For the forseeable future at the very least. If the Buck-oh-five estimation of the price is on target, people will be scrambling to pay.
One reason will be the assuagement of conscience. Now you're use of Napster is ethical and untouchable, no more sting of guilt. I think this will actually be quite a compelling reason, even though it won't get much airplay. Most people don't like to feel like their having their fun at the expense of the folks who give it to them.
Plus let's not forget you're also getting the most convenient and efficient way on the planet to test if that new band's CD really is worth the 15 or so Shekels you're thinking of shelling out.
Sorry to be such a napster booster here (I don't work for them!) but let's also remember that for many people, a cheap way to legally get as many mp3s as they can swallow means the end of their cd collections. Why should I spend so much on CDs when I can get a mother of a hard drive for my mp3s? Not that $1.67 really bites into the CD budget anyway. A lot of people think that mp3 is good enough. And as the codecs make the music smaller, making digital more convenient, more are likely to think this way.
It'll just be ultra convenient. Gee, only 50 million? think it'll stop there when your potential clientele includes every online person on the planet? If the RIAA buys this deal, it will be ALL GOLD.
..It's obvious that anytime napster wants, they can go through their servers and find listings of copyrighted materials by the thousands. So, to answer the first question; yes, they are knowingly facilitating the download of illegal material.
You're not wrong in principle, but I think you're not taking into account how labyrinthine the law really is. Sure an admin can go through their lists, and he'll probably look at the names and consider the namestrings to identify the songs and artists and so forth. (Which the courts probably do as well I guess.) But a lawyer might look through that list and see a bunch of namestrings which only hypothetically identify the same songs as the ones on the CD he bought this morning. REally for a lawyer to talk conclusively about the copyright status of the song represented by the namestring, there should be some (trustable) copyright info worked into the string. Otherwise the copyright status of the song represented by the name isn't totally clear.
I realize this is sort of a rationalization, but it's just to point out that what you may consider a clear conclusion isn't so clear once you bring the law into it. (Really this is only a rationalization to the extent that the RIAA can show that Napster contributes to copyright infringement, which they seem to be able to do, but that still doesn't detract from my point I think.)
"Artist" that word is a distraction - it isn't whether their artists but whether they're the copyright holders. And all of those you named ARE the copyright holders of their songs. You don't have to write a thing to own it, that's called "work for hire".
IDing the songs sounds impossible, practically speaking.. the fact is, if the RIAA companies feel they can turn a profit from Napster, they won't allow napster to die, and if digital marking of songs threatens that potential profit, they'll probably get rid of it. Don't forget, these are song and dance masters. If digital marking threatens the money, they'll just start napster the company on a subscription service to the RIAA or the member corps, paying a certain regular fee just to operate. sort of like radio I guess. (An added benefit to that would be that small labels might get frozen out of the whole business model, since they don't have the clout necessary to insure that some amount of that money, however small, goes to them.)
napster won't have to worry about which artists get the money or how much they get. And if it's too much of a bother to figure out, the RIAA probably won't worry about it either.;)
..or intellectual property. Not exactly, and maybe not at all.
Understand that open source, or, to put a finer point on it, GNU and the GPL, is based on the exact principle that others' more proprietary claims are based on: that creators' can say what others may do with their intellectual inventions. Note that open source software is not released into the public domain, where anyone could do anything they want with it, including creating a new version of it and claiming that creation as their intellectual property; there are very important restrictions on the use of GPL'ed intellectual property, of which we're all aware. There is still a license in other words. If you violate that license, in theory, the custodians of the GPL'ed software could sue you in court, just as more proprietary corporations can if you break their licenses.
Of course the GPL is a million times more humanitarian than Microsoft, and their ilk. But there's a reason RMS called it Copyleft, which is that open source software is still copyrighted, but the conditions of its use and distribution are exactly opposite of those of proprietary software, where rights are not to be distributed with the program.
Obviously race enters into this; but I wonder if it isn't more than race. Women have this same exact experience, for example. People have a harder time reconciling their image of a propellerhead with their image of a woman, compared to a man.
I'm not trying to say it isn't racism or sexism - sure it is - but I wonder if it's some general mindset other than race/gender that is at the root of the "you couldn't be that smart" syndrome (YCBTSS, or "Yck, Beets"). I'm thinking, for example, of the chip on the shoulder thing that so many digi-types have (yes, I'm aware it's a generalization) - a lot of programmer/hacker/cracker types have something to prove, and there's the general feeling that if you have to get help then you're less worthy. It's worthwhile I think to compare that attitude to that of the FSF, which to me seems very feminist in politics - the whole notion of sharing and helping is strong.
A little background motivation for this question: I am in my early 30s, and have been under the growing realization that I really have no idea what kids go through in growing up now; having been a teen when Duran Duran was in its heyday doesn't seem like the best of credentials. I've also been starting to realize that the young are somewhat (or more than that for some) frightening to those not young, as is anything that becomes alien. But the strange thing about the young becoming alien is that we all weren't alien to it, once.
With that in mind, I am interested in hearing your perceptions of the kids your age, even (maybe especially) those with whom you are not friends (though I'm not inviting you to rant:). I am intersted in hearing what you perceive as their wants and needs, their dreams and ambitions, their anxieties. I realize this is a big question but I don't want you to pose as a spokesperson for your generation, just to hear your own (perhaps biased) perceptions of these things.
Many thanks and much good fortune to you, sparkane
I think a better idea would be for the hiring company to back pay for the time missed. They promised to hire before the report was completed; and the employee had in fact *not* misrepresented herself, as was later discovered. The search company may not be liable due to contract; but the employee is definitely *not* liable for that search company's mistake, pure and simple. Who eats it? The hiring company, that's who (should). The original offer to hire should still stand, with the original start date. If they don't like the results of search companies whose findings make them lose money, then they get a new search company, old search company makes many mistakes like this, they're out of business. God I love capitalism.
Scale may be a factor in fair use, but fair use is not a factor in using Napster. The files which are legal to distribute on Napster are not at issue, and it is only those to which fair use applies. Trading Metallica's songs on Napster is simply infringement and there is no fair use defense.
In regard to our rights to use Napster or software like it, fair use never comes into the picture. It's all free speech, right to read, right to privacy, hell, even right to assemble. In regard to these rights, "scale" is a red herring. Totally. Absolutely. And Really Red.
As long as its restricted to your circle of friends, there is a limit as to how far its going to go, and there also is more of a sense of responsibility - your friend gave this to you.
The whole scale thing is slightly skewed, first of all, because napster isn't one action on a massive scale, but a huge amount of little actions. Therefore the effects take place on one scale, but the causes exist on an entirely separate scale, and this is important to know.
To address the "between friends" as being the scale where it becomes unethical - that too makes it sound much bigger and badder than it really is on the individual user's scale. In fact there probably aren't that many downloads taken (by strangers) from any individual user on napster. there may be more than that user would have actually given to their friends, but probably not that many more, so it certainly isn't going to seem like it's taking place on a huge scale to the user. In fact it can't take place on a huge scale for an individual user, unless they have a T1. My modem at home doesn't know the meaning of "scale", except scale=1 download.
Really the scale argument is fundamentally flawed, in the sense that your free speech is not a matter of market convenience. If piracy suddenly becomes easier to do, does that mean that tools to do it with like Napster or the companies that distribute them are illegal or that our rights to use the internet should be severely curtailed? It's preposterous. I'm not saying that infringing copyright is a good thing, but if all the attackers of napster can say is "hey! we're going to lose a lot of money!", that doesn't mean they're right.
Adding to bwt (Howdy pardner!) understand this generally as that the First Amendment is not determined by convenience. This also applies to the Napster case, IMO.
> How would you distinguish the DeCSS case from the Napster disputes of late? Nice tie-in with recent events but the two are far from related.
It may not be related in details, but with think tanks recommeding "tightening" the DMCA to apply to cases such as Napster's, and with the RIAA now suing software developers such as those making Pan, you can bet Napster's case will be just as bad for us as 2600's
I find that I'm drawn to operating systems and networks, though I'm focusing on OSs at the moment.. ideally I'd like to learn enough to write or assemble a series of really great tools, for partitioning, imaging, data recovery and so forth, that would not only be the epitome of user-friendliness but also educate users while they use the software. That way everyone would be able to have a high degree of control over their computers. Which is really the major drive in my desire to learn computing and programming, to learn how to drive the sumbitch.:)
No, their measures are in line with copyright law. More extensive measures would probably require a way of identifying users which could cause privacy issues. Also, it is necessary for the copyright holders to defend their claim. Napster is not in business (assuming we can call them a business when their source of income is murky) to police its users.
Finally, I have tried to find the online firm NetPD that metallica claims to have used and cannot find hide nor hair of them on the Internet neither with Google, Yahoo nor at netpd.com. The reason I have sought them out is because until I see all 60,000 pages of logs showing 335,435 people downloading songs by Metallica in one weekend I refuse to believe it.
Go to napigator.com and get the free program there that lets you log on to any Napster server. The UI lists all servers and gives total servers, users, files, and gigs of songs.
My current (4:39pm 5/3/00) users total: 13337 users.
Finally, I have tried to find the online firm NetPD that metallica claims to have used and cannot find hide nor hair of them on the Internet neither with Google, Yahoo nor at netpd.com. The reason I have sought them out is because until I see all 60,000 pages of logs showing 335,435 people downloading songs by Metallica in one weekend I refuse to believe it.
Go to napigator.com and get the free program there that lets you log on to any Napster server. The UI lists all servers and gives total servers, users, files, and gigs of songs.
My current (4:33pm 5/3/00) users total: 13367 users.
"Under section 1201(a)(2) of the DMCA, Judge Kaplan said, it is illegal for anyone to offer technology intended to circumvent a technological measure that controls access to a work protected under the act." (NYTimes)
In fact, Kaplan had not read the law thoroughly. An exception to the clause making distro of circumvention tech illegal exists in 1201(f)(2) and (3) - (3) in particular says that circulation of a circumention tech measure (read "DeCSS") IS legal when it is solely intended for RE. 2600 originally posted the story as an example of RE. Look it up everyone!!:)
Hopefully, next time around in court Kaplan will be made aware of these exceptions.
I am a participant in the Harvard Openlaw forum discussing potential defenses for 2600 against the plaintiff MPAA members.
After much debate there, it seems that there may be a defense for 2600 based on the DMCA's reverse engineering exemption. This is perhaps contingent on 2600's motivations in circulating DeCSS, at least according to the language of the DMCA. A sticking point in this 'perhaps' may be the license under which DeCSS was first released; currently, the story is that Jon Johansen was persuaded by members of the LiViD group to contribute DeCSS to the open source development of the LiViD DVD player - and if my understanding is correct, open source is circulated under the GPL.
Assuming these are the correct facts, could you state your (I assume non-lawyerly, but obviously well-informed) opinion as to what or whether protection is afforded to 2600 in their circulation of DeCSS?
napster. you know where that is. wrapster. you know what it does. napigator. In case you don't know what this does, it allows you to logon to a napster server of your choosing.
So, with these three things, you can: find whoever you need to find, exchange whatever file you want to exchange. Feel like a spy yet?
Supporters of the measure included Holland mother Carolyn Scoby, who said she was using the internet at the library when pornographic pictures started popping up on the screen.
"If it happened to me, it could happen to kids," she said.
Yeah. SURE they did lady. And that Playboy just happened to POP UP in my mailbox.
acer future.. as someone who types the way it's recommended (using all 8/10? fingers for example, or most of them on the "proper" keys) I've found it feels REAL nice. Your wrists sit at the same level as the keys, so you feel like you're practically not sitting at a keyboard at all. Also, though some like the mouse, I HATE the mouse (I hate moving my hands any more than necessary when typing - I never use the keypad but the number keys above the letters for instance) and you can get a Future board with a touch pad right in the center (it's a split board). (Alas, I don't have that version of the keyboard, reason #98 why I suck.) One thing that may or may not be ultra-weird is that the arrow keys are placed around the touchpad. I find that requires a little getting used to.
No, no, don't miss the point pal. It's not that it's a GROCERY STORE, it's that the demand for these players went from needing TWO outlets to satisfy to FOUR HUNDRED. It's the sales baby, the sales! Go Go Grocery Store!
Slashdot Mirror
For the forseeable future at the very least. If the Buck-oh-five estimation of the price is on target, people will be scrambling to pay.
One reason will be the assuagement of conscience. Now you're use of Napster is ethical and untouchable, no more sting of guilt. I think this will actually be quite a compelling reason, even though it won't get much airplay. Most people don't like to feel like their having their fun at the expense of the folks who give it to them.
Plus let's not forget you're also getting the most convenient and efficient way on the planet to test if that new band's CD really is worth the 15 or so Shekels you're thinking of shelling out.
Sorry to be such a napster booster here (I don't work for them!) but let's also remember that for many people, a cheap way to legally get as many mp3s as they can swallow means the end of their cd collections. Why should I spend so much on CDs when I can get a mother of a hard drive for my mp3s? Not that $1.67 really bites into the CD budget anyway. A lot of people think that mp3 is good enough. And as the codecs make the music smaller, making digital more convenient, more are likely to think this way.
It'll just be ultra convenient. Gee, only 50 million? think it'll stop there when your potential clientele includes every online person on the planet? If the RIAA buys this deal, it will be ALL GOLD.
You're not wrong in principle, but I think you're not taking into account how labyrinthine the law really is. Sure an admin can go through their lists, and he'll probably look at the names and consider the namestrings to identify the songs and artists and so forth. (Which the courts probably do as well I guess.) But a lawyer might look through that list and see a bunch of namestrings which only hypothetically identify the same songs as the ones on the CD he bought this morning. REally for a lawyer to talk conclusively about the copyright status of the song represented by the namestring, there should be some (trustable) copyright info worked into the string. Otherwise the copyright status of the song represented by the name isn't totally clear.
I realize this is sort of a rationalization, but it's just to point out that what you may consider a clear conclusion isn't so clear once you bring the law into it. (Really this is only a rationalization to the extent that the RIAA can show that Napster contributes to copyright infringement, which they seem to be able to do, but that still doesn't detract from my point I think.)
"Artist" that word is a distraction - it isn't whether their artists but whether they're the copyright holders. And all of those you named ARE the copyright holders of their songs. You don't have to write a thing to own it, that's called "work for hire".
IDing the songs sounds impossible, practically speaking.. the fact is, if the RIAA companies feel they can turn a profit from Napster, they won't allow napster to die, and if digital marking of songs threatens that potential profit, they'll probably get rid of it. Don't forget, these are song and dance masters. If digital marking threatens the money, they'll just start napster the company on a subscription service to the RIAA or the member corps, paying a certain regular fee just to operate. sort of like radio I guess. (An added benefit to that would be that small labels might get frozen out of the whole business model, since they don't have the clout necessary to insure that some amount of that money, however small, goes to them.)
napster won't have to worry about which artists get the money or how much they get. And if it's too much of a bother to figure out, the RIAA probably won't worry about it either. ;)
..or intellectual property. Not exactly, and maybe not at all.
Understand that open source, or, to put a finer point on it, GNU and the GPL, is based on the exact principle that others' more proprietary claims are based on: that creators' can say what others may do with their intellectual inventions. Note that open source software is not released into the public domain, where anyone could do anything they want with it, including creating a new version of it and claiming that creation as their intellectual property; there are very important restrictions on the use of GPL'ed intellectual property, of which we're all aware. There is still a license in other words. If you violate that license, in theory, the custodians of the GPL'ed software could sue you in court, just as more proprietary corporations can if you break their licenses.
Of course the GPL is a million times more humanitarian than Microsoft, and their ilk. But there's a reason RMS called it Copyleft, which is that open source software is still copyrighted, but the conditions of its use and distribution are exactly opposite of those of proprietary software, where rights are not to be distributed with the program.
Obviously race enters into this; but I wonder if it isn't more than race. Women have this same exact experience, for example. People have a harder time reconciling their image of a propellerhead with their image of a woman, compared to a man.
I'm not trying to say it isn't racism or sexism - sure it is - but I wonder if it's some general mindset other than race/gender that is at the root of the "you couldn't be that smart" syndrome (YCBTSS, or "Yck, Beets"). I'm thinking, for example, of the chip on the shoulder thing that so many digi-types have (yes, I'm aware it's a generalization) - a lot of programmer/hacker/cracker types have something to prove, and there's the general feeling that if you have to get help then you're less worthy. It's worthwhile I think to compare that attitude to that of the FSF, which to me seems very feminist in politics - the whole notion of sharing and helping is strong.
Could you comment on your peers?
A little background motivation for this question: I am in my early 30s, and have been under the growing realization that I really have no idea what kids go through in growing up now; having been a teen when Duran Duran was in its heyday doesn't seem like the best of credentials. I've also been starting to realize that the young are somewhat (or more than that for some) frightening to those not young, as is anything that becomes alien. But the strange thing about the young becoming alien is that we all weren't alien to it, once.
With that in mind, I am interested in hearing your perceptions of the kids your age, even (maybe especially) those with whom you are not friends (though I'm not inviting you to rant :). I am intersted in hearing what you perceive as their wants and needs, their dreams and ambitions, their anxieties. I realize this is a big question but I don't want you to pose as a spokesperson for your generation, just to hear your own (perhaps biased) perceptions of these things.
Many thanks and much good fortune to you, sparkane
I think a better idea would be for the hiring company to back pay for the time missed. They promised to hire before the report was completed; and the employee had in fact *not* misrepresented herself, as was later discovered. The search company may not be liable due to contract; but the employee is definitely *not* liable for that search company's mistake, pure and simple. Who eats it? The hiring company, that's who (should). The original offer to hire should still stand, with the original start date. If they don't like the results of search companies whose findings make them lose money, then they get a new search company, old search company makes many mistakes like this, they're out of business. God I love capitalism.
---
---
Anyone notice this interesting note in the release notes (which are dated yesterday)?
Copyright © 2000 Lucent Technologies Inc.
All Rights Reserved
THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.
The copyright notice above does not evidence any actual or intended publication of such source code.
All Rights Reserved
I don't know. Does this mean it's not open after all?
---
Scale may be a factor in fair use, but fair use is not a factor in using Napster. The files which are legal to distribute on Napster are not at issue, and it is only those to which fair use applies. Trading Metallica's songs on Napster is simply infringement and there is no fair use defense.
In regard to our rights to use Napster or software like it, fair use never comes into the picture. It's all free speech, right to read, right to privacy, hell, even right to assemble. In regard to these rights, "scale" is a red herring. Totally. Absolutely. And Really Red.
---
As long as its restricted to your circle of friends, there is a limit as to how far its going to go, and there also is more of a sense of responsibility - your friend gave this to you.
The whole scale thing is slightly skewed, first of all, because napster isn't one action on a massive scale, but a huge amount of little actions. Therefore the effects take place on one scale, but the causes exist on an entirely separate scale, and this is important to know.
To address the "between friends" as being the scale where it becomes unethical - that too makes it sound much bigger and badder than it really is on the individual user's scale. In fact there probably aren't that many downloads taken (by strangers) from any individual user on napster. there may be more than that user would have actually given to their friends, but probably not that many more, so it certainly isn't going to seem like it's taking place on a huge scale to the user. In fact it can't take place on a huge scale for an individual user, unless they have a T1. My modem at home doesn't know the meaning of "scale", except scale=1 download.
Really the scale argument is fundamentally flawed, in the sense that your free speech is not a matter of market convenience. If piracy suddenly becomes easier to do, does that mean that tools to do it with like Napster or the companies that distribute them are illegal or that our rights to use the internet should be severely curtailed? It's preposterous. I'm not saying that infringing copyright is a good thing, but if all the attackers of napster can say is "hey! we're going to lose a lot of money!", that doesn't mean they're right.
---
Adding to bwt (Howdy pardner!) understand this generally as that the First Amendment is not determined by convenience. This also applies to the Napster case, IMO.
---
> How would you distinguish the DeCSS case from the Napster disputes of late?
Nice tie-in with recent events but the two are far from related.
It may not be related in details, but with think tanks recommeding "tightening" the DMCA to apply to cases such as Napster's, and with the RIAA now suing software developers such as those making Pan, you can bet Napster's case will be just as bad for us as 2600's
---
---
No, their measures are in line with copyright law. More extensive measures would probably require a way of identifying users which could cause privacy issues. Also, it is necessary for the copyright holders to defend their claim. Napster is not in business (assuming we can call them a business when their source of income is murky) to police its users.
---
Finally, I have tried to find the online firm NetPD that metallica claims to have used and cannot find hide nor hair of them on the Internet neither with Google, Yahoo nor at netpd.com. The reason I have sought them out is because until I see all 60,000 pages of logs showing 335,435 people downloading songs by Metallica in one weekend I refuse to believe it.
Go to napigator.com and get the free program there that lets you log on to any Napster server. The UI lists all servers and gives total servers, users, files, and gigs of songs.
My current (4:39pm 5/3/00) users total: 13337 users.
This is a LONG way from 335,000.
---
Finally, I have tried to find the online firm NetPD that metallica claims to have used and cannot find hide nor hair of them on the Internet neither with Google, Yahoo nor at netpd.com. The reason I have sought them out is because until I see all 60,000 pages of logs showing 335,435 people downloading songs by Metallica in one weekend I refuse to believe it.
Go to napigator.com and get the free program there that lets you log on to any Napster server. The UI lists all servers and gives total servers, users, files, and gigs of songs.
My current (4:33pm 5/3/00) users total: 13367 users.
This is a LONG way from 335,000.
---
"Under section 1201(a)(2) of the DMCA, Judge Kaplan said, it is illegal for anyone to offer technology intended to circumvent a technological measure that controls access to a work protected under the act." (NYTimes)
In fact, Kaplan had not read the law thoroughly. An exception to the clause making distro of circumvention tech illegal exists in 1201(f)(2) and (3) - (3) in particular says that circulation of a circumention tech measure (read "DeCSS") IS legal when it is solely intended for RE. 2600 originally posted the story as an example of RE. Look it up everyone!! :)
Hopefully, next time around in court Kaplan will be made aware of these exceptions.
---
That's be expensive, but one ad would be tres funny. I'm willing to contribute.
And printing it backwards would be a hoot.
---
I am a participant in the Harvard Openlaw forum discussing potential defenses for 2600 against the plaintiff MPAA members.
After much debate there, it seems that there may be a defense for 2600 based on the DMCA's reverse engineering exemption. This is perhaps contingent on 2600's motivations in circulating DeCSS, at least according to the language of the DMCA. A sticking point in this 'perhaps' may be the license under which DeCSS was first released; currently, the story is that Jon Johansen was persuaded by members of the LiViD group to contribute DeCSS to the open source development of the LiViD DVD player - and if my understanding is correct, open source is circulated under the GPL.
Assuming these are the correct facts, could you state your (I assume non-lawyerly, but obviously well-informed) opinion as to what or whether protection is afforded to 2600 in their circulation of DeCSS?
The killer combo:
napster. you know where that is.
wrapster. you know what it does.
napigator. In case you don't know what this does, it allows you to logon to a napster server of your choosing.
So, with these three things, you can: find whoever you need to find, exchange whatever file you want to exchange. Feel like a spy yet?
ATTACK OF THE PORN IMAGES
it could happen to YOU
Yeah. SURE they did lady. And that Playboy just happened to POP UP in my mailbox.
acer future.. as someone who types the way it's recommended (using all 8/10? fingers for example, or most of them on the "proper" keys) I've found it feels REAL nice. Your wrists sit at the same level as the keys, so you feel like you're practically not sitting at a keyboard at all. Also, though some like the mouse, I HATE the mouse (I hate moving my hands any more than necessary when typing - I never use the keypad but the number keys above the letters for instance) and you can get a Future board with a touch pad right in the center (it's a split board). (Alas, I don't have that version of the keyboard, reason #98 why I suck.) One thing that may or may not be ultra-weird is that the arrow keys are placed around the touchpad. I find that requires a little getting used to.
No, no, don't miss the point pal. It's not that it's a GROCERY STORE, it's that the demand for these players went from needing TWO outlets to satisfy to FOUR HUNDRED. It's the sales baby, the sales! Go Go Grocery Store!