If your network was advertised as a pornography distribution network, then it would be perfectly legal in itself, even if end-users decided to distribute copyrighted or illegal porn on it.
If it was advertised as an illegal kiddie-porn network, that's different. Yes, Napster may be snickering behind their desks about what this is causing the MPAA to have to go through, but that's not illegal. They are not, however, encouraging users to violate any law. And lack of discouragement is not encouragement. And lack of discouragement is not illegal, so long as it's not impeding the copyright holder's ability to actively police illegal distribution of their work (hence the DMCA).
Whoops, slashdot killed all the nicks since they were between 0x3C+0x3E's in that IRC log. Oh well, I'm sure you get the drift, even if you don't know who's saying what. I didn't notice on the preview! If you want to know that badly, contact me (aardvarq on AIM, ICQ, EFNet, etc).
Well, most of that is not a Napster issue. I'll take each of your paragraphs one by one.
"And how many users are you going to get under this unenforceable law? You can't just arrest thousands of people just because of somebody's complaint that they feel a pinch in the bank. Sure, it could be the user, but the cost of arresting, seizing and legal costs would exceed whatever Lars sold himself to get (probably at least tenfold)."
This unenforceable law? You make it sound like the law is to blame. Which it might well be, but that's irrelevant. As for arresting people on account of someone else's complaint, no, you arrest people for breaking laws. Clearly, the people using Napster to pirate music are breaking laws, but Napster is not clearly breaking any law. And when Napster is gone, many of those people are going to continue clearly breaking laws. You don't stop someone from breaking into a house by making the crowbar illegal. You put them in jail. It's inefficient and costly, but that's how society works, and if you have a better idea, I'm sure the government's all ears (maybe). As for how much it costs, or how hard it is to enforce, I don't know how much they considered (or wished to consider) that issue when they made copyright legislation.
"Besides, how do you get the people who *don't* use napster to get mp3's, which is a good deal of the population as well? You aren't even considering the mass amount of people who use chat channels, to get these mp3's. Sure, I've done the mp3 thing myself, but the copyright law is a joke considering enforcement"
Definitely not relevant to the Napster issue directly, but indirectly, it's support for keeping Napster. There have been twelve arrests (that I am aware of) made for people distributing warez over EFNet. That's how you get people distributing over IRC. Same way you get people distributing over Napster. However, illegalizing Napster would mean illegalizing IRC in the same line of reasoning. That's not possible, nor is it fair, and it's a clear First Amendment violation. And it would obviously require the illegalization of just about every file-sharing protocol and program and every company that owns/makes/distributes/supports one. AOL can't possibly afford to check every e-mail attachment and browse every file sent via AIM.
"Looking at your record, I'd could reasonably prove that you use mp3's that you didn't buy, but I am unable to know which ones due to you and those you deal with due to you working in places I can't follow"
Prove? Unless you intend to acquisition my hard drive, I find it highly unlikely you'd be able to prove in either direction. You won't find me on Napster, and you won't find me in any music distribution chans on IRC. Well, not today anyways. Where I think you're going with this is that you want to find a way to catch me breaking copyright law. You have it backwards. Companies need to go into IRC chans just as those looking for files do, find those who are violating copyrights, and then report them to the FBI and their ISP's (and perhaps file a suit if they can get an identity by legal means on their own). The ISP would then have to take action as stated in the DMCA. And the FBI can handle further investigation, if any is necessary. If people intending theft can get access to the files, so can people protecting their copyrights. Just as Metallica did. It's the job of the copyright holder to take measures to protect their copyrights, not Napster. Napster's only responsible for assisting when asked. There's no place immune to investigation. And the more obscure the place (the harder it is for investigators to discover), the less people with illegal intent will be able to find it.
Perhaps, the copyright holders should get together and create a task force that investigates and prosecutes Internet copyright violations for a meager fee. This seems like a good and thorough method that benefits every law-abiding citizen.
[01:24] aard, I've got a bone to pick with you. [01:24] actually read what I posted, and think about the implications. [01:25] Hmm? [01:25] Napster *as a corporate entity* *encourages* pirating music from bigtime bands. [01:25] And even if they didn't, they don't do a damn thing to stop it. [01:25] That is what makes napster evil. [01:27] They do do a damn thing to stop it! They do everything they are required to do under the evil DMCA. When transgressions are brought to their attention, they take action. Solid, absolute, well-prepared action. [01:27] * Moonwick giggles [01:27] This is the same requirement as held by e-mail, ftp, newsgroups, etc. [01:27] are you implying that they aren't aware of the rampant piracy that takes place on their server? [01:28] How can you possibly outlaw napster without outlawing those? Napster isn't doing anything or giving anyone capabilities that don't already exist in those protocols. [01:28] because that'd be the only way I can see them not doing soemthing, based on your statement. [01:28] NAPSTER IS FUCKING ENCOURAGING PIRACY! [01:28] If they choose to ignore it, it's not their job to police it. One of the few positive-from-ISP-point-of-view parts of the DMCA. [01:28] You tell em they do everything they can do to stop it. I laugh at you. [01:29] s/em/me/ [01:29] They are only required to take action if it's brought to their attention. [01:29] hahaha [01:29] and you're going to tell me that they're blissfully unaware of all the piracy that takes place using their service? [01:29] Oh, and another thing. The law has ALWAYS stated that it's the job of the copyright holder to prosecute copyright violations. [01:30] What does the awareness have anything to do with it? [01:30] which is why the RIAA is sodomizing napster in court. [01:30] haha. Would you please stop contradicting yourself? [01:30] I'm not. [01:30] First you tell me that they only have to do soemthing if it's brought to their attention. Then you ask me "What does awareness have to do with it". [01:31] No, you fail to understand. The copyright holder has to investigate copyright infringement. NOT A THIRD PARTY. This includes Napster. Napster is not required to say "You can't infringe on metallica's copyright." They're allowed, so long as it's their network. But that task falls upon Metallica's shoulders. [01:32] This world is full of spineless people who can't come to terms with the fact that piracy and encouraging/facilitating piracy is illegal. [01:32] Uh, where do you draw the line of facilitating piracy. You seem to think it's somewhere between Napster and FTP. Where? [01:32] All we need is a legal precedent to rule against napster. [01:33] AIM allows file sharing. AIM can be easily configured to share all of my MP3 directory. If eveyrone does this, is it AOL's concern or the people actively doing it? [01:33] If napster did soemthing to prevent piracy fromt aking place on their network, I'd be all for them. [01:33] This isn't about file sharing. This is about blatantly alowing and encouraging piracy. [01:33] That's the last thing we need, seeing as how bye-bye http ftp pop3 irc (insert any TCP protocol you can think of here) [01:34] Napster's offenses have taken place on a corporate level. They must be punished because they have allowed and encouraged piracy through their service. [01:34] They are doing something. They are doing exactly what AOL does on their networks. Exactly what ISP's do on their networks/hosted sites/message boards. They do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING until the one person who has a right to complain does. [01:35] And the RIAA has complained. [01:35] They filed for an injunction. Yet napster fought that. [01:35] And God only knows how it got blocked... but it did. [01:35] They have not encouraged it in a legal sense. Perhaps they were snickering behind their desks at what would result, but they don't have a message on their webpage "STEAL MUSIC FROM RECORDS BY CLICKING HERE TO DOWNLOAD" [01:36] * wrath_ finds this entertaining to watch [01:36] And the fact that they fought it. Doesn't that tell you somethign about their eagerness to disobey the RIAAs desires? [01:36] encouraging piracy doesn't need to be anywhere near that blatant. [01:37] So is it a crime to make a already apparent piracy easier? [01:37] Who ISN'T eager to disobey the RIAA. $20 a CD? If nobody else smells a monopoly plot... [01:37] Alright, are you admitting that what napster does is illegal? Because I detect a blatant change of subject here. [01:38] The point I am making is that you can go join #mp3search and perform the same act... [01:38] Yes, but it needs to exist in a real sense. Making a crowbar and proving it's the absolute best crowbar in existance for opening crates should not get you in legal trouble if it's also found to be the absolute best for cracking windows, even if you knew it before you marketed it. [01:38] The RIAA's monopoly is an entirely different matter,a nd is one that I'm sure me and you would agree entirely on. [01:38] But napster just made it user-friendly [01:39] No, napster is not illegal and should not be shut down. And if it is, it'll be mere months before there is no longer an IRC for us to argue in. [01:39] Wrong. [01:39] IRC is not a corporation. [01:39] You can't ban a protocol. [01:39] Just like you can't ban OpenNAP. [01:40] Yes you can. You can ban both. It just removes the target. [01:40] no, you cannot ban IRC. [01:40] You can shut down a corporation, however, which is what I'm advocating. [01:41] It's not the software or idea I'm against. It's the company encouraging and allowing for the use of that software to accomplish illegal things. [01:41] Yes, you can make running an IRC server or client illegal. Of course, this would require a law. Which is different than a law suit, but the possibility is opened by legal precedent. Which is what is being risked. [01:41] Making a crowbar and proving it's the absolute best crowbar in existance for opening crates should not get you in legal trouble if it's also found to be the absolute best for cracking windows, even if you knew it before you marketed it. [01:42] goddamnit. Stop ignoring my main point. [01:42] But if you made it with the intent to break windows, then it is [01:42] Napster, Incorporated has condoned piracy, and done nothing to stop it. Napster, THE CORPORATION AND NOPT THE SOFTWARE, must be punished. [01:42] No. Intent is irrelevant (from a legal position, because it's impossible to prove and does not change whether or not a law was violated). [01:43] It's easy to prove that napster has done nothing to prevent piracy from takign place on their service. [01:43] If napster's only use was illegal, you could prove intent. However, the fact that it does have a legal use changes that completely. [01:43] sigh. Would you stop bringing up the software? [01:43] You keep saying that, but I don't see AOL preventing me from sending warez as e-mail attachments or over their AIM network. What's the difference there? [01:43] For the last fuckign time, the problem is with the company. [01:44] Good question. Sicne you've proven yourself unworthy to be trusted with a file transfer tool, let's make it illegal. [01:44] Happy? [01:45] You keep saying the company isn't doing anything to prevent piracy. But you keep not acknowledging the fact that A) They're doing everything they're required to do absolutely and with 100% efficiency. When Metallica complained, they took swift and complete action. They aren't required to take any action until they recieve a complaint (as per the DMCA as well as legal precedent in copyright activities) and B) they're not doing any less [01:45] than any other network that allows file sharing. [01:46] napster too swift, completely ineffective action. [01:46] er, took [01:46] or rather, any other company that possesses a network that allows file sharing [01:47] Ineffective? On the contrary, they prevented all but the best of registry hax0rs from getting back in without a format. [01:47] That threw me for a loop. I wasn't expecting them to be THAT thorough, but they were. [01:47] people who immediately posted instructions on how to ciurcumvent the problem on the internet. [01:47] An IP ban would have been so much nicer. [01:47] but regardless. [01:48] IP bans don't work. 90% of napster users are on dynamic IP's. [01:49] ultimately, what I'd like to see out of this napster thing is better terms for purchasing music. [01:49] I wouldn't say that many people are on dial-ups [01:49] And posting instructions for circumventing napster's block? Obviously. That's inevitable. What more could napster have done? Made it HARDER? Not bloody likely. And it is against napster's agreement to evade the ban, and napster is actively searching for and removing anyone they find that violates any part of the agreement. Therefore, they did all they could in the metallica case. [01:50] Not all non-dialups are static IP's. Usually that's a more expensive paid service. And most universities are dynamic too. [01:50] there's not much point in discussing this further. We both agree that the RIAA needs to be broken up, that's the important thing. [01:50] We also agree that legal avenues for obtaining music suck, and need to be expanded.
Napster is a tool, like a baseball bat or a crowbar. It has a legitimate, very important, and good use. However, it's very rarely actually used for that. And that's not the fault of the manufacturer, it's the fault of the person who is using it. Even if the manufacturer knows of that use (and continues operation knowing full well that use), so long as they aren't encouraging it, and so long as they stop it when it's brought to their attention (DMCA), they're not responsible. The user is breaking the law. Target them! You can't outlaw file sharing over the Internet! Think of all the First Amendment problems you'd have with that (not to mention negating one of the fundamental purposes of the Internet)! And how can you possibly outlaw Napster without outlawing everything down to FTP and e-mail? Metallica took the right action. And Napster proved themselves ready and did their duty under the DMCA quite properly. If anyone else has a problem, they have to do what Metallica did. There's no other legal recourse.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said napster's just a search engine?
If your network was advertised as a pornography distribution network, then it would be perfectly legal in itself, even if end-users decided to distribute copyrighted or illegal porn on it.
If it was advertised as an illegal kiddie-porn network, that's different. Yes, Napster may be snickering behind their desks about what this is causing the MPAA to have to go through, but that's not illegal. They are not, however, encouraging users to violate any law. And lack of discouragement is not encouragement. And lack of discouragement is not illegal, so long as it's not impeding the copyright holder's ability to actively police illegal distribution of their work (hence the DMCA).
Whoops, slashdot killed all the nicks since they were between 0x3C+0x3E's in that IRC log. Oh well, I'm sure you get the drift, even if you don't know who's saying what. I didn't notice on the preview! If you want to know that badly, contact me (aardvarq on AIM, ICQ, EFNet, etc).
Well, most of that is not a Napster issue. I'll take each of your paragraphs one by one.
"And how many users are you going to get under this unenforceable law? You can't just arrest thousands of people just because of somebody's complaint that they feel a pinch in the bank. Sure, it could be the user, but the cost of arresting, seizing and legal costs would exceed whatever Lars sold himself to get (probably at least tenfold)."
This unenforceable law? You make it sound like the law is to blame. Which it might well be, but that's irrelevant. As for arresting people on account of someone else's complaint, no, you arrest people for breaking laws. Clearly, the people using Napster to pirate music are breaking laws, but Napster is not clearly breaking any law. And when Napster is gone, many of those people are going to continue clearly breaking laws. You don't stop someone from breaking into a house by making the crowbar illegal. You put them in jail. It's inefficient and costly, but that's how society works, and if you have a better idea, I'm sure the government's all ears (maybe). As for how much it costs, or how hard it is to enforce, I don't know how much they considered (or wished to consider) that issue when they made copyright legislation.
"Besides, how do you get the people who *don't* use napster to get mp3's, which is a good deal of the population as well? You aren't even considering the mass amount of people who use chat channels, to get these mp3's. Sure, I've done the mp3 thing myself, but the copyright law is a joke considering enforcement"
Definitely not relevant to the Napster issue directly, but indirectly, it's support for keeping Napster. There have been twelve arrests (that I am aware of) made for people distributing warez over EFNet. That's how you get people distributing over IRC. Same way you get people distributing over Napster. However, illegalizing Napster would mean illegalizing IRC in the same line of reasoning. That's not possible, nor is it fair, and it's a clear First Amendment violation. And it would obviously require the illegalization of just about every file-sharing protocol and program and every company that owns/makes/distributes/supports one. AOL can't possibly afford to check every e-mail attachment and browse every file sent via AIM.
"Looking at your record, I'd could reasonably prove that you use mp3's that you didn't buy, but I am unable to know which ones due to you and those you deal with due to you working in places I can't follow"
Prove? Unless you intend to acquisition my hard drive, I find it highly unlikely you'd be able to prove in either direction. You won't find me on Napster, and you won't find me in any music distribution chans on IRC. Well, not today anyways. Where I think you're going with this is that you want to find a way to catch me breaking copyright law. You have it backwards. Companies need to go into IRC chans just as those looking for files do, find those who are violating copyrights, and then report them to the FBI and their ISP's (and perhaps file a suit if they can get an identity by legal means on their own). The ISP would then have to take action as stated in the DMCA. And the FBI can handle further investigation, if any is necessary. If people intending theft can get access to the files, so can people protecting their copyrights. Just as Metallica did. It's the job of the copyright holder to take measures to protect their copyrights, not Napster. Napster's only responsible for assisting when asked. There's no place immune to investigation. And the more obscure the place (the harder it is for investigators to discover), the less people with illegal intent will be able to find it.
Perhaps, the copyright holders should get together and create a task force that investigates and prosecutes Internet copyright violations for a meager fee. This seems like a good and thorough method that benefits every law-abiding citizen.
[01:24] aard, I've got a bone to pick with you.
[01:24] actually read what I posted, and think about the implications.
[01:25] Hmm?
[01:25] Napster *as a corporate entity* *encourages* pirating music from bigtime bands.
[01:25] And even if they didn't, they don't do a damn thing to stop it.
[01:25] That is what makes napster evil.
[01:27] They do do a damn thing to stop it! They do everything they are required to do under the evil DMCA. When transgressions are brought to their attention, they take action. Solid, absolute, well-prepared action.
[01:27] * Moonwick giggles
[01:27] This is the same requirement as held by e-mail, ftp, newsgroups, etc.
[01:27] are you implying that they aren't aware of the rampant piracy that takes place on their server?
[01:28] How can you possibly outlaw napster without outlawing those? Napster isn't doing anything or giving anyone capabilities that don't already exist in those protocols.
[01:28] because that'd be the only way I can see them not doing soemthing, based on your statement.
[01:28] NAPSTER IS FUCKING ENCOURAGING PIRACY!
[01:28] If they choose to ignore it, it's not their job to police it. One of the few positive-from-ISP-point-of-view parts of the DMCA.
[01:28] You tell em they do everything they can do to stop it. I laugh at you.
[01:29] s/em/me/
[01:29] They are only required to take action if it's brought to their attention.
[01:29] hahaha
[01:29] and you're going to tell me that they're blissfully unaware of all the piracy that takes place using their service?
[01:29] Oh, and another thing. The law has ALWAYS stated that it's the job of the copyright holder to prosecute copyright violations.
[01:30] What does the awareness have anything to do with it?
[01:30] which is why the RIAA is sodomizing napster in court.
[01:30] haha. Would you please stop contradicting yourself?
[01:30] I'm not.
[01:30] First you tell me that they only have to do soemthing if it's brought to their attention. Then you ask me "What does awareness have to do with it".
[01:31] No, you fail to understand. The copyright holder has to investigate copyright infringement. NOT A THIRD PARTY. This includes Napster. Napster is not required to say "You can't infringe on metallica's copyright." They're allowed, so long as it's their network. But that task falls upon Metallica's shoulders.
[01:32] This world is full of spineless people who can't come to terms with the fact that piracy and encouraging/facilitating piracy is illegal.
[01:32] Uh, where do you draw the line of facilitating piracy. You seem to think it's somewhere between Napster and FTP. Where?
[01:32] All we need is a legal precedent to rule against napster.
[01:33] AIM allows file sharing. AIM can be easily configured to share all of my MP3 directory. If eveyrone does this, is it AOL's concern or the people actively doing it?
[01:33] If napster did soemthing to prevent piracy fromt aking place on their network, I'd be all for them.
[01:33] This isn't about file sharing. This is about blatantly alowing and encouraging piracy.
[01:33] That's the last thing we need, seeing as how bye-bye http ftp pop3 irc (insert any TCP protocol you can think of here)
[01:34] Napster's offenses have taken place on a corporate level. They must be punished because they have allowed and encouraged piracy through their service.
[01:34] They are doing something. They are doing exactly what AOL does on their networks. Exactly what ISP's do on their networks/hosted sites/message boards. They do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING until the one person who has a right to complain does.
[01:35] And the RIAA has complained.
[01:35] They filed for an injunction. Yet napster fought that.
[01:35] And God only knows how it got blocked... but it did.
[01:35] They have not encouraged it in a legal sense. Perhaps they were snickering behind their desks at what would result, but they don't have a message on their webpage "STEAL MUSIC FROM RECORDS BY CLICKING HERE TO DOWNLOAD"
[01:36] * wrath_ finds this entertaining to watch
[01:36] And the fact that they fought it. Doesn't that tell you somethign about their eagerness to disobey the RIAAs desires?
[01:36] encouraging piracy doesn't need to be anywhere near that blatant.
[01:37] So is it a crime to make a already apparent piracy easier?
[01:37] Who ISN'T eager to disobey the RIAA. $20 a CD? If nobody else smells a monopoly plot...
[01:37] Alright, are you admitting that what napster does is illegal? Because I detect a blatant change of subject here.
[01:38] The point I am making is that you can go join #mp3search and perform the same act...
[01:38] Yes, but it needs to exist in a real sense. Making a crowbar and proving it's the absolute best crowbar in existance for opening crates should not get you in legal trouble if it's also found to be the absolute best for cracking windows, even if you knew it before you marketed it.
[01:38] The RIAA's monopoly is an entirely different matter,a nd is one that I'm sure me and you would agree entirely on.
[01:38] But napster just made it user-friendly
[01:39] No, napster is not illegal and should not be shut down. And if it is, it'll be mere months before there is no longer an IRC for us to argue in.
[01:39] Wrong.
[01:39] IRC is not a corporation.
[01:39] You can't ban a protocol.
[01:39] Just like you can't ban OpenNAP.
[01:40] Yes you can. You can ban both. It just removes the target.
[01:40] no, you cannot ban IRC.
[01:40] You can shut down a corporation, however, which is what I'm advocating.
[01:41] It's not the software or idea I'm against. It's the company encouraging and allowing for the use of that software to accomplish illegal things.
[01:41] Yes, you can make running an IRC server or client illegal. Of course, this would require a law. Which is different than a law suit, but the possibility is opened by legal precedent. Which is what is being risked.
[01:41] Making a crowbar and proving it's the absolute best crowbar in existance for opening crates should not get you in legal trouble if it's also found to be the absolute best for cracking windows, even if you knew it before you marketed it.
[01:42] goddamnit. Stop ignoring my main point.
[01:42] But if you made it with the intent to break windows, then it is
[01:42] Napster, Incorporated has condoned piracy, and done nothing to stop it. Napster, THE CORPORATION AND NOPT THE SOFTWARE, must be punished.
[01:42] No. Intent is irrelevant (from a legal position, because it's impossible to prove and does not change whether or not a law was violated).
[01:43] It's easy to prove that napster has done nothing to prevent piracy from takign place on their service.
[01:43] If napster's only use was illegal, you could prove intent. However, the fact that it does have a legal use changes that completely.
[01:43] sigh. Would you stop bringing up the software?
[01:43] You keep saying that, but I don't see AOL preventing me from sending warez as e-mail attachments or over their AIM network. What's the difference there?
[01:43] For the last fuckign time, the problem is with the company.
[01:44] Good question. Sicne you've proven yourself unworthy to be trusted with a file transfer tool, let's make it illegal.
[01:44] Happy?
[01:45] You keep saying the company isn't doing anything to prevent piracy. But you keep not acknowledging the fact that A) They're doing everything they're required to do absolutely and with 100% efficiency. When Metallica complained, they took swift and complete action. They aren't required to take any action until they recieve a complaint (as per the DMCA as well as legal precedent in copyright activities) and B) they're not doing any less
[01:45] than any other network that allows file sharing.
[01:46] napster too swift, completely ineffective action.
[01:46] er, took
[01:46] or rather, any other company that possesses a network that allows file sharing
[01:47] Ineffective? On the contrary, they prevented all but the best of registry hax0rs from getting back in without a format.
[01:47] That threw me for a loop. I wasn't expecting them to be THAT thorough, but they were.
[01:47] people who immediately posted instructions on how to ciurcumvent the problem on the internet.
[01:47] An IP ban would have been so much nicer.
[01:47] but regardless.
[01:48] IP bans don't work. 90% of napster users are on dynamic IP's.
[01:49] ultimately, what I'd like to see out of this napster thing is better terms for purchasing music.
[01:49] I wouldn't say that many people are on dial-ups
[01:49] And posting instructions for circumventing napster's block? Obviously. That's inevitable. What more could napster have done? Made it HARDER? Not bloody likely. And it is against napster's agreement to evade the ban, and napster is actively searching for and removing anyone they find that violates any part of the agreement. Therefore, they did all they could in the metallica case.
[01:50] Not all non-dialups are static IP's. Usually that's a more expensive paid service. And most universities are dynamic too.
[01:50] there's not much point in discussing this further. We both agree that the RIAA needs to be broken up, that's the important thing.
[01:50] We also agree that legal avenues for obtaining music suck, and need to be expanded.
Napster is a tool, like a baseball bat or a crowbar. It has a legitimate, very important, and good use. However, it's very rarely actually used for that. And that's not the fault of the manufacturer, it's the fault of the person who is using it. Even if the manufacturer knows of that use (and continues operation knowing full well that use), so long as they aren't encouraging it, and so long as they stop it when it's brought to their attention (DMCA), they're not responsible. The user is breaking the law. Target them! You can't outlaw file sharing over the Internet! Think of all the First Amendment problems you'd have with that (not to mention negating one of the fundamental purposes of the Internet)! And how can you possibly outlaw Napster without outlawing everything down to FTP and e-mail? Metallica took the right action. And Napster proved themselves ready and did their duty under the DMCA quite properly. If anyone else has a problem, they have to do what Metallica did. There's no other legal recourse.