This has a touch of the friend-of-a-friend urban legend to it.
I was thinking the same thing. We don't know the name of the user. We don't know the name of the ISP. We don't know why he was getting hit with DoS attacks. We don't know how long this was going on.
Napster has no legal or ethical obligation to perform copyright enforcement services on Metallica's behalf without compensation from Metallica.
You're wrong. Intentionally ignoring criminal activity is immoral and unethical. Of course, if you feel that there should be no copyrights, then you could argue that it's not unethical, but Napster has never said that.
The law clearly places the responsibility for notification infringement on the copyright holder.
I've already said from a legal standpoint, you're correct, why do you keep bringing this up?
I'm not being dishonest. I'm simply one step ahead of your argument. It isn't a technical loophole. Your theory is fundamentally flawed.
This is a lot of talk, but you haven't said why my theory is flawed.
MP3s are, as you said, identified by their filename -- presumably their song title, possibly including the name of the artist. For Metallica to demand that Napster ban a song title that they happened to use is Metallica claiming an intellectual property right that they simply do not have. Metallica simply has no legal authority to prohibit the distribution of songs containing the word "Metallica" in their titles.
If there is a filename called "Metallica - Fade to Black.mp3", you can assume that it's a metillica song. If the person denies it, Napster could simply check the file itself. I said this in my last post, which you pointly ignored. More dishonesty.
Your proposals constitute a technically workable method for a copyright holder to identify specific instances of probable copyright infringement, but nothing in the law requires Napster to do this work on behalf of any copyright holder. Remember, copyright is an entirely synthetic right.
Now, of course, we find why you are against this. You don't believe in copyrights. Well, I'd hate to live in a world without copyrights. I agree that IP is not a natural right, but property is not a natural right either. Everything in human society is a construct created by humans for the purpose of facilitating society. Copyright law, in the end, is for the benefit of the consumer.
I also said I never expected Napster to do what I said, because it's clear that they wouldn't have a userbase if they did. You dishonestly ignored that as well.
Not their job. The DMCA makes it clear that it is the responsibility of the copyright holder to notify Napster of violations.
From a legal standpoint, you're right. But ethically, it's not right. Napster knows there are copyright songs on there. It knows the law is being violated. They just don't care because they rely on users sharing copyrighted songs for the majority of their userbase.
Song titles are not copyrightable.
Did I say song titles? I said SONGS. You even quoted me saying songs and not song titles. You're looking for a technical loophole, and that's dishonest. First of all, the majority of mp3s list the artist in the filename (for the exact reason you state above). Second, most people share multiple files from the same artist, so that could be a secondary check. Finally, a person could simply download the file and check it manually as a last resort.
You wouldn't have to get every single copyrighted song. Just make it a big enough pain in the ass to share copyrighted songs that people stop bothering.
If Napster truly did not want people to use their service for piracy, they could easy stop it. How hard would it be for Napster to hire a couple of people to police their service? Just go around looking for pirated songs and ban anyone who has pirated songs offered (after a warning to remove the pirated material, of course). I'm sure the RIAA would be more than happy to provide them with a list of copyrighted songs. The fact is that they don't want to stop these people because they know that very few people would bother using their service if they prevented people from sharing copyrighted material.
That's why this is different than something like FTP. The vast majority of people use an FTP application for legitimate purposes. I suspect that it's probably harder to find non-copyrighted material on Napster than it is to find copyrighted material.
Of course, I'm just bitter because people put "Anime" into their list but never have any anime songs shared.
Considering all the complaints about the mainstream media not understanding technical matters, it's sad when someone writing for Slashdot obviously doesn't understand either. John Katz writes "But the unleashing of lawyers on more than 330,000 Napster users -- many of them kids -- who allegedly downloaded the band's music last week is an outrage, a punitive and thoughtless assault on privacy and freedom." The emphasis is mine. Obviously there's no way for Metallica to know whether or not any of the users actually downloaded any of the mp3s unless Metallica shared out the mp3s themselves, which would be ludicrious (you can't offer something you own to someone and then claim they stole it). What they must have done is listed all the users who were offering the mp3s for downloads.
So, instead of depicting these people as pirates who are distributing illegal mp3s to people, Jon Katz depicts them as helpless children who didn't know they were downloading something illegal. Does Jon even know how Napster works?
Don't confuse probation with parole. They are different. Probation is handed down during sentencing. People can get either just probation or a mix of incarceration and probation. Parole is granted to a person already incarcerated and as far as I know, cannot exceed the length of the parolee's sentence.
And, also as far as I know, there is no such thing as a probation board. You're thinking of the parole board.
How is that not punishment? You can't leave the state with getting permission. In Mitnik's case, he's not allowed to use a computer. That's not punishment? What it is then? Certainly using a computer is not against the law, so why is Mitnik not allowed to use a computer, other than for punitive reasons?
Like I said, I don't think they should be able to stop him from giving lectures, not because of First Amendment reasons, but rather because they are expanding what his limitations are during his probation beyond the scope of what the judge originally intended. Of course, I've never read the conditions of his probation, so it may actually cover that as well.
Instead of 5 years of prison and 3 years of probation (or whatever it was they gave him), they could have given him 8 years of prison. He wouldn't be able to go and give lecures then, so this is not a First Amendment issue.
If they tried to prevent him from speaking at all about the case to the media, then it would be a First Amendment issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking the same thing. We don't know the name of the user. We don't know the name of the ISP. We don't know why he was getting hit with DoS attacks. We don't know how long this was going on.
f.
You're wrong. Intentionally ignoring criminal activity is immoral and unethical. Of course, if you feel that there should be no copyrights, then you could argue that it's not unethical, but Napster has never said that.
The law clearly places the responsibility for notification infringement on the copyright holder.
I've already said from a legal standpoint, you're correct, why do you keep bringing this up?
I'm not being dishonest. I'm simply one step ahead of your argument. It isn't a technical loophole. Your theory is fundamentally flawed.
This is a lot of talk, but you haven't said why my theory is flawed.
MP3s are, as you said, identified by their filename -- presumably their song title, possibly including the name of the artist. For Metallica to demand that Napster ban a song title that they happened to use is Metallica claiming an intellectual property right that they simply do not have. Metallica simply has no legal authority to prohibit the distribution of songs containing the word "Metallica" in their titles.
If there is a filename called "Metallica - Fade to Black.mp3", you can assume that it's a metillica song. If the person denies it, Napster could simply check the file itself. I said this in my last post, which you pointly ignored. More dishonesty.
Your proposals constitute a technically workable method for a copyright holder to identify specific instances of probable copyright infringement, but nothing in the law requires Napster to do this work on behalf of any copyright holder. Remember, copyright is an entirely synthetic right.
Now, of course, we find why you are against this. You don't believe in copyrights. Well, I'd hate to live in a world without copyrights. I agree that IP is not a natural right, but property is not a natural right either. Everything in human society is a construct created by humans for the purpose of facilitating society. Copyright law, in the end, is for the benefit of the consumer.
I also said I never expected Napster to do what I said, because it's clear that they wouldn't have a userbase if they did. You dishonestly ignored that as well.
From a legal standpoint, you're right. But ethically, it's not right. Napster knows there are copyright songs on there. It knows the law is being violated. They just don't care because they rely on users sharing copyrighted songs for the majority of their userbase.
Song titles are not copyrightable.
Did I say song titles? I said SONGS. You even quoted me saying songs and not song titles. You're looking for a technical loophole, and that's dishonest. First of all, the majority of mp3s list the artist in the filename (for the exact reason you state above). Second, most people share multiple files from the same artist, so that could be a secondary check. Finally, a person could simply download the file and check it manually as a last resort.
You wouldn't have to get every single copyrighted song. Just make it a big enough pain in the ass to share copyrighted songs that people stop bothering.
f.
That's why this is different than something like FTP. The vast majority of people use an FTP application for legitimate purposes. I suspect that it's probably harder to find non-copyrighted material on Napster than it is to find copyrighted material.
Of course, I'm just bitter because people put "Anime" into their list but never have any anime songs shared.
f.
So, instead of depicting these people as pirates who are distributing illegal mp3s to people, Jon Katz depicts them as helpless children who didn't know they were downloading something illegal. Does Jon even know how Napster works?
And, also as far as I know, there is no such thing as a probation board. You're thinking of the parole board.
Like I said, I don't think they should be able to stop him from giving lectures, not because of First Amendment reasons, but rather because they are expanding what his limitations are during his probation beyond the scope of what the judge originally intended. Of course, I've never read the conditions of his probation, so it may actually cover that as well.
Instead of 5 years of prison and 3 years of probation (or whatever it was they gave him), they could have given him 8 years of prison. He wouldn't be able to go and give lecures then, so this is not a First Amendment issue.
If they tried to prevent him from speaking at all about the case to the media, then it would be a First Amendment issue.
Um...Then what is it supposed to be, congratulatory? Sheesh. I don't agree with what they're doing, but statements like these make no sense.