I think the basis of shareware remains the same: the purpose is to encourage people to make copies and share them with their friends.
Unfortunately, the market has differentiated since the term was created. Instead there are a bunch of other terms people bandy about: nagware, crippleware, postcardware, beerware, etc.
Maybe we should change our marketing? =)
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
I suppose you could use free software that had the same functionality? Linux, GIMP, AbiWord. You might actually be able to roll up your sleeves and get some practical administration or programming experience at the same time.
my parents combined make 50k a year, we can abrely afford a damn hosue payment, much less software.
Then make sure you don't tell them that you've got thousands of dollars of pirated software on your computer, because that would make them liable as well if the SPA raids your home. =)
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
This question was raised earlier in the discussion...
The software is shareware. We want people to show it to their friends, and pass copies around the office. That's why it's fully functional for 15 days... so that you can impress your friends without the need for pirated codes.
If you're motives are truly altruistic, then you can still help us market our product without even resorting to piracy.
You can make as many copies of our software as you like, even make disk images of the Ambrosia CD containing our product library. We encourage you to give copies to your friends.
All we ask is that, if you decide to keep it, you actually pay to unlock it instead of using a code that you grabbed off the net.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
You seem to think that there is some bait-and-switch going on here. Snapz Pro X has always worked the same way: 15 day fully functional demo, after that it continues to work but watermarks images and movies. Similarly for all our products -- we don't change behavior or licensing after the software is released.
In addition, our registration process has only changed in one way: it's now easier for users to renew their code when they reinstall the software after a clean system install or when transferring to a new machine.
There may be companies out there that do what you suggest, and if so they should be reported to the FTC.
Assuming that all of the pirated users are going to register is naive.
If you check the article, I never said that the other 50% would just up an register over this. I do hope, however, that a good percentage realize that they had found value in the software, and decide to pay for it.
And for those people who wouldn't have paid, well, then they don't get to use the product. (At least until the next pirated code or crack is posted.)
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
I think your argument is specious. You say that there is no middle ground between free software and expensive software, but ignore the reality of today's marketplace. There are budget shops, low-cost fast food joints, and so on that do just fine. They meet a need that is too expensive to get for free, but too small or specific to warrant the attention of the big guys.
By being effectively "free", it threatens real free software
I think most people are honest (with a certain nudge once in a while), and that they will pay what they think something is worth. If a shareware product has enough inherent value to displace a free product, then you've just witnessed the free market in action.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
The reality is that people who pirate their software are an assent in mindshare.
Snapz is shareware -- we encourage our users to make copies for their friends. There is a 15-day fully functional demo (after which, the only difference is a watermark). You see, it's possible help our mindshare without resorting to piracy.
Btw someone will crack this is ten seconds anyway.
Well, the software has been out for almost 8 months and no one has yet.
That said, I certainly wouldn't claim it is uncrackable, but I think that the system has done its job to prevent casual piracy (those 50% with pirated codes were stopped, at least for now), which was the best we had ever hoped to do.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
I can walk into WalMart and buy any of ID software's fine games for $15, ten bucks cheaper than Ambrosia. Yep, then bucks makes a difference to pizza and beer budgets. It's funny how ID software has not made their games as bothersome as this.
Well, let's be honest. Most ID games did not start out in the bargain bin, and the games you find there are 2 years (and 2 generations) old. Our latest game is just $20. If you can't afford that much for a new game and at least a week's entertainment, then you should just play checkers with your cat. =)
The second huge mistake he's made is to inconvienence his honest clients. If his registration process was really easier than obtaining crack codes, honest people would not obtain crack codes.
Well, the registration process has 2 limitations that surfing the net for a license code doesn't: you have to wait for us to process your order (normally 1 business day), and you have to actually pay for the software. It's not shrinkwrap software, so you can't buy it at the store, but Snapz is fully functional for 15 days (and watermarks images after that) -- you get a fair chance to use it and see if it meets your needs.
We've considered automating the registration process further, but you'd be surprised by the number of registrations need to be massaged when they come in... incorrect email addresses or comments like "I may have registered this already, can you tell if I did so my card isn't charged?" For now, a human is still necessary to proof the information.
I applaud anyone who can afford to write free software, but I still need a day job to feed my family.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
You saved the URL but apparently you didn't read it.
Their "draft" wasn't a protocol specification and not even an informal one: there were no port numbers, no packet formats, nothing specific about their implementation.
In fact, it was a just a list of design issues that needed to be considered: security, scalability, finding members on other services, etc.
I have to agree. I was rummaging for a good, simple vector graphics format to integrate into my app and was drawn right to SVG. The problem is, SVG uses the HTML model of linking to numerous components, either locally or over the network. While it's a cool idea, how practical is it really?
First, how many people are sick of seeing slow web browsers? Now images are going to be just as slow as complex tables, as each pattern
and image element is downloaded separately. Heck, JPEG and PNG decompression is slow enough locally -- now add network latency and bandwidth slow downs!
Second, what about browsing images offline? Offline HTML is already pretty painful, now you need some way to extract a whole page *and* all of the nested links inside the SVG images.
Finally, can you say bloat? XML, DOM, CSS, network stack, etc, etc. -- that's alot of code just to display a random graphic. I guess the footprint of modern web browsers has numbed us to the fact that software is getting slower, not faster.
I'm not saying SVG doesn't have it's place -- but I do agree, this is a classic example of design by committee.
Even then, people like Thomas Jefferson preached radical notions of open media. He feared the ownership of ideas: "that ideas should freely spread from one to another all over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man.."
Get it right man, ideas are not implementations. You are free to share any idea you want: mathematics, science, politics, even your own anarchist drivel. You are not free to share the product of someone's labors without their consent.
Free Ideas == Free Speech Free Works == Free Music
Copyright and trademarks are now deemed legal "rights" granted to property owners
What's so insidious about this? Who should the right belong to?
As Jenkins points out in his article, if Shakespeare, Lewis Carroll and the authors of the Bible were covered by the DMCA, none of their works would have received a fraction of the attention or influence they've generated.
Bah, that's just rhetoric. If Will, Louie, or Moses were looking to make a buck on their hard work, they had a real opportunity to do so without some kid in his basement republishing it for free. Besides, the works didn't achieve their broad audience til well after a reasonable period of copyright protection passed and they fell into the public domain -- after the authors were dead. If you want to argue something, argue with Disney how long this period should be.
Fair use is the right to use copyrighted material, regardless of the wishes of the creator or owner of the material. A copyright gives the owner certain rights; fair use limits them. Under the right of fair use, you can quote from this column to criticize it, quote sections from it, and reproduce them to attack, support me, or disseminate my views.
Fair use has been applied in 2 ways: to give critics the ability to dissect, discuss, or parody a work in part or as a whole (as part of free speech), and to grant the consumer the right to transfer a work from one media to another (for his own enjoyment and convenience). It does not and should not allow you to take something purchased for private use and broadcast it to the world. That's nowhere close to original intent.
Fair use doesn't ignore or abuse the rights of the author, it just extends the consumer's rights for practical considerations. It's the people that abuse this clause that are forcing the law to crack down and formalize exactly what it entails.
Rather than seek some new legal middle-ground -- sites that offer some free as well as paid music, for example, or experiment with new ways to provide artists with revenue -- the music industry has sought and won the most extreme legal remedies, ones that will continue to be undermined by new technologies and the evolution of new music-sharing sites, some legal and above-ground, some not.
Most people wonder the same thing, but how can they expect artists to start publishing music online for "a reasonable price" when there are numerous ways to get the music for free? It won't be a viable economic model until there is some reason for people to actually pay the owner for the product.
Yes, music and television are routinely broadcast over the airwaves, books are borrowed from libraries -- but this is the first time in history where duplication costs are so minimal and the fidelity of n-generation copies is so good. When it becomes easy enough to build a high quality library of works with just an anonymous click of a button, then copyright is in serious trouble.
Rolled over by this ruling are the fans who've experienced years of extraordinary access to a shared culture, and have experienced access to music as an ingrained part of their lives and culture.
I suppose that's what it comes down to... "I've always pirated music, and now they wanna take it away from me!" When does the ease and popularity of an action suffice to make it legal? Should we have started cracking down on it when it was a couple people exchanging lyrics over the ARPAnet? How about the first public FTP server with software on it? How about we just give up? Or maybe, just maybe, when some company starts making money simply by trafficking works that are almost copyrighted by someone else. When is the right time for an author to stand up for his rights?
We are a nation that must learn how to respect intellectual property, so that artists are duly rewarded and consumers continue to enjoy a rich cultural experience. Previous generations didn't have to contend with these issues, so they are poorly equipped to teach the current generations -- we have to figure it out for ourselves!
I stand by my assertion that the people who expect to get all of their music, movies, and software for free simply haven't produced anything of value yet. If they had, and it was stolen, they'd be screaming bloody murder as well. Don't blame the RIAA, they are fighting for the very rights that you may want someday. Trust me, a few free CDs are not worth selling out for.
He had stated that the band encourages bootlegs of live performances, etc. He just doesn't want some 3rd party coming in and making a profit by trafficking millions of copies without his permission.
But the problem is that the RIAA has spent loads of money lobbying for the laws we now have to deal with.
So? Everyone has lobbyists, and sometimes laws are passed based on that -- laws that you may or may not agree with. There are big problems with the system, and someone is always gonna end up cheesed off.
Sure, I think Disney got a bad law passed (copyright extension), but I think many of the copyright laws are still pretty darned good in design. Hopefully the judiciary will do the right thing in their application.
I run Napster, anything else I need to do to put myself in the way of the law? Maybe speak out against it, perhaps? Maybe talk to a congressman? This is all stuff I am doing or have done, any more (serious) suggestions?
I tip my hat to you then -- you are standing up for what you believe. Just don't be surprised when someone gets around to naming you in a lawsuit, or blocking your access. THAT is the point I am making... these users asked for it, and they got it.
First, it addresses the circumvention of copyright protection systems, not actual violations of copyright law. This means they'll go after the DeCSS people (another place where we disagree, I'm sure), not the kid in his basement burning himself a copy of the Matrix.
Second, the section on criminal offenses and penalties is very explicit in that it applies to violations for "commercial advantage or private financial gain". I haven't seen the list of 300,000 names, but I'm pretty sure most of them haven't made any money.
This a simple battle between us and them. Which side are you on? And why?
I make a living by creating and selling IP, not music but software. I expect that these laws will help protect my work (and my job), and I fully endorse them. I'm not trying to get something for nothing, I'm trying to feed my family.
I am all for open source -- people who want to spend their time on something they will give away. I respect that decision, and I've even put some stuff out in the public domain. However, I resent the fact that some people on the other side don't respect my decision, my copyrights, and steal my product.
If I found 300,000 people giving away my stuff, *I* would be hiring a lawyer.
Wake up, grow up, and get real. "Because I want to!" is not sufficient legal justification to be able to do something.
I couldn't agree more. We are producing another generation that thinks they are entitled to anything they can get their hands on -- and with digital media, the rationalizations are *so* much easier. The ability to do or take something doesn't equate to the right to do so.
The *only* rights that are being trodden on here are those of the artists. There is no right to free music, no right to free television, no right to free books. The fact that there *are* such things doesn't justify the theft of the rest.
When little Johnny wants candy in the store, he shouldn't just dip into the bin and chow down. When he wants his streaming music, he shouldn't take it without paying either.
Jon, please stop teaching kids that stealing is right!
The court system is too slow to keep up with the current rapidly changing environment. We need to skip a couple steps to catch up.
Yah, so let's cut out the thoughtful and deliberate review process and act from the hip. I know the computer market is changing fast, but that doesn't mean that right and wrong do.
Each new technology pushes the envelope, but that doesn't mean we should give up trying. Let the court draw a line in the sand this year, and in 2 or 5 years, they'll adjust it as necessary. They have made good decisions (Sony v Connectix, etc), they are just reactive. That's the nature of the system. It's not broken, it's thoughtful.
I'm skipping straight ahead to that shattering laws that don't work part. How do you shatter something? Break it willfully, purposefully, and repeatedly.
Civil disobedience and all of that? The whole point of civil disobedience was to put yourself *in* the way of the law and make an example of how it is unjust. Otherwise, you are just protesting from the sidelines -- and anyone can do that.
Are you advocating that people tell Metallica that they are pirating the music so that they can be prosecuted? If you are willing to do this, I take my hat off to you.
Putting 300,000 kids in prison in not even close to a realistic solution.
First, nobody is going to prison. Copyright violation is a civil matter, and certainly not a felony.
Second, Metallica has yet to sue these kids. This is just a list of people to ban from Napster.
Finally, so what? Sure, that's alot of kids... but don't you think it brings home the point? This isn't a distant battle between 2 faceless giants, but affects you too. ("Poor little Johnny didn't know it was wrong to steal" -- heh, riiiiight). Besides, everyone will get their day in court (unless you are really advocating that people work outside the system).
I had the same thought, but you know... Jon doesn't really put out anything of value. All he peddles are his "insightful" opinions (down with the man, open source will rule the world, teenagers are misunderstood) and republish the stuff that people send to him. He doesn't produce a product or own any of this stuff, he just packages it up to keep stirring the controversy.
Until he produces something of value, why should he care if people republish his works? Gee, all it would do is stir up more controversy! Think of Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, and all the others... Jon has just found another niche: techno-teens.
The more talk and controversy he can generate, the better for him: more book deals, more speaking engagements, and more paid opinion articles he is offered. Jon doesn't produce a product that's worth pirating, he spews an opinion that people pay to hear (or tune in to argue against). That's why he doesn't care about copyright. That's his choice -- to put his content out there for free.
(Unfortunately his content advocates that stealing my content is justified, no matter what I think it is worth -- and that's where the problem lies.;)
Why do you say greedy like it's a bad thing? Don't you have any greed, any desire for more and better things? The free market is driven by greed, and built by people who provide products or services for something in return.
You can rationalize your behavior any way you want, but the fact is that you are breaking the law and they are not. If you disagree, fix the law!
If it was 1 guy somewhere, making a copy of it, then it wouldn't be worth the trouble to pursue it. That doesn't justify it, it would just be under the radar. People will let the minor things go because it's not worth the time.
So why pursue the issue about theft/piracy/copyright violation? Because it's never just one person. If you don't stop it in its tracks then it will continue and flourish. Copy one track and it's no big deal, but if you get away with it then you copy more. If you get away with it, then other people are more likely to do the same thing.
The great thing about Metallica's threat is that it doesn't target some faceless company (mp3.com, Napster), but the actual kids who think they are above/outside the law. They blithely get by using whatever software they scavenge off warez sites, listen to whatever music they can squeeze on their HDs, and nobody is the wiser. Most parents are not technical enough (or don't pay that close attention) to even understand what is going on. This lawsuit is a wake up call for all of these kids.
It doesn't matter if the law sucks, that's what the court system is for. Litigation isn't a bad thing, it is designed to get to the heart of the matter -- setting precedent or shattering laws that don't work!
This isn't just some guy fighting for a penny each download, but making a stand to protect something he's worked hard to build. You can mock Lars all you want, but I'd do the same thing and I'm sure many of you would too. Is there something you have written/designed/created that you thought was worth something, dammit, and you don't want broadcasted because one person saw fit to post it? Even if you haven't yet, can't you imagine the day when you do? Who is going to fight for your rights then?
JonKatz is arguing that they are taking away your rights right now, but there is no right to violate copyright -- by definition the right belongs to the author. He is trying to defend it the only way he can -- using the law! Next week, they will try to take away someone else's rights, and they are gonna fight too. What will will you do when they come for yours?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the basis of shareware remains the same: the purpose is to encourage people to make copies and share them with their friends.
Unfortunately, the market has differentiated since the term was created. Instead there are a bunch of other terms people bandy about: nagware, crippleware, postcardware, beerware, etc.
Maybe we should change our marketing? =)
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
I made sure to cite that study in my article. It was a major factor in our decision making process.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
I suppose you could use free software that had the same functionality? Linux, GIMP, AbiWord. You might actually be able to roll up your sleeves and get some practical administration or programming experience at the same time.
my parents combined make 50k a year, we can abrely afford a damn hosue payment, much less software.
Then make sure you don't tell them that you've got thousands of dollars of pirated software on your computer, because that would make them liable as well if the SPA raids your home. =)
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
This question was raised earlier in the discussion...
The software is shareware. We want people to show it to their friends, and pass copies around the office. That's why it's fully functional for 15 days... so that you can impress your friends without the need for pirated codes.
If you're motives are truly altruistic, then you can still help us market our product without even resorting to piracy.
You can make as many copies of our software as you like, even make disk images of the Ambrosia CD containing our product library. We encourage you to give copies to your friends.
All we ask is that, if you decide to keep it, you actually pay to unlock it instead of using a code that you grabbed off the net.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
You seem to think that there is some bait-and-switch going on here. Snapz Pro X has always worked the same way: 15 day fully functional demo, after that it continues to work but watermarks images and movies. Similarly for all our products -- we don't change behavior or licensing after the software is released.
In addition, our registration process has only changed in one way: it's now easier for users to renew their code when they reinstall the software after a clean system install or when transferring to a new machine.
There may be companies out there that do what you suggest, and if so they should be reported to the FTC.
Assuming that all of the pirated users are going to register is naive.
If you check the article, I never said that the other 50% would just up an register over this. I do hope, however, that a good percentage realize that they had found value in the software, and decide to pay for it.
And for those people who wouldn't have paid, well, then they don't get to use the product. (At least until the next pirated code or crack is posted.)
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
I think your argument is specious. You say that there is no middle ground between free software and expensive software, but ignore the reality of today's marketplace. There are budget shops, low-cost fast food joints, and so on that do just fine. They meet a need that is too expensive to get for free, but too small or specific to warrant the attention of the big guys.
By being effectively "free", it threatens real free software
I think most people are honest (with a certain nudge once in a while), and that they will pay what they think something is worth. If a shareware product has enough inherent value to displace a free product, then you've just witnessed the free market in action.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
The reality is that people who pirate their software are an assent in mindshare.
Snapz is shareware -- we encourage our users to make copies for their friends. There is a 15-day fully functional demo (after which, the only difference is a watermark). You see, it's possible help our mindshare without resorting to piracy.
Btw someone will crack this is ten seconds anyway.
Well, the software has been out for almost 8 months and no one has yet.
That said, I certainly wouldn't claim it is uncrackable, but I think that the system has done its job to prevent casual piracy (those 50% with pirated codes were stopped, at least for now), which was the best we had ever hoped to do.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
I can walk into WalMart and buy any of ID software's fine games for $15, ten bucks cheaper than Ambrosia. Yep, then bucks makes a difference to pizza and beer budgets. It's funny how ID software has not made their games as bothersome as this.
Well, let's be honest. Most ID games did not start out in the bargain bin, and the games you find there are 2 years (and 2 generations) old. Our latest game is just $20. If you can't afford that much for a new game and at least a week's entertainment, then you should just play checkers with your cat. =)
The second huge mistake he's made is to inconvienence his honest clients. If his registration process was really easier than obtaining crack codes, honest people would not obtain crack codes.
Well, the registration process has 2 limitations that surfing the net for a license code doesn't: you have to wait for us to process your order (normally 1 business day), and you have to actually pay for the software. It's not shrinkwrap software, so you can't buy it at the store, but Snapz is fully functional for 15 days (and watermarks images after that) -- you get a fair chance to use it and see if it meets your needs.
We've considered automating the registration process further, but you'd be surprised by the number of registrations need to be massaged when they come in... incorrect email addresses or comments like "I may have registered this already, can you tell if I did so my card isn't charged?" For now, a human is still necessary to proof the information.
I applaud anyone who can afford to write free software, but I still need a day job to feed my family.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
On the flip side, someone can be incredibly charismatic and not have a shred of ability -- that's where the "car salesman/politician" may fit.
Most people fall in between these extremes, and use all of their talents to be successful.
Because it only takes 30 seconds to ask if someone else had done it already.
You saved the URL but apparently you didn't read it.
Their "draft" wasn't a protocol specification and not even an informal one: there were no port numbers, no packet formats, nothing specific about their implementation.
In fact, it was a just a list of design issues that needed to be considered: security, scalability, finding members on other services, etc.
I have to agree. I was rummaging for a good, simple vector graphics format to integrate into my app and was drawn right to SVG. The problem is, SVG uses the HTML model of linking to numerous components, either locally or over the network. While it's a cool idea, how practical is it really?
First, how many people are sick of seeing slow web browsers? Now images are going to be just as slow as complex tables, as each pattern
and image element is downloaded separately. Heck, JPEG and PNG decompression is slow enough locally -- now add network latency and bandwidth slow downs!
Second, what about browsing images offline? Offline HTML is already pretty painful, now you need some way to extract a whole page *and* all of the nested links inside the SVG images.
Finally, can you say bloat? XML, DOM, CSS, network stack, etc, etc. -- that's alot of code just to display a random graphic. I guess the footprint of modern web browsers has numbed us to the fact that software is getting slower, not faster.
I'm not saying SVG doesn't have it's place -- but I do agree, this is a classic example of design by committee.
Even then, people like Thomas Jefferson preached radical notions of open media. He feared the ownership of ideas: "that ideas should freely spread from one to another all over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man .."
Get it right man, ideas are not implementations. You are free to share any idea you want: mathematics, science, politics, even your own anarchist drivel. You are not free to share the product of someone's labors without their consent.
Free Ideas == Free Speech
Free Works == Free Music
Copyright and trademarks are now deemed legal "rights" granted to property owners
What's so insidious about this? Who should the right belong to?
As Jenkins points out in his article, if Shakespeare, Lewis Carroll and the authors of the Bible were covered by the DMCA, none of their works would have received a fraction of the attention or influence they've generated.
Bah, that's just rhetoric. If Will, Louie, or Moses were looking to make a buck on their hard work, they had a real opportunity to do so without some kid in his basement republishing it for free. Besides, the works didn't achieve their broad audience til well after a reasonable period of copyright protection passed and they fell into the public domain -- after the authors were dead. If you want to argue something, argue with Disney how long this period should be.
Fair use is the right to use copyrighted material, regardless of the wishes of the creator or owner of the material. A copyright gives the owner certain rights; fair use limits them. Under the right of fair use, you can quote from this column to criticize it, quote sections from it, and reproduce them to attack, support me, or disseminate my views.
Fair use has been applied in 2 ways: to give critics the ability to dissect, discuss, or parody a work in part or as a whole (as part of free speech), and to grant the consumer the right to transfer a work from one media to another (for his own enjoyment and convenience). It does not and should not allow you to take something purchased for private use and broadcast it to the world. That's nowhere close to original intent.
Fair use doesn't ignore or abuse the rights of the author, it just extends the consumer's rights for practical considerations. It's the people that abuse this clause that are forcing the law to crack down and formalize exactly what it entails.
Rather than seek some new legal middle-ground -- sites that offer some free as well as paid music, for example, or experiment with new ways to provide artists with revenue -- the music industry has sought and won the most extreme legal remedies, ones that will continue to be undermined by new technologies and the evolution of new music-sharing sites, some legal and above-ground, some not.
Most people wonder the same thing, but how can they expect artists to start publishing music online for "a reasonable price" when there are numerous ways to get the music for free? It won't be a viable economic model until there is some reason for people to actually pay the owner for the product.
Yes, music and television are routinely broadcast over the airwaves, books are borrowed from libraries -- but this is the first time in history where duplication costs are so minimal and the fidelity of n-generation copies is so good. When it becomes easy enough to build a high quality library of works with just an anonymous click of a button, then copyright is in serious trouble.
Rolled over by this ruling are the fans who've experienced years of extraordinary access to a shared culture, and have experienced access to music as an ingrained part of their lives and culture.
I suppose that's what it comes down to... "I've always pirated music, and now they wanna take it away from me!" When does the ease and popularity of an action suffice to make it legal? Should we have started cracking down on it when it was a couple people exchanging lyrics over the ARPAnet? How about the first public FTP server with software on it? How about we just give up? Or maybe, just maybe, when some company starts making money simply by trafficking works that are almost copyrighted by someone else. When is the right time for an author to stand up for his rights?
We are a nation that must learn how to respect intellectual property, so that artists are duly rewarded and consumers continue to enjoy a rich cultural experience. Previous generations didn't have to contend with these issues, so they are poorly equipped to teach the current generations -- we have to figure it out for ourselves!
I stand by my assertion that the people who expect to get all of their music, movies, and software for free simply haven't produced anything of value yet. If they had, and it was stolen, they'd be screaming bloody murder as well. Don't blame the RIAA, they are fighting for the very rights that you may want someday. Trust me, a few free CDs are not worth selling out for.
I mean, the main purpose of Napster is already getting the music without buying the CDs. I guess a boycott is really gonna show them. Real smart.
1980: I WANT MY MTV
2000: I WANT MY MP3
He had stated that the band encourages bootlegs of live performances, etc. He just doesn't want some 3rd party coming in and making a profit by trafficking millions of copies without his permission.
Quality and scale.
It was transcribed from a phone conversation.
But the problem is that the RIAA has spent loads of money lobbying for the laws we now have to deal with.
So? Everyone has lobbyists, and sometimes laws are passed based on that -- laws that you may or may not agree with. There are big problems with the system, and someone is always gonna end up cheesed off.
Sure, I think Disney got a bad law passed (copyright extension), but I think many of the copyright laws are still pretty darned good in design. Hopefully the judiciary will do the right thing in their application.
I run Napster, anything else I need to do to put myself in the way of the law? Maybe speak out against it, perhaps? Maybe talk to a congressman? This is all stuff I am doing or have done, any more (serious) suggestions?
I tip my hat to you then -- you are standing up for what you believe. Just don't be surprised when someone gets around to naming you in a lawsuit, or blocking your access. THAT is the point I am making... these users asked for it, and they got it.
You ever hear about the DMCA?
You ever read it?
First, it addresses the circumvention of copyright protection systems, not actual violations of copyright law. This means they'll go after the DeCSS people (another place where we disagree, I'm sure), not the kid in his basement burning himself a copy of the Matrix.
Second, the section on criminal offenses and penalties is very explicit in that it applies to violations for "commercial advantage or private financial gain". I haven't seen the list of 300,000 names, but I'm pretty sure most of them haven't made any money.
This a simple battle between us and them. Which side are you on? And why?
I make a living by creating and selling IP, not music but software. I expect that these laws will help protect my work (and my job), and I fully endorse them. I'm not trying to get something for nothing, I'm trying to feed my family.
I am all for open source -- people who want to spend their time on something they will give away. I respect that decision, and I've even put some stuff out in the public domain. However, I resent the fact that some people on the other side don't respect my decision, my copyrights, and steal my product.
If I found 300,000 people giving away my stuff, *I* would be hiring a lawyer.
Wake up, grow up, and get real. "Because I want to!" is not sufficient legal justification to be able to do something.
I couldn't agree more. We are producing another generation that thinks they are entitled to anything they can get their hands on -- and with digital media, the rationalizations are *so* much easier. The ability to do or take something doesn't equate to the right to do so.
The *only* rights that are being trodden on here are those of the artists. There is no right to free music, no right to free television, no right to free books. The fact that there *are* such things doesn't justify the theft of the rest.
When little Johnny wants candy in the store, he shouldn't just dip into the bin and chow down. When he wants his streaming music, he shouldn't take it without paying either.
Jon, please stop teaching kids that stealing is right!
The court system is too slow to keep up with the current rapidly changing environment. We need to skip a couple steps to catch up.
Yah, so let's cut out the thoughtful and deliberate review process and act from the hip. I know the computer market is changing fast, but that doesn't mean that right and wrong do.
Each new technology pushes the envelope, but that doesn't mean we should give up trying. Let the court draw a line in the sand this year, and in 2 or 5 years, they'll adjust it as necessary. They have made good decisions (Sony v Connectix, etc), they are just reactive. That's the nature of the system. It's not broken, it's thoughtful.
I'm skipping straight ahead to that shattering laws that don't work part. How do you shatter something? Break it willfully, purposefully, and repeatedly.
Civil disobedience and all of that? The whole point of civil disobedience was to put yourself *in* the way of the law and make an example of how it is unjust. Otherwise, you are just protesting from the sidelines -- and anyone can do that.
Are you advocating that people tell Metallica that they are pirating the music so that they can be prosecuted? If you are willing to do this, I take my hat off to you.
Putting 300,000 kids in prison in not even close to a realistic solution.
First, nobody is going to prison. Copyright violation is a civil matter, and certainly not a felony.
Second, Metallica has yet to sue these kids. This is just a list of people to ban from Napster.
Finally, so what? Sure, that's alot of kids... but don't you think it brings home the point? This isn't a distant battle between 2 faceless giants, but affects you too. ("Poor little Johnny didn't know it was wrong to steal" -- heh, riiiiight). Besides, everyone will get their day in court (unless you are really advocating that people work outside the system).
I had the same thought, but you know... Jon doesn't really put out anything of value. All he peddles are his "insightful" opinions (down with the man, open source will rule the world, teenagers are misunderstood) and republish the stuff that people send to him. He doesn't produce a product or own any of this stuff, he just packages it up to keep stirring the controversy.
;)
Until he produces something of value, why should he care if people republish his works? Gee, all it would do is stir up more controversy! Think of Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, and all the others... Jon has just found another niche: techno-teens.
The more talk and controversy he can generate, the better for him: more book deals, more speaking engagements, and more paid opinion articles he is offered. Jon doesn't produce a product that's worth pirating, he spews an opinion that people pay to hear (or tune in to argue against). That's why he doesn't care about copyright. That's his choice -- to put his content out there for free.
(Unfortunately his content advocates that stealing my content is justified, no matter what I think it is worth -- and that's where the problem lies.
Why do you say greedy like it's a bad thing? Don't you have any greed, any desire for more and better things? The free market is driven by greed, and built by people who provide products or services for something in return.
You can rationalize your behavior any way you want, but the fact is that you are breaking the law and they are not. If you disagree, fix the law!
If it was 1 guy somewhere, making a copy of it, then it wouldn't be worth the trouble to pursue it. That doesn't justify it, it would just be under the radar. People will let the minor things go because it's not worth the time.
So why pursue the issue about theft/piracy/copyright violation? Because it's never just one person. If you don't stop it in its tracks then it will continue and flourish. Copy one track and it's no big deal, but if you get away with it then you copy more. If you get away with it, then other people are more likely to do the same thing.
The great thing about Metallica's threat is that it doesn't target some faceless company (mp3.com, Napster), but the actual kids who think they are above/outside the law. They blithely get by using whatever software they scavenge off warez sites, listen to whatever music they can squeeze on their HDs, and nobody is the wiser. Most parents are not technical enough (or don't pay that close attention) to even understand what is going on. This lawsuit is a wake up call for all of these kids.
It doesn't matter if the law sucks, that's what the court system is for. Litigation isn't a bad thing, it is designed to get to the heart of the matter -- setting precedent or shattering laws that don't work!
This isn't just some guy fighting for a penny each download, but making a stand to protect something he's worked hard to build. You can mock Lars all you want, but I'd do the same thing and I'm sure many of you would too. Is there something you have written/designed/created that you thought was worth something, dammit, and you don't want broadcasted because one person saw fit to post it? Even if you haven't yet, can't you imagine the day when you do? Who is going to fight for your rights then?
JonKatz is arguing that they are taking away your rights right now, but there is no right to violate copyright -- by definition the right belongs to the author. He is trying to defend it the only way he can -- using the law! Next week, they will try to take away someone else's rights, and they are gonna fight too. What will will you do when they come for yours?
Read the article, not the headline. Two of the defendents settled, there was no finding of copyright violation or judgement handed down.