, as is evidenced in the harrassing letter; I'll eat my hat if releasing their paper breaks any other laws.
That's 4 for 4.
But wait there's more:
1201(g)(3):
Factors in determining exemption. - In determining whether a person qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be considered shall include -
(A) whether the information derived from the encryption research was disseminated, and if so, whether it was disseminated in a manner reasonably calculated to advance the state of knowledge or development of encryption technology, versus whether it was disseminated in a manner that facilitates infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including a violation of privacy or breach of security;
(B) whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of encryption technology; and
(C) whether the person provides the copyright owner of the work to which the technological measure is applied with notice of the findings and documentation of the research, and the time
when such notice is provided.
The scholars *are* disseminating the information to further encryption study; if they are not employed in the proper field, then no one is; clearly they have notice of the findings to the copyright holder, to wit the harrassing letter.
Conclusion: Those bastards don't have a leg to stand on.
..is that the failing company's assets will go to whomever purchases them.
The new owner will evaluate the financial prospects of their new stuff (your subscriptions).
If they don't like what they see, they'll end the subscriptions. Just like any magazine. If they're a nice company, they would provide the ex-subscribers some kind of reader app, allowing them to open their old documents, or maybe they may help ex-subscribers convert their old documents' format to one readable by a competitor's app.
But if the software won't make any money.. you won't be using it.
So now scientists have found yet another way to exploit animals for profit. I wonder if anyone ever stopped to consider the ethical implications of organic leds, or of organic computing in general ?
Think for a second, Petunia. Like non-organic computing is so great the environment, and other living things? there's a lot of bad chemicals/other crap that gets dumped from making computers and displays. MAYBE going organic will CUT THAT DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
Well, it's/.-ed. If the article is simply along the lines "Why don't people really use encryption on a daily basis? Is it just because it's for doing bad things?" then I have this to say:
Until people in general take a more serious-minded approach to computer security in their daily lives, speculating about why people don't use one tool or another tool is pointless, and basing speculations about the nature of the tool on that speculation is also pointless.
It all comes down to what we expect to be an adequate security awareness in the general net population. Apparently, not even sysadmins really take the time to truly safeguard the systems they run, as witnessed by the latest big credit card hack. If sysadmins themselves don't take security seriously enough to plug holes in their setup that are two years old, what will this imply about the general populace's attitude toward computer security?
Come back when electronic security has become more of an accepted part of our daily lives, and we can talk about whether crypto is for criminals or not.
(I reserve the right that "we" means "we United States-ers" because/. is in the States and because I'm from the States. Don't like it, nertz to you.)
We all know what the importance of copyright in the States, and how it's closely tied to free speech (at least in concept, being an exception [IANAL]) and how fair use is intended as an exception (to the exception) existing to keep copyright from having an adverse affect on free speech.
But how does copyright fit into the German legal setup? Other countries' too for that matter? Places like Britain dont' have the free speech apparatus the States does. What is copyright even *for* in countries like that? What is really at stake in these countries when we are talking about copyright? I personally don't really know how to react to court rulings on copyright in countries where there may not be a free speech tradition.
Also, regarding the Hague thing, how likely is it that one country without a free speech tradition is going to get a place like the States to dampen their free speech protections?
Of course, a weak scheme could be just what Napster wants... then they'll at least be able to give some lip service to the music companies, while making copyright abuse just a bit less convenient for their users
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: COPY CONTROL'S PRESENCE OR THE LACK OF IT WILL NOT MAKE NAPSTER MORE LEGAL. It will make it more agreeable to the major labels. PAYMENT of any kind WILL make use of Napster TOTALLY LEGAL. In other words "copyright abuse" of the kind the kind gentleman is referring to above will CEASE TO EXIST. Only the DMCA will make the breaking of copy control illegal, but, even more clearly than breaking CSS on DVDs, breaking Napster's copy control will be a matter of USE not of COPYING because the COPYING has already been paid for and allowed. Because you paid for that downloaded mp3, copying it falls under fair use (backup) and any tech measure which pervents you from exercising that fair use right may legally be broken, EVEN ACCORDING TO THE DMCA.
I CAN'T WAIT TO PAY FOR THE NEW NAPSTER AND LEGALLY CRACK THEIR COPY CONTROL.
When artists are paid only on commission, or for a live performance. That is, they earn their living like the rest of us, based solely on the merit of their work - as judged by others.
Note that phrase, people: he hasn't said that artists don't deserve to earn money. He's talking about a different existence for the artist, differently configured from the way it is today under the hammerlock of the labels, configured in a way that allows artists to be more in touch with the generosity and spontaneity which is at the essence of their work ("willingly and lovingly shares with others"). All your criticisms make two points: that the artist has a right to earn money, and that implicitly the artist won't have this right under a system other than the studio/label system. So some pointed replies:
Firstly: you people outraged at the thought that artists don't have the right to earn money for their art? artists DON'T have the right to be paid for what they do, just as the garbageman doesn't have the right to be paid to take out the garbage. The garbageman has to show that he's good at taking out the garbage, every time he does it, or -- he gets fired. Artists, and creators of intellectual property in general, *do* have the right to prevent *you* from earning any money from their work, under certain circumstances. The gist of the law (IANAL) is that they have the right to the first fruits of their work; but they do not have the right to create demand for their work, that is, to create those fruits, by manipulation of the market (listening, RIAA and labels?), and they basically don't have the right to earn anything if no one will pay them. When codermotor says "Art is not an endeavor in which one should expect to 'Earn a living'", "expect" is the operative verb. I create art, should I expect to be paid for it? NO, I have to convince others to pay me for it, the way it has always been and the way it is in every other business. So let's drop the "right" to be paid BS.
Secondly: obviously creating art/other intellectual work is not divorced from the need for bread. Without the bread they earned, musicians like Bach wouldn't have gotten very far. Mozart is one example of someone who died early because he couldn't earn his bread, though not too early luckily for us. But all you people attacking this guy for his rose-colored glasses implicitly support the current system of paying artists, which is through the labels and studios, and which you will agree is a manipulative system, unless you're living under a rock. Not only do artists not strictly have a right to be paid for their work, they also don't have a right to be paid in any specific way. You're right, art IS a business, but your criticisms that artists deserve to be paid is just a variation on the "no one will create without payment" line, which is TOTAL bull. "No one will create without payment" is another way of saying "GOD, what will we do withouts those studios and labels? I mean, they PAY us!" Artists have always been wheeler-dealers; they will seek out other ways to be paid for what they do, or MAKE their own opportunities for payment, BECAUSE they love their art and it is what they want to do with their lives.
Having said that, the statement about being a "poor artist" is basically true. Anyone who gives up an art or other creative endeavor because there's no money in it is clearly not motivated by the art; they're motivated by the money. Regardless of how much talent they have, that makes that person a poor artist - in attitude and vision, important elements in creativity.
How will this literally work if the files never go over their servers? Through the client I guess? But how? This is a very imporant question. The idea I'm getting from your post is that I will have mp3s on my hard drive, which I myself made, are not encrypted because I don't know how to do it or don't like it or whatever. So someone sees my files on the nap network, tries to download it, and when it arrives on their hd, it's napsterized? Is this feasible?
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously.
you raise a disturbing possibility, but then you leave it at that. how does the MS rejoinder, which seems to me pathetic in the extreme, since it is obvious to anyone with even an iota of intelligence that no one on either side expects a dialogue, show that the open source/free software advocates have stepped into an MS PR trap? That's my first challenge.
Second challenge, please explain better why you think that "spin" is necessary. Spin is alien to the entire thrust of open source/free software, as your other respondants have noted. How are you going to spin a response which is basically nothing but facts? Are you enough of an expert in these matters that we - or, more importantly, Bruce Perens - should be worried by what you say?
No more challenges than these. If you can respond, maybe you're not a troll.
A statement that addresses businessmen, while important, is only part of the picture. My feeling is that equally important, if not more important, is the simple show of unity (I would say solidarity were I more of a radical ;).
Mundie's statement directly attacks free software/open source as fragmenting. Perens et alii's response not only shows that the Linux business community is united, which would not be such a big deal, but also that people like ESR and RMS are also on their boat. Don't underestimate that. It's BECAUSE they are "the worst people" that their signatures on this statement are going to carry huge weight. You think that those signatures will lessen the impact of the statement in the business community; on the contrary, there are business leaders galore on the statement; ESR and RMS add political weight, conceptual weight, and further, unify even the far fringes of the Linux/open source/free software community under this statement.
It is a great show of solidarity.
I feel the same way about this "fostering discussion" comeback comment as I feel about that second letter from the DVD-CCA to Professor Felton at Princeton stating that they didn't really intend to sue.
Except that it's about a million times more pathetic.
It does require effort to band together, and unless there's a common aim - real or artificial - the returns aren't going to make it worth the effort.
I didn't think it was possible to be any ANGRIER at the fucking judges who are making these decisions.
All right. For all their hooliganism, one can see that the MPAA and RIAA do have a certain legitimate beef - the problem with them is that they're trying to handcuff the public. And you have to remember, they're private corporations. That's their nature. Not to give a shit about you except insofar as you're made of funny green paper.
But THIS. THIS is too much. IF THE GOVT HIRES A COMPANY TO WRITE THE WORDING OF A LAW, WHAT ARE THEY DOING ALLOWING THEM TO RETAIN COPYRIGHTS TO THAT WORDING?
What now? These corporations start to charge anyone who wants to read THE LAW THAT APPLIES TO THEM?!
I can see it now, they ENCRYPT the law, and you can only read it on Windows, and someone wants to read it in Europe on Linux for a school assignment, and so decrypts it, and then there's a lawsuit under the DMCA for decrypting the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF THE LAW!
AAAAARRRGH!
What I find most disturbing about this is that it's basically a no-news piece (maybe they're going to adopt a different license, they think it's a good idea, but that's about all they say) about a Linux company which comes off making MS sound like they've got some really good points about Open Source and the GPL, when all Mundie really said is that you have to sell things in order to make money (things like software, as opposed to services based on that software); and he makes an attempt to co-opt into the hype of "open source" with this "shared source". It's fucking weird as others have posted here, since they owe their livelihood to the Linux kernel and the GPL it's licensed under.
It's also disturbing to hear Love agreeing, or being portrayed as agreeing (he probably does agree) with a statement that claims to be committed to intellectual property, as though the GPL could get anywhere without copyright. It all really means commitment to MS' version of IP, yada yada..
By the by, I just want to say that I am SICK and TIRED of hearing the phrase "great software". Great means you paint Les Demoiselles d'Avignon when you're young and hungry and sell it for not a lot, and when you're old and rich you splash a few dashes of paint on a plate and sell it for a cool mil. Fuck your great software!
hi Ole, I was going to mod you up to 5 but the /. mod sys is busted.
So here's your final point, verbal style..
sparky
That's true about the definition of "free". One could argue that being able to milk as much money from the market as you can in a capitalist society would be an important freedom.
My other observation though was that if you still want to keep the financial "freedoms", why isn't current copyright good enough? You can just say "I grant the right to others to distibute cost-free"? Unless what you're really doing with the license is stating that no one can make money from distribution of your work, and you are reserving the right to any money that might come from other uses? That would be sort of radical, since most people (it seems) assume that the only market value a work has is through distribution - that that *is* its market value, and if that's gone, it's worthless.
Note, I'm not saying that to be inflammatory, and also note, I have not read your license.
I base my claim simply on that if you want to reserve the right to determine how others use your work, then you are not distributing your work "freely".
The real point of a free license is that you are giving end users (so to speak) the same rights you have yourself as the author. If you want to distribute your work in a way that does not allow the end users the same freedoms as you, then you aren't distributing under a "free" license.
If you want to distribute your work over the net, but still stay in the catbird seat when it comes to financial negotiation, copyright as it stands is for you. That strategy is simply good business. Lots of people do it. You build your reputation with free (as in cost-free) stuff, then if anyone likes what you do, and wants to use what you do, you can demand a paycheck.
A free license for creative work is definitely a different animal than one for software. But like all agreements, you have to know what you're getting into before you sign on. If you don't realize that a certain license allows anyone to make money from your work without having to pay you, and you use that license anyway, well, you're screwed. You were ignorant, that's the way it goes. In cases like that, you'd best remember that Kipling poem about being a man, you won't get much more comfort.
that these Russian hackers are apparently the ones behind the /. story here which was posted in March. That was apparently the first time public knowledge of these attacks had been leaked to the public.
Now note that these two guys were arrested in November, per the MSNBC article.
Whoa.. these hackers were neutralized half a year before there was even public knowledge of their hacks. Kind of weird when you remember that Ars Technica got all hot and bothered about their scoop "The Great Hack Attack", that these sorts of attacks had only been a matter of time; and now we know that when Ars was standing up on the box, the attacks had been stopped.
Someone should submit this to Cryptome.
From the law his own self:
USS Code, Section 1201(g)(2):
Permissible acts of encryption research. - Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure as applied to a copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of a published work in the course of an act of good faith encryption research if -
(A) the person lawfully obtained the encrypted copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of the published work;
(B) such act is necessary to conduct such encryption research;
(C) the person made a good faith effort to obtain authorization before the circumvention; and
(D) such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 1030 of title 18 and those provisions of title 18 amended by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.
Let's see: the scholars recd the copy lawfully (they didn't infringe copyright to get it); their act was not just necessary for research, but was research itself; I am sure they are making a good faith effort, as is evidenced in the harrassing letter; I'll eat my hat if releasing their paper breaks any other laws.
That's 4 for 4.
But wait there's more:
1201(g)(3):
Factors in determining exemption. - In determining whether a person qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be considered shall include -
(A) whether the information derived from the encryption research was disseminated, and if so, whether it was disseminated in a manner reasonably calculated to advance the state of knowledge or development of encryption technology, versus whether it was disseminated in a manner that facilitates infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including a violation of privacy or breach of security;
(B) whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of encryption technology; and
(C) whether the person provides the copyright owner of the work to which the technological measure is applied with notice of the findings and documentation of the research, and the time
when such notice is provided.
The scholars *are* disseminating the information to further encryption study; if they are not employed in the proper field, then no one is; clearly they have notice of the findings to the copyright holder, to wit the harrassing letter.
Conclusion: Those bastards don't have a leg to stand on.
And, low low prices won't change the fact that the p4 is the worst engineered chip in 5 (or was it 10?) years by Intel..
see http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm
to swap the proprietary USB for regular?
I know nothing about hardward hacking - but would it require getting into the firmware? sparkane
..is that the failing company's assets will go to whomever purchases them.
The new owner will evaluate the financial prospects of their new stuff (your subscriptions).
If they don't like what they see, they'll end the subscriptions. Just like any magazine. If they're a nice company, they would provide the ex-subscribers some kind of reader app, allowing them to open their old documents, or maybe they may help ex-subscribers convert their old documents' format to one readable by a competitor's app.
But if the software won't make any money.. you won't be using it.
Here we have incontrovertable proof of the fact that the only citizen in Thonomist's world is Thonomist theyself.
He's telling you, Petunia. He's telling you how to help him. Put on your reading glasses.
At the time, I remarked that this might be a warning sign of "PC saturation" and I turned out to be frighteningly correct.
I have to admit, I was frightened.
;)
So now scientists have found yet another way to exploit animals for profit. I wonder if anyone ever stopped to consider the ethical implications of organic leds, or of organic computing in general ?
Think for a second, Petunia. Like non-organic computing is so great the environment, and other living things? there's a lot of bad chemicals/other crap that gets dumped from making computers and displays. MAYBE going organic will CUT THAT DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
Well, it's /.-ed. If the article is simply along the lines "Why don't people really use encryption on a daily basis? Is it just because it's for doing bad things?" then I have this to say:
Until people in general take a more serious-minded approach to computer security in their daily lives, speculating about why people don't use one tool or another tool is pointless, and basing speculations about the nature of the tool on that speculation is also pointless.
It all comes down to what we expect to be an adequate security awareness in the general net population. Apparently, not even sysadmins really take the time to truly safeguard the systems they run, as witnessed by the latest big credit card hack. If sysadmins themselves don't take security seriously enough to plug holes in their setup that are two years old, what will this imply about the general populace's attitude toward computer security?
Come back when electronic security has become more of an accepted part of our daily lives, and we can talk about whether crypto is for criminals or not.
(I reserve the right that "we" means "we United States-ers" because /. is in the States and because I'm from the States. Don't like it, nertz to you.)
We all know what the importance of copyright in the States, and how it's closely tied to free speech (at least in concept, being an exception [IANAL]) and how fair use is intended as an exception (to the exception) existing to keep copyright from having an adverse affect on free speech.
But how does copyright fit into the German legal setup? Other countries' too for that matter? Places like Britain dont' have the free speech apparatus the States does. What is copyright even *for* in countries like that? What is really at stake in these countries when we are talking about copyright? I personally don't really know how to react to court rulings on copyright in countries where there may not be a free speech tradition.
Also, regarding the Hague thing, how likely is it that one country without a free speech tradition is going to get a place like the States to dampen their free speech protections?
I would've thought they'd block Metallica first, squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that.
Haven't we read this before? I mean, haven't we read this VERY SAME ARTICLE before?
"[insert name here]is one of a growing number of people known as 'overclockers'.."
"After awhile, however, some overclockers begin to pursue speed for speed's sake."
I think they have a group of contacts they keep in a file cabinet somewhere called "Filler". "Look under O, Al. That's for overclocking! Crazy kids!"
I shouldn't complain though, at least it's better than hearing about the govt writing a brief on the DMCA for the MPAA.
Of course, a weak scheme could be just what Napster wants... then they'll at least be able to give some lip service to the music companies, while making copyright abuse just a bit less convenient for their users
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: COPY CONTROL'S PRESENCE OR THE LACK OF IT WILL NOT MAKE NAPSTER MORE LEGAL. It will make it more agreeable to the major labels. PAYMENT of any kind WILL make use of Napster TOTALLY LEGAL. In other words "copyright abuse" of the kind the kind gentleman is referring to above will CEASE TO EXIST. Only the DMCA will make the breaking of copy control illegal, but, even more clearly than breaking CSS on DVDs, breaking Napster's copy control will be a matter of USE not of COPYING because the COPYING has already been paid for and allowed. Because you paid for that downloaded mp3, copying it falls under fair use (backup) and any tech measure which pervents you from exercising that fair use right may legally be broken, EVEN ACCORDING TO THE DMCA.
I CAN'T WAIT TO PAY FOR THE NEW NAPSTER AND LEGALLY CRACK THEIR COPY CONTROL.
When artists are paid only on commission, or for a live performance. That is, they earn their living like the rest of us, based solely on the merit of their work - as judged by others.
Note that phrase, people: he hasn't said that artists don't deserve to earn money. He's talking about a different existence for the artist, differently configured from the way it is today under the hammerlock of the labels, configured in a way that allows artists to be more in touch with the generosity and spontaneity which is at the essence of their work ("willingly and lovingly shares with others"). All your criticisms make two points: that the artist has a right to earn money, and that implicitly the artist won't have this right under a system other than the studio/label system. So some pointed replies:
Firstly: you people outraged at the thought that artists don't have the right to earn money for their art? artists DON'T have the right to be paid for what they do, just as the garbageman doesn't have the right to be paid to take out the garbage. The garbageman has to show that he's good at taking out the garbage, every time he does it, or -- he gets fired. Artists, and creators of intellectual property in general, *do* have the right to prevent *you* from earning any money from their work, under certain circumstances. The gist of the law (IANAL) is that they have the right to the first fruits of their work; but they do not have the right to create demand for their work, that is, to create those fruits, by manipulation of the market (listening, RIAA and labels?), and they basically don't have the right to earn anything if no one will pay them. When codermotor says "Art is not an endeavor in which one should expect to 'Earn a living'", "expect" is the operative verb. I create art, should I expect to be paid for it? NO, I have to convince others to pay me for it, the way it has always been and the way it is in every other business. So let's drop the "right" to be paid BS.
Secondly: obviously creating art/other intellectual work is not divorced from the need for bread. Without the bread they earned, musicians like Bach wouldn't have gotten very far. Mozart is one example of someone who died early because he couldn't earn his bread, though not too early luckily for us. But all you people attacking this guy for his rose-colored glasses implicitly support the current system of paying artists, which is through the labels and studios, and which you will agree is a manipulative system, unless you're living under a rock. Not only do artists not strictly have a right to be paid for their work, they also don't have a right to be paid in any specific way. You're right, art IS a business, but your criticisms that artists deserve to be paid is just a variation on the "no one will create without payment" line, which is TOTAL bull. "No one will create without payment" is another way of saying "GOD, what will we do withouts those studios and labels? I mean, they PAY us!" Artists have always been wheeler-dealers; they will seek out other ways to be paid for what they do, or MAKE their own opportunities for payment, BECAUSE they love their art and it is what they want to do with their lives.
Having said that, the statement about being a "poor artist" is basically true. Anyone who gives up an art or other creative endeavor because there's no money in it is clearly not motivated by the art; they're motivated by the money. Regardless of how much talent they have, that makes that person a poor artist - in attitude and vision, important elements in creativity.
How will this literally work if the files never go over their servers? Through the client I guess? But how? This is a very imporant question. The idea I'm getting from your post is that I will have mp3s on my hard drive, which I myself made, are not encrypted because I don't know how to do it or don't like it or whatever. So someone sees my files on the nap network, tries to download it, and when it arrives on their hd, it's napsterized? Is this feasible?