Oh, yeah, this is slashdot, where groupthink and corporate bashing is the norm. Where selling an adaptation of a public-domain concept is considered evil. Get over it.
It's not the "adaptation of a public-domain concept" that's evil, it the co-opting of it that is. Taking a public domain concept and placing it under their ownership is (the fact that they have the marketing muscle to ensure that their version of said public domain concept is the most well known and popular is how they can "own" it). It's the fact that they'll sue a daycare center for having paintings of the mouse and his ilk on their walls when such characters should have passed into the public domain decades ago. Get a clue.
It seems to me that one of the reasons why micropayments won't ever get off the ground is that it smells suspiciously like the 'pay-per-view' world that the IP cartels are trying to push on us. (Read the previous sentence? You owe me 3c/US).
I remember a while back when there was this whole power line scare (it was thought that power lines were causing leukemia in young children in a certain town in the US). So a researcher did some tests on the effects of highly concentrated EMR (the kind generated by power lines and cell phones--not gamma rays mind you!) on living tissue--and found that it did absolutely nothing to the living tissue.
The results seem to make sense--if EMR was harmful then all of us who live in urban areas would have been wiped out quite a few years ago since we're constantly bathed in the stuff!
It's amazing to me that people will buy into half-baked theories and junk science just because they saw it on the eleven-o'clock news...
-- Shamus
Ackthppt!
Re:The problem with Napster and the RIAA
on
Napster Going Legit
·
· Score: 1
Sigh.
The Meme Wars claims another victim. Every time one of these IP discussions makes its way onto Slashdot there is inevitably someone who regurgitates the IP cartels' bullshit that copying is theft. Witness:
With electronic copies, it is so easy just to copy the bits the whole things becomes unworkable given the fact that people WILL steal music (ie make a copy to give someone else) because it is a soft crime that doesn't leave you feeling bad.
Copying is not stealing, as much as the RIAA, MPAA, *AA would like you to believe. It is infringement, and is not even remotely the same as theft in the eyes of the law...
Forget about Napster, DeCSS, et al. The real fight (and where it will be won or lost) lies in memes (and we seem to be one the losing side for the moment, if these discussions are any indication)!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Thanks Napster for jump starting the revolution, but please die now. Napster is now (and has been for some time) nothing more than Just Another Corporation Out to Make a Buck(tm), and they don't give a rats ass about the people who actually use it.
Where is the added value of their new pay-for-the-privilege-of-sharing-the-contents-of-y our-hard-drive-with-others scheme? Do they understand that they have no content on their servers? Or (as seems more likely) have they bought into the IP cartels meme that they're a website where you can download music for free?
-- Shamus
Who is the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?
Hmm... Will this finally be the end of the DMCA as we know it? My bet is no, but if the defendents appeal to the Supremes, it might be declared unconstitutional.
The slap against Ashcroft was really surprising, BTW... Good on them!
-- Shamus
...but when our fans think that they can listen to our music for free? They've just crossed the line. -- Lars Ulrich
SOS is based in Utah, and we have different legal and cultural norms here. The first amendment (ratified by the same idiots who brought us the secon amendment) may prevail in the Federal courts, but that doesn't mean we enforce it to the same extent in the state courts.
Err, the last time I checked, the Constitution of the United States was the supreme law of the land. This means that the First Amendment takes precedent over any laws against free speech that you or the state of Utah would care to enact.
I'm not sure, but I don't think that by enrolling in a state university that you automatically waive your constitutional rights--you have to enter into a contract with the university to do that.
And sorry if you don't like it, but flag burning and prOn are speech and are protected. I may not have the right to burn your flag, but I sure as hell can burn mine!
-- Shamus
IANALBIPOOTV - I am not a lawyer but I play one on TV
Do they know what they're talking about? In one instance they say
The indie spirit of the MP3 revolution is not entirely dead. Use of Gnutella, a distributed file-sharing program that isn't tied to a single commercial company, is skyrocketing in Napster's wake, and smaller music companies continue to burst forth with interesting ideas and amazing technologies.
which is true enough. The other day that I logged into Napster, I could see that the damage that the RIAA has done is pretty much complete. They even tell you when you log in that they're putting more filters in and "please sign up for our up-and-coming pay for the privilege of sharing the contents of your hard drive with other people service!" (Napster, thanks for kick-starting the revolution, but please die now.) Gnutella seems to really be finding its legs now, with around 21TB worth of data floating around on any given day...
Anyway, they seem to contradict themselves when they go on to say:
But the trend of events in the industry warrants caution. Gnutella's success will just make it a bigger target for an ever-more-confident recording industry, and any other company that raises its head high enough will also likely provoke a severe reaction.
Err, say what? How in the world could the RIAA possibly "shut down" gnutella? Even if they were to sue the devlopers into oblivion, that cat is already out of the bag and having kittens! What are they going to do? Enter everybody's home and check their HDs for a copy of gnutella? Even if they were to sue a few pimply faced geeks for trading music online in a high profile case, they would be sowing even more ill will with the public (i.e., the people who line their coffers).
Is it me, or does Salon's pronouncement of victory for the RIAA seem less than a forgone conclusion?
-- Shamus
Brain for sale, hardly used, low miles. Inquire within.
... is that the sole reason that the GPL exists is that copyrights exist. Copyrights have been used as a bludgeon by companies with an opportunistic bent (MS anyone?) in order to stifle innovation, to stop public discourse, to take something from the public domain, change a few elements, and rerelease it as proprietary (MS, er, Disney?).
It's this last thing that's the most irksome and is why a lot of people get bent out of shape when someone equates open source with free (GPL) source... If you don't think its a problem, just look at the whole Gracenote debacle for an example!
Those who argue that "Without copyright (or IP), your precious GPL wouldn't exist!" are missing the point. If there was no copyright (or IP), there would be no need for the GPL...
... would be Eben Moglen. Of particular interest is a debate he had with Steve Metalitz over whether or not Napster should exist. Pretty interesting stuff...
Yeah, it's getting so stealing other people's copyrighted material is hardly worth it anymore. Why, just the other day, I almost had to *buy* a CD, like back in the dark ages.
Just because you call it stealing doesn't make it so. Even without Fair Use it isn't stealing. No matter how much you jump up and down and call people names, it still isn't stealing.
Just what is it then? Repeat after me. It's infringement. Infringement is not stealing. It's the IP cartels who have elevated copyright infringement to the status of plunder on the high seas--it just isn't the same thing no matter how badly they want it to be.
This has been a public service announcement. Thank you and good night.
Check out Daniel Quinn's Beyond Civilization. He gets to the root of the whole hierachical problem that we all casually call 'civilization'. Basically, he deconstructs the idea that everyone implicitly believes, that being that civilization is mankind's greatest invention and it cannot be surpassed. Really, quite a good read.
Unlike most people on Slashdot, I am neither pro-Napster nor anti-copyright. IMHO, it would have been disastrous in the long term if Napster had been allowed to spread unchecked because once technology to transfer music easily from PCs to Home Audio Systems to Cars to Personal Devices was perfected [5 to 10 years], no one would ever buy music again [snip]
Err, Napster has spread and has shown no sign of slowing down. And, in spite of this, sales of CDs are still rising! The irony of all this is that Napster probably would have remained a small thing if the RIAA hadn't come down on it with its hysterical, overblown overreaction (we gotta protect ourselves--err, the artists rights!), basically giving Napster a huge spotlight and an incredible amount of free advertising.
And this business of calling people who trade music (or books for that matter) pirates or thieves is playing into the hands of the IP cartels. Piracy and theft is depriving someone else of something that they actually possess, and the last time I checked nobody can actually possess an idea, piece of prose, melodic line, etc. For crying out loud, call it what it is--unauthorized use.
Disclaimer: I think that the whole concept of IP is flawed--once a song or book or whatever is out among the public it is de facto public domain (notice it's not de jure!) and the only way to enforce copyright is at the end of a bayonet.
And to those who consistently point to the French revolution and the lack of copyright at that time leading only to the production of dreck, that hardly an airtight counterexample. What you imply is that the only way high quality creative works get made is when there is a copyright system in place (and, by extension, that an author of such a work gets paid), and I don't believe that's the case at all. You will be hard pressed to prove that the only motivation for creation of high quality works is monetary.
Basically I believe that until advocacy against the RIAA, MPAA and other copyright cartels begins to counter their arguments with reasonable points that can benefit both sides, we are doomed to continue in this downward spiral.
You seem to be missing the point that the IP cartels aren't reasonable. They will not rest until all media is under their control. The beginning of that is extending copyright, and they're pretty much on their way towards that as witnessed by the Sony Bono Act.
As long as our arguments boil down to "I want free shit" or "No encryption can't be hacked", we will constantly be at war with the RIAA & MPAA and since they have more money (and thus better lawyers) than us, they will win.
Don't be so sure. And I would open up my eyes and look around if I were you, since there are a lot of arguments out there beyond the "I want free shit"/"No encryption can't be hacked" variety.
As for oi bands wanting to stomp the shit out of Chumbawamba, try Oi Polloi. Crass wouldn't stomp the shit out of anybody, and they're even less likely to reunite, whatever the reason.
Speaking of Oi Polloi, one of the funniest damn things I've heard in a long time is Shhh...it, which you can find BTW on Chumbawamba's web site. Say what you like about Chumbawamba, but they aren't afraid of criticism.
The FSF rep wasn't able to respond to this, but from my point of view, SDMI's ability to make a limited number of digital fulfills the "free speech" needs of the FSF, which was their main concern.
This is exactly inverted from the purpose of the original intent of copyright law, which was to give the creator of a work a limited monopoly on its use after which it would pass into the public domain--it was never intended to limit the ability of the user of a copyrighted work to make copies for his/her own use (never mind right of first sale, etc). Copy protection of this sort has always been used as an end run around fair use.
If this kind of thing doesn't give you pause, then you should check out Pamela Samuelson's excellent article on the subject...
Where's the value that Napster will provide to subscription-paying users, beyond what they will be able to get through other, illicit channels like Gnutella, IRC, and other free media?
To which the poster replied:
Um, how about legitimacy?
No. You failed to answer the question (and a very good one at that), that being where's the value?
It's been pointed out many times before by others that Napster is about people sharing their song libraries with other people (or not, as the case may be). There is no guarantee that I'll be able to find, say, a copy of A Little Bumpin' by Lee Ritenhour on there--even if by some miracle I did, there is no guarantee that the guy hosting the song won't cut me off before I finish downloading the damn thing!
So, again, where the hell is the value of BMG to people who are sharing their music with other people?
AND YOU'RE SUPPORTING THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING YOU YOUR FAVORITE MUSIC.
Err, no you're not. As someone else pointed out, the artists (who, by the way, are RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING YOU YOUR FAVORITE MUSIC) won't get jack from this kind of deal.
Or, you could be one of the billions of thieves out there that steals music through "illicit channels", and was responsible for mp3's bad reputation to begin with.
Again, the use of the word thieves here implies that there is theft going on when people are sharing songs. What is going on here is infringement (if at all), and it's several orders of magnitude apart from theft. Get a clue.
I'm not a current Napster user, nor have I ever touched it.
That much is evident--as is your sanctimony.
Almost all of the excuse-robots on Napster are justifying their theft by claiming that "CDs are too expensive!"
Again, it's not theft, and CDs are too expensive. The prices of CDs have been kept artificially high for years and for no other reason than the record companies wanted to keep their profits high.
Well folks, this is a solution to that problem. If you still need to complain, and $5 is too much for you to spend...stick with your FM radio.
This is not a solution but a smokescreen. BMG adds no value whatsoever to the Napster model, and as such are acting as trolls (in the strictest sense--guarding a portal and demanding money for passage).
The problem is that you are all confusing the actions of a person with the actions of a corporation. If a person did this, maybe then they would be guilty of a serious lack of humor. But businesses aren't people! They have to act in certain ways because they are required to by law.
Err, sorry, but you're wrong--in the eyes of the law, corporations are persons. As such, they have a disproportionate amount of power compared to ordinary folks like you and me. As such, I won't be shedding a tear for any of 'em.
The guy may have screwed up, but apologizing for the corporations (by way of saying he deserved this treatment) is sickening.
I know I'm not the first to point this out, but doesn't this seem more than a little bit ludicrous? How can they make a pay service off of people who are sharing their individual song libraries? Is BMG they going to guarantee than satan666 is not going to cut off my download of Run Like Hell before it's finished?
The only way they can make this work is by replacing the current model with something else--seems doubtful that they'll be successful (especially if the music they offer is some SDMI compliant variant)...
You really have to draw a line somewhere, otherwise I could put up a post stating: "$10000 to the person who kills Rob Malda".
If someone kills Malda stating he wanted the reward, and the police arrests me, should I be able to plead "free speech, man.."
Should I be able to plead "free speech" for shouting "kill all white children" from the rooftops (I bet this would _really_ scare children walking the streets below).
Oh, come on people... This tired old argument is none other than the same old argument that the first amendment (free speech) is limited because "you can't yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre." This erroneous argument is usually bandied about as iron clad proof that there is a need for censorship. The truth is that the courts used this argument to censor someone who was passing out leaflets.
Truth is, you can yell from the rooftops all you want--that isn't hurting anybody. It's when you stop yelling and start acting on your words that you cross the line.
While stating ways to kill yourself is perfectly legal (and IMHO ok), actually trying to push people to do it is not.
Err, this and other arguments to justify censorship are pretty specious. Again, you can talk and say whatever you want, even try to convince people to see things from your point of view. It's when you act, when you actually deprive someone else of their rights that you are in the wrong.
People perform on the streets because they can make some money and because they want to expose people to their art.
This is true enough, but let's get things straight. The street perfomer is not going to stop performing just because a certain percentage of the people who happen to pass by fail to chuck a few cents his way. Further quoth the poster:
which will make street-performer-like "tipping" protocols successful
The Street Performer Protocol is not a tipping protocol--this is not some guy standing on the corner playing his guitar with his open case at his feet. What this is is some guy standing on the corner playing a few bars of a song and stopping until enough people cough up what the guy feels is enough money for him to continue to play his song. This is not a tipping scheme--this is extortion.
You mean these people are trying to protect copyright! Heretics!
Every time I hear this tired old quote it makes me sick. Copyright is supposed to be limited, and this step by the FCC will make it that much harder for the rest of us ordinary folk to exercise our Fair Use rights. Get a clue, please!
4) Skip all ads. ReplayTV took the approach of "screw the networks, we don't need 'em" and added a 30 second skip button. Since then, they've hired a former CBS exec and have realized that they will have to work with the networks in the future. [snip] Is it realistic for TiVo and ReplayTV to basically tell the networks "we don't care if no one sees the ads that make up your revenue stream"? NBC has invested in both companies BTW.
Why do they have to work with the networks? How dare they indeed! How dare they even think about giving their customers what they want!
But then the question was raised is it realistic for them to be indifferent to the networks' advertisers. I think it's a sad day when companies ignore what their customers want and lay down because it would piss off advertisers (indirectly, of course). I, for one, think that advertising is evil.
I'd love to see something like Adnix (from Carl Sagan's Contact) come out so I'd never have to see another commercial again! In the meantime, I guess I'll have to be content with muting the sound and making up my own dialog for 'em...
Slashdot Mirror
-- Shamus
This space for rent. EZ terms!
It seems to me that one of the reasons why micropayments won't ever get off the ground is that it smells suspiciously like the 'pay-per-view' world that the IP cartels are trying to push on us. (Read the previous sentence? You owe me 3c/US).
-- Shamus
This space for rent. EZ terms!
I remember a while back when there was this whole power line scare (it was thought that power lines were causing leukemia in young children in a certain town in the US). So a researcher did some tests on the effects of highly concentrated EMR (the kind generated by power lines and cell phones--not gamma rays mind you!) on living tissue--and found that it did absolutely nothing to the living tissue.
The results seem to make sense--if EMR was harmful then all of us who live in urban areas would have been wiped out quite a few years ago since we're constantly bathed in the stuff!
It's amazing to me that people will buy into half-baked theories and junk science just because they saw it on the eleven-o'clock news...
-- Shamus
Ackthppt!
The Meme Wars claims another victim. Every time one of these IP discussions makes its way onto Slashdot there is inevitably someone who regurgitates the IP cartels' bullshit that copying is theft. Witness: Copying is not stealing, as much as the RIAA, MPAA, *AA would like you to believe. It is infringement, and is not even remotely the same as theft in the eyes of the law...
Forget about Napster, DeCSS, et al. The real fight (and where it will be won or lost) lies in memes (and we seem to be one the losing side for the moment, if these discussions are any indication)!
-- Shamus
This space for rent. EZ terms!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Thanks Napster for jump starting the revolution, but please die now. Napster is now (and has been for some time) nothing more than Just Another Corporation Out to Make a Buck(tm), and they don't give a rats ass about the people who actually use it.
y our-hard-drive-with-others scheme? Do they understand that they have no content on their servers? Or (as seems more likely) have they bought into the IP cartels meme that they're a website where you can download music for free?
Where is the added value of their new pay-for-the-privilege-of-sharing-the-contents-of-
-- Shamus
Who is the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?
Hmm... Will this finally be the end of the DMCA as we know it? My bet is no, but if the defendents appeal to the Supremes, it might be declared unconstitutional.
...but when our fans think that they can listen to our music for free? They've just crossed the line. -- Lars Ulrich
The slap against Ashcroft was really surprising, BTW... Good on them!
-- Shamus
I'm not sure, but I don't think that by enrolling in a state university that you automatically waive your constitutional rights--you have to enter into a contract with the university to do that.
And sorry if you don't like it, but flag burning and prOn are speech and are protected. I may not have the right to burn your flag, but I sure as hell can burn mine!
-- Shamus
IANALBIPOOTV - I am not a lawyer but I play one on TV
Anyway, they seem to contradict themselves when they go on to say: Err, say what? How in the world could the RIAA possibly "shut down" gnutella? Even if they were to sue the devlopers into oblivion, that cat is already out of the bag and having kittens! What are they going to do? Enter everybody's home and check their HDs for a copy of gnutella? Even if they were to sue a few pimply faced geeks for trading music online in a high profile case, they would be sowing even more ill will with the public (i.e., the people who line their coffers).
Is it me, or does Salon's pronouncement of victory for the RIAA seem less than a forgone conclusion?
-- Shamus
Brain for sale, hardly used, low miles. Inquire within.
-- Shamus (who happens to be a card carrying member of the ACM)
This space for rent. EZ terms!
... is that the sole reason that the GPL exists is that copyrights exist. Copyrights have been used as a bludgeon by companies with an opportunistic bent (MS anyone?) in order to stifle innovation, to stop public discourse, to take something from the public domain, change a few elements, and rerelease it as proprietary (MS, er, Disney?).
It's this last thing that's the most irksome and is why a lot of people get bent out of shape when someone equates open source with free (GPL) source... If you don't think its a problem, just look at the whole Gracenote debacle for an example!
Those who argue that "Without copyright (or IP), your precious GPL wouldn't exist!" are missing the point. If there was no copyright (or IP), there would be no need for the GPL...
-- Shamus
This space for rent. EZ terms!
... would be Eben Moglen. Of particular interest is a debate he had with Steve Metalitz over whether or not Napster should exist. Pretty interesting stuff...
-- Shamus
Error: Pithy quote not found
Quoth the poster: Just because you call it stealing doesn't make it so. Even without Fair Use it isn't stealing. No matter how much you jump up and down and call people names, it still isn't stealing.
Just what is it then? Repeat after me. It's infringement. Infringement is not stealing. It's the IP cartels who have elevated copyright infringement to the status of plunder on the high seas--it just isn't the same thing no matter how badly they want it to be.
This has been a public service announcement. Thank you and good night.
-- Shamus
This space for lease. EZ terms!
Check out Daniel Quinn's Beyond Civilization. He gets to the root of the whole hierachical problem that we all casually call 'civilization'. Basically, he deconstructs the idea that everyone implicitly believes, that being that civilization is mankind's greatest invention and it cannot be surpassed. Really, quite a good read.
-- Shamus
All the world's a stage...
And this business of calling people who trade music (or books for that matter) pirates or thieves is playing into the hands of the IP cartels. Piracy and theft is depriving someone else of something that they actually possess, and the last time I checked nobody can actually possess an idea, piece of prose, melodic line, etc. For crying out loud, call it what it is--unauthorized use.
Disclaimer: I think that the whole concept of IP is flawed--once a song or book or whatever is out among the public it is de facto public domain (notice it's not de jure!) and the only way to enforce copyright is at the end of a bayonet.
And to those who consistently point to the French revolution and the lack of copyright at that time leading only to the production of dreck, that hardly an airtight counterexample. What you imply is that the only way high quality creative works get made is when there is a copyright system in place (and, by extension, that an author of such a work gets paid), and I don't believe that's the case at all. You will be hard pressed to prove that the only motivation for creation of high quality works is monetary.
You seem to be missing the point that the IP cartels aren't reasonable. They will not rest until all media is under their control. The beginning of that is extending copyright, and they're pretty much on their way towards that as witnessed by the Sony Bono Act.
Don't be so sure. And I would open up my eyes and look around if I were you, since there are a lot of arguments out there beyond the "I want free shit"/"No encryption can't be hacked" variety.
-- Shamus
O Brave New World, with such People in it!
May I humbly suggest that you read this--it speaks for itself. Yes, it's 45 web pages long, but well worth the read.
-- Shamus
This space for rent, reasonable rates
Also of note is Passenger List For Doomed Flight 1721, and Pass It Along (MP3 Mix) (for some reason, the link on their Pass It Along webpage points to the albumesque cut). Pass It Along is pretty damn funny as well...
-- Shamus
Pass It Along...
And here I thought Negativland was pulling my leg with this so-called discovery of the color squant.
Boy, is my face sqaunt!
-- Shamus
This space for rent
If this kind of thing doesn't give you pause, then you should check out Pamela Samuelson's excellent article on the subject...
-- Shamus
Pass It Along
It's been pointed out many times before by others that Napster is about people sharing their song libraries with other people (or not, as the case may be). There is no guarantee that I'll be able to find, say, a copy of A Little Bumpin' by Lee Ritenhour on there--even if by some miracle I did, there is no guarantee that the guy hosting the song won't cut me off before I finish downloading the damn thing!
So, again, where the hell is the value of BMG to people who are sharing their music with other people? Err, no you're not. As someone else pointed out, the artists (who, by the way, are RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING YOU YOUR FAVORITE MUSIC) won't get jack from this kind of deal. Again, the use of the word thieves here implies that there is theft going on when people are sharing songs. What is going on here is infringement (if at all), and it's several orders of magnitude apart from theft. Get a clue. That much is evident--as is your sanctimony. Again, it's not theft, and CDs are too expensive. The prices of CDs have been kept artificially high for years and for no other reason than the record companies wanted to keep their profits high. This is not a solution but a smokescreen. BMG adds no value whatsoever to the Napster model, and as such are acting as trolls (in the strictest sense--guarding a portal and demanding money for passage).
-- Shamus
The best things in life are free (but isn't it stealing?) -- Chumbawamba
The guy may have screwed up, but apologizing for the corporations (by way of saying he deserved this treatment) is sickening.
-- Shamus
This space for rent
I know I'm not the first to point this out, but doesn't this seem more than a little bit ludicrous? How can they make a pay service off of people who are sharing their individual song libraries? Is BMG they going to guarantee than satan666 is not going to cut off my download of Run Like Hell before it's finished?
The only way they can make this work is by replacing the current model with something else--seems doubtful that they'll be successful (especially if the music they offer is some SDMI compliant variant)...
-- Shamus
Insert pithy saying here
Truth is, you can yell from the rooftops all you want--that isn't hurting anybody. It's when you stop yelling and start acting on your words that you cross the line. Err, this and other arguments to justify censorship are pretty specious. Again, you can talk and say whatever you want, even try to convince people to see things from your point of view. It's when you act, when you actually deprive someone else of their rights that you are in the wrong.
-- Shamus
O, Brave New World, with such people in it!
Thank you and good night.
-- Shamus
O brave new world, with such people in it!
-- Shamus
But then the question was raised is it realistic for them to be indifferent to the networks' advertisers. I think it's a sad day when companies ignore what their customers want and lay down because it would piss off advertisers (indirectly, of course). I, for one, think that advertising is evil.
I'd love to see something like Adnix (from Carl Sagan's Contact) come out so I'd never have to see another commercial again! In the meantime, I guess I'll have to be content with muting the sound and making up my own dialog for 'em...
-- Shamus
I said 'Preview', not 'Submit' dammit!