Let me assure you there is nothing "trivial" about a search engine
I didn't mean to say that designing and coding a search engine is trivial -- obviously it's not. What I mean was that a search engine is a trivial (as in common, run-of-the-mill, well-known-by-everybody's-grandmother-and-her-cat) example of a service running at a remote server. Perhaps I misused the word 'trivial' [bows his head in shame].
Well, it seems that you are not really thinking of web sites. You are thinking about what used to be called "intelligent agents", specifically those which are running remotely and with which you can communicate in HTML. Another word for this would be personalized service with a Web front-end. A search engine is a trivial example of such.
So think about what cool thing can a remotely running program do for you. Find you stuff on the web? That's passe (do you want to code another shopping agent?). Filter news for you? Academia has done some interesting stuff here, not sure it it went anywhere.
You might also want to keep security and privacy in mind when designing your agent.
And don't get me started on the 30,000 tiny buttons sitting along the toolbar(s) in MS Word
Please do get started and provide us all with an alternative. I take it you would really prefer all these umm... call 'em 'one-click-commands' to be buried four layers deep in menus?
Besides it's not like you cannot get rid of all these toolbars if they annoy you. And if you think you can do a better job of menu organization -- be my guest. IIRC, on MS Word you can almost completely reconfigure the menus (and the toolbars as well).
Is there a proper way of using the web? I don't thing so. The web is many things to many people. That's what makes it so alive and so interesting.
there are too many poorly done corporate sites
Sure, so what? See Strugeons's Law (90% of everything...). A badly designed corporate site tends to be its own punishment.
We need more of these research projects to help us figure out what needs to be changed.
Seems like you want to impose good taste and proper programming practices on the web. Thank you very much, I'll pass. I don't want the web to be Martha-Stewardized.
The DMCA allows anyone to easily force an ISP (or something like Napster) to kick off others by alleging copyright violations. However, the catch is that, if you are wrong, you face the penalty of perjury.
Nope. The accuser doesn't have to swear to anything. In keeping with the spirit of the DMCA, it's the accused who has to come forward and under the penalty of perjury state that he is innocent. Ain't DMCA wonderful?
Now imagine if Metallica gives them another 200,000 names next week. Rinse, dry, and repeat.
Given that creating a new account on Napster is basically costless, all this will achieve is a very big list of strings that cannot be used as Napster nicknames. Given that a scheme like Joe1, Joe2,..., Joe1985,... works perfectly well, all this looks like a very good example of lawyer-induced stupidity.
Banning IP addresses probably wouldn't work either: first, what about dial-up users, and second, can an IP address infringe copyright?
This is ridiculous. If I was on that list, I would most certainly not create a new account. I would never use Napster again.
And that would make RIAA very, very happy. Remember, the point of the exercise is to kill Napster.
Besides, what are you bitching about? Napster basically provides a free service to everybody. Since they are not taking your money, they can (legally and ethically) do anything they want, including banning all people whose nick starts with a letter "A", those who come from certain subnets, people who connect between 11pm and midnight, etc. etc. Napster doesn't owe you anything. Deal with it.
Go buy some Limp Bizkit, even if you don't like them; they will never try to dictate what you can do with something you paid money for.
Why should I buy music I don't like? At least contributions to charities are tax-deductible... And how do you know what Limp Bizkit will do in a year? or five? Just because Napster paid them a bunch of money doesn't make them angels IMHO.
Do you know how to program? Help with the OpenNap project.
This makes very little sense. If I show you two identical balls, and then try to sue you for stealing one which I say is free, and the other, which I say is mine, what would you do?
Huh?
You show me two identical balls, tell me one is free and one is not, and offer me to take one? I would ask you which one if free. If you tell me it makes no difference, you cannot sue me afterwards because you yourself stated that from your own point of view (and you are the owner) there is no difference.
In this particular case the owner clearly believes that there is a difference between two different copies.
Try a different example: both me and you have a certain file, bit-for-bit identical. I can delete my copy, right? Can I delete yours? No? Why not -- they are identical copies and you are telling me it makes no sense to distinguish between them. In this case I can delete any copy I like, including yours.
I don't see how this can be construed as a copyright infringment, when copy1 and copy2 are bit-for-bit identical.
First, they are not necessarily bit-for-bit identical, but that's really irrelevant. copy1 and copy2 are different because they have difference ancestry and are owned by different entities.
To borrow a part of one of my other posts: let's say we both did a full install of some software and both lost the installation disks. Can I delete my own copy? Sure I can. Can I delete yours? No? Why not? Aren't all copies the same?
Ahem. Your argument looks like this: "This is useful to me, therefore it must be legal". I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out the problems with this statement.
It seems like MP3 could get around this problem by giving users the tools...having them encode all their music...then uploading it back up to MP3
That should work perfectly well. It actually does work -- see companies like iDrive.
f I was MP3.com I would wave a magic wand and then tell the courts and RIAA "We didn't make that music. It was uploaded by hundreds of users who own the albums".
And go to jail for perjury?
You assume one digital copy is as good as any other digital copy. Legally, that's not true. To give you an example: let's say we both own some software that we fully installed on the hard drive and lost the installation disks. Can I delete my copy from my hard drive? Sure I can. Can I delete your copy from your hard drive? No? Why not -- all copies are the same, aren't they?
Judge Rakoff seems to ignore that fact that the digital copies are nearly indistinguishable.
Not at all. It's a difference of opinion: you say that digital copies are all the same and any copy is as good as any other copy. Rakoff disagrees: he distinguishes between copies on the basis of their ancestry. This is a perfectly valid viewpoint.
In the MP3.com case, Rakoff in particular makes a legal distinction between a copy that MP3.com made itself (call it copy1) and a copy that a user owns (call it copy2). The way MP3.com used to work is that if you can prove to it you have copy2, it'll play copy1 for you. Now, from an information-theory point of view, copy1 and copy2 are very, very much alike. Legally, however, they are quite different, since different entities own them. Rakoff pointed out that difference, and was correct IMHO.
when you purchase a CD or other recording, you purchase the rights to just that copy of the IP
Yeah, sure. Always been that way. What else did you expect?
It means that mp3 players and converting music to mp3s are pretty much illegal
Nope, that doesn't follow at all. The right to make copies in different formats for your own personal use is pretty much established. For example you can take your CD and copy it to a cassette so that you can listen to it in the car. This is a format shift and happens to be perfectly legal. Ripping a CD is exactly the same thing. What's illegal is publishing your music (such as putting it on Napster).
hope the record companies are generous enough to loosen the rules of "what you can do with that $13 CD"
You know, man, I have a nice bridge that I'm willing to sell you for not all that big of a sum...
Worst case scenario, let's say that courts judge mp3 as being an illegal file format and it must cease to exist.
Err... mp3 is a file format. All it does is describe a convention for attaching meaning to certain zeroes and ones arranged in a sequence. How that could be found illegal I don't know (but the US legal system surprised me before: I am not saying this is flat out impossible).
An interesting ruling. As far as I could figure it out, the main defence of MP3.com was: this is just space-shifting (which courts accepts as legal under fair use) of the recordings which users own. The judge said: no, digital copies are not the all the same. The crux of the matter seems to be that MP3.com ripped its own copy of the CD [call it copy1] and played it to a user who certified that he owns a copy [copy2] of that particular song. Because copy1 and copy2 are not the same thing, allowing the user to listen to copy1 is copyright infringement.
Note that services like iDrive, to which you can upload all the mp3s you want, are quite safe since there is only one copy of the CD that's being shuffled between hard drives.
I don't think bringing you're own laptop or whatever would do it. At some point you'd probably have to connect to your employers network,
Not necessarily. If you plug into a phone jack and dial out to your own ISP, there isn't much your employer can do about it (tapping into a modem connection demands specialized equipment that usually only law-enforcement agencies have handy). Also don't forget the SneakerNet -- and wipe the floppy afterwards.
The point is, your laptop is your private property and nobody can take a look at what's inside without a court warrant.
Under the current law (you don't have to like it) the employer owns everything that happens on machines and networks it owns. That means that your email, your files, and, yes, your keystrokes, belong to your employer. This has been supported by courts numerous times. If you want privacy, bring your own laptop/PDA/notepad.
I don't think you can much about it except for quitting (or threatening to quit over pervasive monitoring).
Sure, you can only be sued by a company, not hauled off to jail, but they can otherwise make your life miserable to where a prison would be preferable.
It can? I don't think so. What can they do to you besides forcing you into bankrupcy? And if you think going to prison is better than declaring bankrupty, well, then you've got lot to learn.
That being said, the first ammendment still applies to private individuals as well.
Nope. That's factually incorrect.
If I walk with a picket sign in front of a business, I can't be stopped with a lawsuit as long as I'm factually correct or expressing my opinion.
The company (or a person) would sue you under tort law. If a judge orders you to stop picketing (has happened frequently, e.g. anti-abortion protesters), you will stop or be hauled into jail on a contempt of court charge. First Amendment is not a defence against torts.
Sure, there are municipal ordinances...
Municipality is a government and as such is bound by the First Amendment
I'm free to say what ever I want and there is nothing you can do to stop me.
You are mistaken. Here are three examples of forbidden speech:
(1) Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater
(2) Slander
(3) Threatening the life of the President
But again, you don't understand the legal difference between a private entity (a company or an individual) and a government.
Personally, I think Corley's a numbskull. The court tells him to quit distributing DeCSS so he goes out and provides links to it.
As in, instead of saying "Yes, sir! At once, sir!" and then going back to the holding pen?
The whole case is about the freedom to distribute information. Try thinking about it some more.
Are you saying that all code should be free speech? If I write a virus that destroys half a hard drive and distribute it and some government or company criminally prosecutes me, can I claim my free speech rights or is it still illegal?
Yes, there are a lot of people saying code is free speech (it's just some text, no?). At least one court has agreed.
A company cannot criminally prosecute you, only a government can. A company can sue you in civil court and the First Amendment is not and never has been a defence against that. In any case, First Amendment is binding only on the government, not on private companies.
As to whether the government can prosecute you, sure it can. Free speech rights are not absolute. A classic example is shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater -- it's free speech, but a criminal act.
Words may hurt feelings, but they can't damage physical property or rights (except in the case of libel or slander). Code has the potential to be much more destructive.
I think you hugely undervalue words. Words can be very, very powerful -- by moving people to action. Think of people like Ghandi, for example -- all they used was words. On the other hand, consider a mob inflamed by an agitator. Still thinking that words cannot do damage?
It seems that you, just like the majority of ideological zealots here have the attitude that anything you don't agree with is stupid.
Stupid? I didn't say anything about copyright law being stupid. I even didn't say that Metallica's (and other's) position is stupid. My point is that the current set of laws does not and should not determine my own morality. Another point was that overusing emotionally charged words like "theft" does not a reasoned discussion make, and tends to devalue the word.
You think that we're morally ok when trading copyrighted materials against current laws.
I think that some of us are morally OK when trading MP3s over the net. It's really a question of your personal morality. Of course, I'm speaking here purely moral-wise. Real-life-consequences-wise, the law is much more important than personal morality.
This infers that you don't think copyright law makes any sense.
No, it doesn't follow at all. Just because I think that some part of the law (such as DMCA) is broken, doesn't mean that I reject the whole concept of copyright. And I don't see what RMS has to do with all this. It's a banality (and a very tired irony) that GPL exists only because of copyright laws.
Close, but technically false. Making them available for download is not a crime.
Nope, technically true. Making available for public download is legally the same as publishing. Publishing somebody else's copyrighted content is definitely outside the scope of fair use and is illegal.
For Metallica to claim I broke their copyright requires them to show I transferred a file to a person who did not own a legit copy.
Nope. It requires them to convince a judge that putting files on Napster constitutes publishing. I don't think they'll have any problems.
None of what you describe in your post is comparable to pirating MP3s via Napster or any other medium.
Well, you say that trading MP3s is theft, and I gave you an example of what, technically, is a theft.
...have nothing to do with copyright issues...
We're not talking copyright issues, we are talking about theft -- that's your terminology, remember?
You are still breaking the law
So? I break the law pretty much every time I drive. I jaywalk and have been known to throw stuff on the ground -- both crimes in certain cities. If I take the trouble to read the criminal code, I bet I'll find more laws I have broken and continue to break.
If you make stupid laws, respect for all laws goes down. If you call trading MP3s theft, I'll start thinking that theft is not a big deal.
By no means is this issue concluded - there is a standing legal argument that the copyright holder may determine acceptable copying uses.
The issue is definite -- under the current law, users have "fair use" rights that the copyright holder can do nothing about. It is the law (Home Recording Act or something like it) that defines what's acceptable copying. Of course, the copyright holder can grant additional rights over and above the "fair use" rights, but it cannot take away "fair use".
On the other hand, DMCA is a successful attempt to basically get rid of "fair use" altogether. Under DMCA the the users have no rights other than what the copyright holder gives them -- provided the content is "protected". Thankfully, the audio CDs are not "protected" in any way and thus do not fall under DMCA.
But the bottom line is that it is theft, plain and simple.
You know, I want to confess to a crime.
Yesterday at work I printed out an email I got and brought it home.
This is theft, plain and simple. Actually, triple theft. First, I stole my time from the company while I was reading that email. Second, I stole the computer and printer resources used for this. Third, I stole a sheet of paper (on which the email was printed) and brought it home.
This all is clearly illegal. I am a thief. I bow my head awaiting punishment.
[for the thinking-challenged: if you throw a word such as "theft" around and apply it to things like.mp3 copying, pretty soon the word will lose any meaning.]
Slashdot Mirror
Let me assure you there is nothing "trivial" about a search engine
) example of a service running at a remote server. Perhaps I misused the word 'trivial' [bows his head in shame].
I didn't mean to say that designing and coding a search engine is trivial -- obviously it's not. What I mean was that a search engine is a trivial (as in common, run-of-the-mill, well-known-by-everybody's-grandmother-and-her-cat
Kaa
Well, it seems that you are not really thinking of web sites. You are thinking about what used to be called "intelligent agents", specifically those which are running remotely and with which you can communicate in HTML. Another word for this would be personalized service with a Web front-end. A search engine is a trivial example of such.
So think about what cool thing can a remotely running program do for you. Find you stuff on the web? That's passe (do you want to code another shopping agent?). Filter news for you? Academia has done some interesting stuff here, not sure it it went anywhere.
You might also want to keep security and privacy in mind when designing your agent.
Kaa
And don't get me started on the 30,000 tiny buttons sitting along the toolbar(s) in MS Word
Please do get started and provide us all with an alternative. I take it you would really prefer all these umm... call 'em 'one-click-commands' to be buried four layers deep in menus?
Besides it's not like you cannot get rid of all these toolbars if they annoy you. And if you think you can do a better job of menu organization -- be my guest. IIRC, on MS Word you can almost completely reconfigure the menus (and the toolbars as well).
Kaa
The web is broke. We're not using it properly
Is there a proper way of using the web? I don't thing so. The web is many things to many people. That's what makes it so alive and so interesting.
there are too many poorly done corporate sites
Sure, so what? See Strugeons's Law (90% of everything...). A badly designed corporate site tends to be its own punishment.
We need more of these research projects to help us figure out what needs to be changed.
Seems like you want to impose good taste and proper programming practices on the web. Thank you very much, I'll pass. I don't want the web to be Martha-Stewardized.
Kaa
A geek is running for president! Al Gore ... he is a geek in every traditional sense of the word.
[boggles]
[gulp]
[boggles again]
[looks at the poster and carefully backs away]
Dude! Do you have any clue, any at all, about what a geek is?
[sighs and goes away sadly shaking his head]
Kaa
The DMCA allows anyone to easily force an ISP (or something like Napster) to kick off others by alleging copyright violations. However, the catch is that, if you are wrong, you face the penalty of perjury.
Nope. The accuser doesn't have to swear to anything. In keeping with the spirit of the DMCA, it's the accused who has to come forward and under the penalty of perjury state that he is innocent. Ain't DMCA wonderful?
Kaa
Now imagine if Metallica gives them another 200,000 names next week. Rinse, dry, and repeat.
..., Joe1985, ... works perfectly well, all this looks like a very good example of lawyer-induced stupidity.
Given that creating a new account on Napster is basically costless, all this will achieve is a very big list of strings that cannot be used as Napster nicknames. Given that a scheme like Joe1, Joe2,
Banning IP addresses probably wouldn't work either: first, what about dial-up users, and second, can an IP address infringe copyright?
Kaa
If I, as a British Citizen, were banned, how would the DMCA apply to me ?
DMCA doesn't apply to you. It applies to Napster.
And if Metallica wants to sue you, it probably will have to do it in a British court. But note, that it can sue you in British court.
Kaa
This is ridiculous. If I was on that list, I would most certainly not create a new account. I would never use Napster again.
And that would make RIAA very, very happy. Remember, the point of the exercise is to kill Napster.
Besides, what are you bitching about? Napster basically provides a free service to everybody. Since they are not taking your money, they can (legally and ethically) do anything they want, including banning all people whose nick starts with a letter "A", those who come from certain subnets, people who connect between 11pm and midnight, etc. etc. Napster doesn't owe you anything. Deal with it.
Go buy some Limp Bizkit, even if you don't like them; they will never try to dictate what you can do with something you paid money for.
Why should I buy music I don't like? At least contributions to charities are tax-deductible... And how do you know what Limp Bizkit will do in a year? or five? Just because Napster paid them a bunch of money doesn't make them angels IMHO.
Do you know how to program? Help with the OpenNap project.
Gnutella is tastier.
Kaa
This makes very little sense. If I show you two identical balls, and then try to sue you for stealing one which I say is free, and the other, which I say is mine, what would you do?
Huh?
You show me two identical balls, tell me one is free and one is not, and offer me to take one? I would ask you which one if free. If you tell me it makes no difference, you cannot sue me afterwards because you yourself stated that from your own point of view (and you are the owner) there is no difference.
In this particular case the owner clearly believes that there is a difference between two different copies.
Try a different example: both me and you have a certain file, bit-for-bit identical. I can delete my copy, right? Can I delete yours? No? Why not -- they are identical copies and you are telling me it makes no sense to distinguish between them. In this case I can delete any copy I like, including yours.
Kaa
I don't see how this can be construed as a copyright infringment, when copy1 and copy2 are bit-for-bit identical.
First, they are not necessarily bit-for-bit identical, but that's really irrelevant. copy1 and copy2 are different because they have difference ancestry and are owned by different entities.
To borrow a part of one of my other posts: let's say we both did a full install of some software and both lost the installation disks. Can I delete my own copy? Sure I can. Can I delete yours? No? Why not? Aren't all copies the same?
Kaa
1)... 2)... 6)...
Ahem. Your argument looks like this: "This is useful to me, therefore it must be legal". I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out the problems with this statement.
It seems like MP3 could get around this problem by giving users the tools...having them encode all their music...then uploading it back up to MP3
That should work perfectly well. It actually does work -- see companies like iDrive.
f I was MP3.com I would wave a magic wand and then tell the courts and RIAA "We didn't make that music. It was uploaded by hundreds of users who own the albums".
And go to jail for perjury?
You assume one digital copy is as good as any other digital copy. Legally, that's not true. To give you an example: let's say we both own some software that we fully installed on the hard drive and lost the installation disks. Can I delete my copy from my hard drive? Sure I can. Can I delete your copy from your hard drive? No? Why not -- all copies are the same, aren't they?
Kaa
Judge Rakoff seems to ignore that fact that the digital copies are nearly indistinguishable.
Not at all. It's a difference of opinion: you say that digital copies are all the same and any copy is as good as any other copy. Rakoff disagrees: he distinguishes between copies on the basis of their ancestry. This is a perfectly valid viewpoint.
In the MP3.com case, Rakoff in particular makes a legal distinction between a copy that MP3.com made itself (call it copy1) and a copy that a user owns (call it copy2). The way MP3.com used to work is that if you can prove to it you have copy2, it'll play copy1 for you. Now, from an information-theory point of view, copy1 and copy2 are very, very much alike. Legally, however, they are quite different, since different entities own them. Rakoff pointed out that difference, and was correct IMHO.
Kaa
when you purchase a CD or other recording, you purchase the rights to just that copy of the IP
Yeah, sure. Always been that way. What else did you expect?
It means that mp3 players and converting music to mp3s are pretty much illegal
Nope, that doesn't follow at all. The right to make copies in different formats for your own personal use is pretty much established. For example you can take your CD and copy it to a cassette so that you can listen to it in the car. This is a format shift and happens to be perfectly legal. Ripping a CD is exactly the same thing. What's illegal is publishing your music (such as putting it on Napster).
hope the record companies are generous enough to loosen the rules of "what you can do with that $13 CD"
You know, man, I have a nice bridge that I'm willing to sell you for not all that big of a sum...
Kaa
Worst case scenario, let's say that courts judge mp3 as being an illegal file format and it must cease to exist.
Err... mp3 is a file format. All it does is describe a convention for attaching meaning to certain zeroes and ones arranged in a sequence. How that could be found illegal I don't know (but the US legal system surprised me before: I am not saying this is flat out impossible).
Kaa
An interesting ruling. As far as I could figure it out, the main defence of MP3.com was: this is just space-shifting (which courts accepts as legal under fair use) of the recordings which users own. The judge said: no, digital copies are not the all the same. The crux of the matter seems to be that MP3.com ripped its own copy of the CD [call it copy1] and played it to a user who certified that he owns a copy [copy2] of that particular song. Because copy1 and copy2 are not the same thing, allowing the user to listen to copy1 is copyright infringement.
Note that services like iDrive, to which you can upload all the mp3s you want, are quite safe since there is only one copy of the CD that's being shuffled between hard drives.
Kaa
I don't think bringing you're own laptop or whatever would do it. At some point you'd probably have to connect to your employers network,
Not necessarily. If you plug into a phone jack and dial out to your own ISP, there isn't much your employer can do about it (tapping into a modem connection demands specialized equipment that usually only law-enforcement agencies have handy). Also don't forget the SneakerNet -- and wipe the floppy afterwards.
The point is, your laptop is your private property and nobody can take a look at what's inside without a court warrant.
Kaa
Under the current law (you don't have to like it) the employer owns everything that happens on machines and networks it owns. That means that your email, your files, and, yes, your keystrokes, belong to your employer. This has been supported by courts numerous times. If you want privacy, bring your own laptop/PDA/notepad.
I don't think you can much about it except for quitting (or threatening to quit over pervasive monitoring).
Kaa
Sure, you can only be sued by a company, not hauled off to jail, but they can otherwise make your life miserable to where a prison would be preferable.
It can? I don't think so. What can they do to you besides forcing you into bankrupcy? And if you think going to prison is better than declaring bankrupty, well, then you've got lot to learn.
That being said, the first ammendment still applies to private individuals as well.
Nope. That's factually incorrect.
If I walk with a picket sign in front of a business, I can't be stopped with a lawsuit as long as I'm factually correct or expressing my opinion.
The company (or a person) would sue you under tort law. If a judge orders you to stop picketing (has happened frequently, e.g. anti-abortion protesters), you will stop or be hauled into jail on a contempt of court charge. First Amendment is not a defence against torts.
Sure, there are municipal ordinances...
Municipality is a government and as such is bound by the First Amendment
I'm free to say what ever I want and there is nothing you can do to stop me.
You are mistaken. Here are three examples of forbidden speech:
(1) Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater
(2) Slander
(3) Threatening the life of the President
But again, you don't understand the legal difference between a private entity (a company or an individual) and a government.
Kaa
Personally, I think Corley's a numbskull. The court tells him to quit distributing DeCSS so he goes out and provides links to it.
As in, instead of saying "Yes, sir! At once, sir!" and then going back to the holding pen?
The whole case is about the freedom to distribute information. Try thinking about it some more.
Are you saying that all code should be free speech? If I write a virus that destroys half a hard drive and distribute it and some government or company criminally prosecutes me, can I claim my free speech rights or is it still illegal?
Yes, there are a lot of people saying code is free speech (it's just some text, no?). At least one court has agreed.
A company cannot criminally prosecute you, only a government can. A company can sue you in civil court and the First Amendment is not and never has been a defence against that. In any case, First Amendment is binding only on the government, not on private companies.
As to whether the government can prosecute you, sure it can. Free speech rights are not absolute. A classic example is shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater -- it's free speech, but a criminal act.
Words may hurt feelings, but they can't damage physical property or rights (except in the case of libel or slander). Code has the potential to be much more destructive.
I think you hugely undervalue words. Words can be very, very powerful -- by moving people to action. Think of people like Ghandi, for example -- all they used was words. On the other hand, consider a mob inflamed by an agitator. Still thinking that words cannot do damage?
Kaa
It seems that you, just like the majority of ideological zealots here have the attitude that anything you don't agree with is stupid.
Stupid? I didn't say anything about copyright law being stupid. I even didn't say that Metallica's (and other's) position is stupid. My point is that the current set of laws does not and should not determine my own morality. Another point was that overusing emotionally charged words like "theft" does not a reasoned discussion make, and tends to devalue the word.
You think that we're morally ok when trading copyrighted materials against current laws.
I think that some of us are morally OK when trading MP3s over the net. It's really a question of your personal morality. Of course, I'm speaking here purely moral-wise. Real-life-consequences-wise, the law is much more important than personal morality.
This infers that you don't think copyright law makes any sense.
No, it doesn't follow at all. Just because I think that some part of the law (such as DMCA) is broken, doesn't mean that I reject the whole concept of copyright. And I don't see what RMS has to do with all this. It's a banality (and a very tired irony) that GPL exists only because of copyright laws.
Kaa
Close, but technically false. Making them available for download is not a crime.
Nope, technically true. Making available for public download is legally the same as publishing. Publishing somebody else's copyrighted content is definitely outside the scope of fair use and is illegal.
For Metallica to claim I broke their copyright requires them to show I transferred a file to a person who did not own a legit copy.
Nope. It requires them to convince a judge that putting files on Napster constitutes publishing. I don't think they'll have any problems.
Kaa
None of what you describe in your post is comparable to pirating MP3s via Napster or any other medium.
...have nothing to do with copyright issues...
Well, you say that trading MP3s is theft, and I gave you an example of what, technically, is a theft.
We're not talking copyright issues, we are talking about theft -- that's your terminology, remember?
You are still breaking the law
So? I break the law pretty much every time I drive. I jaywalk and have been known to throw stuff on the ground -- both crimes in certain cities. If I take the trouble to read the criminal code, I bet I'll find more laws I have broken and continue to break.
If you make stupid laws, respect for all laws goes down. If you call trading MP3s theft, I'll start thinking that theft is not a big deal.
Kaa
By no means is this issue concluded - there is a standing legal argument that the copyright holder may determine acceptable copying uses.
The issue is definite -- under the current law, users have "fair use" rights that the copyright holder can do nothing about. It is the law (Home Recording Act or something like it) that defines what's acceptable copying. Of course, the copyright holder can grant additional rights over and above the "fair use" rights, but it cannot take away "fair use".
On the other hand, DMCA is a successful attempt to basically get rid of "fair use" altogether. Under DMCA the the users have no rights other than what the copyright holder gives them -- provided the content is "protected". Thankfully, the audio CDs are not "protected" in any way and thus do not fall under DMCA.
Kaa
But the bottom line is that it is theft, plain and simple.
.mp3 copying, pretty soon the word will lose any meaning.]
You know, I want to confess to a crime.
Yesterday at work I printed out an email I got and brought it home.
This is theft, plain and simple. Actually, triple theft. First, I stole my time from the company while I was reading that email. Second, I stole the computer and printer resources used for this. Third, I stole a sheet of paper (on which the email was printed) and brought it home.
This all is clearly illegal. I am a thief. I bow my head awaiting punishment.
[for the thinking-challenged: if you throw a word such as "theft" around and apply it to things like
Kaa