And if new technology is outlawed on the basis of its possible disreputable use, it's potential good will be blithely overlooked.
Very true, especially for P2P applications. Unfortunately, most of the media coverage has focused on the complaints of the entertainment industry. They portray apps like Freenet and Gnutella as a larger threat than Napster and the end of entertainment.
However, the potential good is being overlooked. To say nothing of all the unfathomable uses that may arise in the next few years, at the very least, they will offer an alternative to file-sharing via email. I remember reading an story a while back that said email has become the predominant means of file-sharing. Unfortunately, that also gave rise to Melissa, I LOVE YOU, and other viruses spread through attachments. P2P apps could eliminate those for the most part.
I don't think these apps will be seen in a favorable light until people begin to show some restraint w/ copyrighted material. Want to share your BSB mp3s with a couple of friends? Cool. Just don't offer it up to the entire 'Net. It's good that some companies are seeing the immense benefit these technologies will have once the furor over IP settles.
Even though this lawsuit sounds like a huge smokescreen by MP3board.com to displace some of the blame, I wonder whether there might be some validity to it.
This reminds me of the discussion about companies and, particularly, universities laying claim to software/hardware that was developed using their equipment. Does the blade cut the other way? Even though AOL had no knowledge of the application should they be held responsible since it was done using their subsidiary's computers?
Personally, I don't think they should - but since companies and schools can be held liable for obscence email, pornography, and warez are sent using their systems, then how would this be any different from a legal perspective (IANAL)?
That is precisely the reason I downloaded DeCSS in the first place! After experiencing the horrific control Disney placed on the "Sixth Sense" DVD (forcing viewer to sit through eight minutes of previews on every viewing) I used DeCSS to grab the movie, compressed it w/ DivX, and burned it as a VCD. Voila! No more previews!
Am I a criminal? I don't feel like one. Will I download or buy bootlegged movies? Hell no. Do I believe I have the right to use any media I purchase in any way I see fit (short of redistribution)? Absolutely.
Since the illegality of "trafficking" in code that descrambles CSS encryption has been upheld you can kiss open source DVD goodbye. I'm sure the DVD-CCA will use this ruling in their upcoming trial to argue that, in addition to everything else, open source DVD players will provide access to encryption circumvention b/c DeCSS will be contained within the program. Suddenly, said players will become illegal to distribute.
With all the digital media formats on the way(SCD, DVD Audio, DVD2) rulings such as this could be the kiss of death for open source media players. -------
I'm not exactly sure what the French hope to accomplish by enforcing this law. Granted, the French endured something America did not (invasion and occupation) and have a much different perspective of the war. However, selling or purchasing a wartime relic does not necessarily constitute an advancement of a specific ideology, which I'm guessing their law seeks to stem. My father owns an SS helmet, not because he's a fascist, an anti-semite, or a Nazi but because he's avidly interested in American wars.
Ironically, enforcing such a law brings them closer to that despicable ideology than any purchase of a relic would. Education, not legislation.
-------
That steaming pile of hypocrisy wouldn't have escaped even the most apathetic music listener and certainly would have been an arsenal for those artists speaking out against the abuses of the record companies.
It's hard to parade the artists around, saying they're looking out for their interests when the knife is clearly sticking out of their backs... -------
I guess I didn't make myself as clear as I thought.
Of course, if the students used skills that were honed in university classes, focused by university faculty...
You're right about this - not sure what I was thinking when I wrote that...:) However...
done in conjuncture w/ university projects, then I think the university has a legitimate claim to some of the spoils.
... this part I stand by.
I should have emphasized the part that work done as part of a paid university project should belong to the university. The author of the previous post used Andreessen and Mosaic as an example - my alma matar has every right in the world to be livid about what went down. It was a university project that utilized university dollars, university equipment, and paid university students. The corporate world has a term for this - proprietary - and rightfully safeguards it. Unfortunately, most colleges don't do this.
Of course the creative work of students using university machines belongs to the students, not the university. I would never argue such a ridiculous position. However, creative work that is financed and directed by the university and its professionals should belong to those involved, with an understanding that a portion of commercial profits will go to the school.
-------
But is it really their intellectual property? Just b/c a student uses a university machine doesn't mean the university had any hand in it's creation. Whether it was their machine, the student's machine, or a machine at the Delight's on Green Street, the true creative process took place in that student's head. Also, students fork over a good chunk of their tuition to use those machines - they are most definately not using them for free. IMO, that's a good argument against the university's claim to some form of ownership.
Of course, if the students used skills that were honed in university classes, focused by university faculty, or done in conjuncture w/ university projects, then I think the university has a legitimate claim to some of the spoils. -------
I did a search on "Moody" at Linux Today and found several more articles in which they take him to task for his "simplistic" and "poorly-researched" articles. Even though it's irresponsible journalism, he's definately consistent mark --- Nothing sig-nificant to say... -------
Gimme a break. This study should be surprising only to the blithering idiots who believe that you pay for things in meatspace but everything in cyberspace is free.
Wanna know why online sales of digital music have failed while Napster has thrived?? Repeat after me: Consumers puke on pay-per-use services. Divx, hourly ISP plans, pay-by-the-minute cellular - hell, even most restaurants give unlimited refills on pop. The same goes for paying $2.99 for each shitty 128 Kbps MP3 on Sony's website.
Even if Napster costs $19.99 a month to use, myself and millions of other people will still continue to use it. Why? Because it's easy to use, I only pay once, and I won't have to worry about the moral ambiguity of downloading music. If I download two whole albums a month, I'm already recooping the cost. Plus, the record companies will still get my money when I invariably purchase some albums in meatspace b/c I want the cool packaging w/ the cool music.
The record companies would do best if they would stop w/ the ridiculous and gratuitous litigation, the SDMIs and other "secure" digital music formats (that will inevitably fail anyways), and embrace services like Napster.
Slashdot Mirror
Very true, especially for P2P applications. Unfortunately, most of the media coverage has focused on the complaints of the entertainment industry. They portray apps like Freenet and Gnutella as a larger threat than Napster and the end of entertainment.
However, the potential good is being overlooked. To say nothing of all the unfathomable uses that may arise in the next few years, at the very least, they will offer an alternative to file-sharing via email. I remember reading an story a while back that said email has become the predominant means of file-sharing. Unfortunately, that also gave rise to Melissa, I LOVE YOU, and other viruses spread through attachments. P2P apps could eliminate those for the most part.
I don't think these apps will be seen in a favorable light until people begin to show some restraint w/ copyrighted material. Want to share your BSB mp3s with a couple of friends? Cool. Just don't offer it up to the entire 'Net. It's good that some companies are seeing the immense benefit these technologies will have once the furor over IP settles.
-------
This reminds me of the discussion about companies and, particularly, universities laying claim to software/hardware that was developed using their equipment. Does the blade cut the other way? Even though AOL had no knowledge of the application should they be held responsible since it was done using their subsidiary's computers?
Personally, I don't think they should - but since companies and schools can be held liable for obscence email, pornography, and warez are sent using their systems, then how would this be any different from a legal perspective (IANAL)?
-------
Am I a criminal? I don't feel like one. Will I download or buy bootlegged movies? Hell no. Do I believe I have the right to use any media I purchase in any way I see fit (short of redistribution)? Absolutely.
-------
With all the digital media formats on the way(SCD, DVD Audio, DVD2) rulings such as this could be the kiss of death for open source media players.
-------
Ironically, enforcing such a law brings them closer to that despicable ideology than any purchase of a relic would. Education, not legislation.
-------
That steaming pile of hypocrisy wouldn't have escaped even the most apathetic music listener and certainly would have been an arsenal for those artists speaking out against the abuses of the record companies.
It's hard to parade the artists around, saying they're looking out for their interests when the knife is clearly sticking out of their backs...
-------
Of course, if the students used skills that were honed in university classes, focused by university faculty...
You're right about this - not sure what I was thinking when I wrote that... :) However...
done in conjuncture w/ university projects, then I think the university has a legitimate claim to some of the spoils.
I should have emphasized the part that work done as part of a paid university project should belong to the university. The author of the previous post used Andreessen and Mosaic as an example - my alma matar has every right in the world to be livid about what went down. It was a university project that utilized university dollars, university equipment, and paid university students. The corporate world has a term for this - proprietary - and rightfully safeguards it. Unfortunately, most colleges don't do this.
Of course the creative work of students using university machines belongs to the students, not the university. I would never argue such a ridiculous position. However, creative work that is financed and directed by the university and its professionals should belong to those involved, with an understanding that a portion of commercial profits will go to the school.
-------
Of course, if the students used skills that were honed in university classes, focused by university faculty, or done in conjuncture w/ university projects, then I think the university has a legitimate claim to some of the spoils.
-------
I did a search on "Moody" at Linux Today and found several more articles in which they take him to task for his "simplistic" and "poorly-researched" articles. Even though it's irresponsible journalism, he's definately consistent mark --- Nothing sig-nificant to say...
-------
Wanna know why online sales of digital music have failed while Napster has thrived?? Repeat after me: Consumers puke on pay-per-use services. Divx, hourly ISP plans, pay-by-the-minute cellular - hell, even most restaurants give unlimited refills on pop. The same goes for paying $2.99 for each shitty 128 Kbps MP3 on Sony's website.
Even if Napster costs $19.99 a month to use, myself and millions of other people will still continue to use it. Why? Because it's easy to use, I only pay once, and I won't have to worry about the moral ambiguity of downloading music. If I download two whole albums a month, I'm already recooping the cost. Plus, the record companies will still get my money when I invariably purchase some albums in meatspace b/c I want the cool packaging w/ the cool music.
The record companies would do best if they would stop w/ the ridiculous and gratuitous litigation, the SDMIs and other "secure" digital music formats (that will inevitably fail anyways), and embrace services like Napster.
-------