The last two things that Jobs would be missing in the plan would be a movie studio and a game console.
I don't know about the movie studio, but what about the game console? I know someone posted a link talking about one called Pippin, but it had no keyboard. What about a "game" console which could also do word processing, email, web browsing, etc? If they kept it the same price as the other consoles ($150-$200US), then they could also take some of the home computing market.
It would even add to the HC market, because people who couldn't afford or don't want to pay the $600 price tag would buy one[1]. The thing could even make home computing easy[2] for joe average. Just pop in the word processing disk, and start it up--not like trying to find the thing in a sea of icons. Documents could be stored on a flash card (modern game systems seem to have them anyway).
[1] Yes, I know WalMart sells $200 Lindows Computers with crappy VIA processors.
[2] No, MS Windows is not easy, using it too much has just warped your brain.
How about the real issue: should developers of a p2p (or other) communications program be held responsible for any copyright infringement done by the program's users? If so, why aren't car manufacturers responsible for the crimes "committed" by their cars?
Cars are used to help bank robbers flee crime scenes all the time. Cars are used to kill people all the time. Cars are used to transport stolen goods all the time. Cars should be banned! Let's sue all the auto manufacturers!
Too many people don't understand what the RIAA and members are really afraid of. Their entire business model is based upon limiting choices and controlling distribution. When lots of people are able to go to any artist's site (or p2p) and check out the music, they all won't choose the same artists. This fragments the market and allows any small timer to compete.
Before the internet, I didn't know much of anything about independent music. Most of the local stuff is hardcore christian--not really bad, but I'm not a hardcore christian. In fact, I'm not even a softcore christian.;-)
Because of this fragmenting effect, the media companies will be unable to concentrate their marketing efforts on a handful of artists [1], and they will be unable to control most distribution. This will create a much more diverse market where the media companies will most likely own only a small portion at best (say maybe 25%).
I hardly think that is the case. They have a 11% drop during a major economic crisis? WTF does everyone expect? Only having an 11% drop is doing very well.
Why don't we do a poll for those young whipper snappers out there:
I'm not buying any CDs because...
I don't have any money.
I'm boycotting the RIAA.
I like indies better.
I can "steal" them for free on the internet.
all my favories are given away using licenses such as EFF's OAL.
I don't know what they're talking about, I'm buying more CDs than before.
I'm not a young whipper snapper durnit!!!
Cowboyneal makes all my purchasing decisions.
It takes a while to find indie artists. Most likely kids aren't buying their CDs (or listening to them at all) because they don't know how to find them, or they don't even know the fact indies exist.
To avoid confusion, I would like to point out the VP3 codec is patented, but the company who owns the patents has released a "free for anyone for anything" license. (See the Theora FAQ for information.)
How many normal people buy a new top of the line computer every six months? That's right: NONE.
How many geeks are willing to put up with Microsoft's "take away choice, control your system, DRM" strategy? Very few.
How many people are going to want to buy expensive hardware just to watch a small amount of movies? Some hardcore videophiles and a few script kiddies.
Anarxia was right, hardly any consumers will bother with this format any time soon--at least in terms of buying high quality DVD replacements. Maybe if smaller sized movies (say, a lower bitrate 512x384) works well on consumer grade computers, this format may be used for internet distribution...
Why couldn't a meta tag be created to allow permission for mirroring?
<meta name="mirror" content="allow"> Have the W3C declare it an offical tag meaning anyone is allowed to put exact copies on other sites.
Then again, if the site operator is submitting the story, why doesn't he/she put the document on some p2p systems, and submit a magnet url? Oh, that's right, the DRM cartel will sue him/her, and submit a bunch of bogus DMCA complaints, shutting down his/her site and kicking him/her off his/her ISP.
I haven't been able to read your site, as the server of course has been slashdotted
If zrosner put it on a p2p system, then you would have been able to download it, but then the RIAA would start suing (or make up DMCA complaints). This is what they are trying to stop: free speech!
Which was exactly his point. That is what M$ is doing. To keep the mortgage analogy, they say the mortgage is non-transferrable, and his brother is a different person. So to transfer title of the house, they require you to pay off the mortgage and make your brother get one too.
So it's ok for the RIAA and other corporations to control the internet but not the government?
It's insane. the wacko says "we have debated the issue of the government controlling the internet", yet we haven't debated the issue of MS, the RIAA, and the MPAA controlling the internet. Yeah, there have been debates about how they should do it (mostly in closed government meetings), but no public debates as to why they should be allowed to control the entire next generation communication system! Eventually, the internet is going to replace the telephone. I don't want a bunch of mafia goons saying whether or not I'm allowed to send email or make telephone calls.
The output mplayer sends to stdout is still a incredible mess.
If you don't want to see that, use the -quiet or -really-quiet options. Most of that information is important for knowing how far into the video you are, or what went wrong. Yeah, a GUI will show that information, but with the current state, I don't think many use the GUI anyway. It doesn't seem to work on my system at all--the GUI is just shows a bunch of fuzz.
I hope the first thing they do is clean up the code. MPlayer lost _many_ developers to xine lately. xine has not caught up to MPlayer in speed and number of supported formats.
All of those are related. Mplayer is not clean and doesn't have a working GUI because they've been working on the actual video playing code. Xine isn't fast and doesn't support many formats because they've been working on the GUI and making the code clean.
Maybe this disruption of MPlayer development can also be seen as a chance for a more unified default mediaplayer for linux, i.e. xine.
Maybe, maybe not. I thought XMMS was going to be the default media player for Linux (and UNIX). I love it for listening to music, but video development has been ignored.
The one thin xine is lacking is an encoder a la mencoder.
Do media players need to be encoders as well? I'm not so sure it is a good idea to go there. While a shared code base may be a good idea, I don't think merging a player and encoder into one program is beneficial. They have different goals. The player's goal is to decode the video and drop frames if it isn't fast enough. The encoder's goal depends on the source.
If the source is realtime (such as a camera, TV or VCR), then the overall goal is similar--do whatever it takes to keep the process moving--drop frames, use cheap algorithms to keep up, etc. The problem is I don't think it will benefit much from a shared code base with a player. Encoding and decoding are separate processes.
If it's from a video file, then you don't want any frames dropped, so you can't use the player's decoder because of what it does to keep up with real time. I tried to convert a video file using mplayer/mencoder, and that's the problem I had. It would skip frames to "keep up" so the output file was much more poor quality than if it would just take the time to decode/encode the file properly.
The design looks as clean and easy as xine and I am pretty confident that enix can catch up to mencoder in a short time provided that some more developers are interested.
I don't share your confidence. Keeping the code and design clean takes time. Yes, it is good--especially for the long term, but it does not speed up development. Fast development will usually cause messy code and lots of hacks. This may be the reason mplayer is in its current state--in fact, if you look at the linked mails, A'rpi seems to say that.
They are establishing precidents. Soon you may not be able to write any program unless it is under an opressive DRM system which the RIAA/MPAA control.
Note they aren't going after Microsoft for at least two reasons: 1) Microsoft could squash them like a bug. 2) Microsoft is helping them get the DRM system in place--one which I think MS will use to enter & monopolize the music & movie market and squash the RIAA & MPAA, but that's another story...
...and no, I don't think it's a good thing either. Another dictator is just as bad as the original. There is a very real chance the people will lose all the way around. By some accounts, we have already lost.
Maybe it won't happen that way, but they could get a large company (Microsoft) to produce a DRM system (Palladium), then sue anyone who "assists" copyright infringement by creating or running any free and open system (Linux, FreeBSD, etc).
The implications of these DRM
A DRM system based on public key encryption (such as Palladium is reported) is going to allow the maintainers to censor anyone they like. All they have to do is send a rejection certificate for the unwanted entity, and the system no longer allows that entity to publish anything on the DRM network (even send email). The way it seems now, I suppose they'll have each computer as an entity (so they can stop your computer from creating content), and you will probably have to estabish your identity to be allowed to create certain files (such as audio).
If they reject your computer's certificate, then you can just go buy a new one. But if they ban you from registering programs (or certain classes of programs), you'll be screwed. Say you're a popular independent musician. You refuse to do business with Microdisnews corp because of their unfair contracts. They see you as a possible threat to their monopoly. Guess what? You're now banned from distributing music on the internet! In fact, you can't even use any audio recording / editing programs! How are you supposed to turn out CDs now?
Also, you have to get Microsoft to sign your programs. Someone said this only applied to drivers, but how long do you think it'll take them to extend it to all programs? If they want to continue their constant stream of anti-trust violations, making everyone sign every single program is an easy way to do it.
I think you misunderstood the analysis. It said he might get off of the contributory infringement charges, but the analysis specificly avoided the direct infringment charges. Simply because if the facts show the defendant is guily of direct infringement, then he will lose (that part anyway).
My worry is he may also lose on the contributory infringment (I don't think the paper said he would for certain win it), even in a small way, and the RIAA will use this precident to go after anyone who creates generic technology which may possibly be used for copyright infringement. The RIAA, MPAA, and friends are really the oppressors of the information age. Goodbye internet!
I think it'd be right if some M$ execs were put in jail and the company was punished for their anti-trust violations. Then you wouldn't need to worry about having to pay for a new M$ license every time you buy/upgrade a computer.
A also think this leak may be a good sign of things to come. If M$'s Palladium keys are leaked, then us non-monoply users will still be able to communicate with the 90% of the world who insist that everyone use M$ only protocols and file formats.
Then why not try to make a p2p program which will allow anyone to catalog, index, rate, & whatever the entire web? I think it could be done. Oh that's right, the RIAA will claim you are helping people "pirate" music, and sue you....and don't forget all the crazies who sue
search engines. DeCSS? You program links to it, you're violating the DMCA! Will it contain sites criticizing certain "religions"? Get sued! Maybe you can move your operations to Sealand.;-)
On the back is a blurb saying the disc is designed to play on... PCs
It says that exactly? Then it had better run on all computers! Personal Computer (PC) is a generic term for home computers--coined by Apple. Anyone test it on an Atari ST or Apple IIe?;-)
What it doesn't say is that in order to play it on a computer you're supposed to use the software on the disc (hmm... totally future-proof). Furthermore, it autoruns an installer to install the software.
I wouldn't ever trust them. What if they put a virus on the disc? Another poster mentioned disabling the autorun feature. It's a good idea. One less security problem to worry about...
You say copyright holder as if the only ones who can own copyrights are the RIAA, MPAA, and a few large companies. I just wrote this post, so I am a copyright holder. I have the right to distribute this post all I want with whatever method I choose.
The question is: should a device be made illegal if 10% of the population uses it to exchange without pay the non-essential works [1] created by a group of people who expect compensation for their work?
Should the entire population be denied use of said device, just because a portion of the people use it illegally and the victims refuse to find and press charges against individual violators?
Should the "victims" be allowed to put in place a censorship system (DRM) to replace the current communication structure which will allow the "victims" to not only control how their works are used (even by paying costumers), but to also allow them to delete any file they don't like and kick anyone off the system?
[1] Using the phrase "non-essential works" here means no one would die or even suffer if the works disappeared off the face of the earth. Let's face it. Music and movies are not required for living.
How about a more generic question: If you had a machine which would make you money, but it would also inconvenience, disrupt, and frustrate the lives of a million people, would you use it?
If a machine can do the work of ten people, and the twenty lazy slobs who have that job are to stupid to get a real ones, so they form a union. Then they demand: all the machines be shut down, twice the pay, and no work. Which causes the company to export the work overseas (while still paying the 20 slobs), and 100 people have to work 100 hour weeks and are only given housing in the slums and barely enough food to survive. Are the twenty lazy slobs being ethical? Do they deserve money for doing nothing?
Yeah, that isn't exacly how it happens, but it doesn't seem far off at this point.
More machines doing the work = smaller slave cast = larger middle class. When ownership of property centralizes, it usually ends up a bad thing, but automation doesn't necessarily do that. Especially in a corporate economy where anyone can own stock.
Become a freebander! Lets see if the corps can't control the media when anyone broacasts whatever they want!
The DRM cartel wants to take over the internet too. Just read about all the lawsuits against P2P programs. They're not trying to stop copyright infringement, they're trying to stop public access to local and worldwide communications technology!
Screw the FCC. They're just shills for corporate bribes. The problem is the government assists the thieves in stealing all the communication technologies from us. I don't think your solution will help. What is needed is to put the organized crime (and the corrupt public officals who are helping them) in prison. But unfortunately, the FBI will never do this. When did our "justice" system start meaning let all the criminals roam free, and punish the innocent???
Read the Friggin Articles!!!!!!!The RIAA press release is telling. They are really smoking some hardcore crack! They want to make LANs illegal!?!
These guys made programs which allow you to search a network. The flatlan site seems to be down, but read this FAQ about Phynd. It is a program which indexes the files available on various protocols (like FTP and Windows Shares). The RIAA could even use it to help find copyright violations. Instead they want to punish anyone who makes networking software. If they knew about the internet 20 years ago, it wouldn't exist--except in their offices.
Repeat after me. "The RIAA is doing this for anticompetitive reasons. The RIAA are a bunch of facist pigs. The RIAA are the real thieves. They want to steal the internet and computers away from the public. They want to establish a DRM censorship system where they can block anything they want--especially independent competitors."
Slashdot Mirror
So if I put the addresses of my good friends here--such as jvalenti@mpaa.org and csherman@riaa.org --then they would get lots of spam? Good to know.
The Lord of the Rings was a great book trilogy. Ever hear of Tolkien? It was NOT written by Hollywood. They trashed it with their crappy movies.
I don't know about the movie studio, but what about the game console? I know someone posted a link talking about one called Pippin, but it had no keyboard. What about a "game" console which could also do word processing, email, web browsing, etc? If they kept it the same price as the other consoles ($150-$200US), then they could also take some of the home computing market.
It would even add to the HC market, because people who couldn't afford or don't want to pay the $600 price tag would buy one[1]. The thing could even make home computing easy[2] for joe average. Just pop in the word processing disk, and start it up--not like trying to find the thing in a sea of icons. Documents could be stored on a flash card (modern game systems seem to have them anyway).
[1] Yes, I know WalMart sells $200 Lindows Computers with crappy VIA processors.
[2] No, MS Windows is not easy, using it too much has just warped your brain.
How about the real issue: should developers of a p2p (or other) communications program be held responsible for any copyright infringement done by the program's users? If so, why aren't car manufacturers responsible for the crimes "committed" by their cars?
Cars are used to help bank robbers flee crime scenes all the time. Cars are used to kill people all the time. Cars are used to transport stolen goods all the time. Cars should be banned! Let's sue all the auto manufacturers!
My conspiracy rant: ;-)
Too many people don't understand what the RIAA and members are really afraid of. Their entire business model is based upon limiting choices and controlling distribution. When lots of people are able to go to any artist's site (or p2p) and check out the music, they all won't choose the same artists. This fragments the market and allows any small timer to compete.
Before the internet, I didn't know much of anything about independent music. Most of the local stuff is hardcore christian--not really bad, but I'm not a hardcore christian. In fact, I'm not even a softcore christian. ;-)
Because of this fragmenting effect, the media companies will be unable to concentrate their marketing efforts on a handful of artists [1], and they will be unable to control most distribution. This will create a much more diverse market where the media companies will most likely own only a small portion at best (say maybe 25%).
[1] I use the term "artists" here lightly. ;-)
I hardly think that is the case. They have a 11% drop during a major economic crisis? WTF does everyone expect? Only having an 11% drop is doing very well.
Why don't we do a poll for those young whipper snappers out there:
I'm not buying any CDs because...
It takes a while to find indie artists. Most likely kids aren't buying their CDs (or listening to them at all) because they don't know how to find them, or they don't even know the fact indies exist.
To avoid confusion, I would like to point out the VP3 codec is patented, but the company who owns the patents has released a "free for anyone for anything" license. (See the Theora FAQ for information.)
How many normal people buy a new top of the line computer every six months? That's right: NONE.
How many geeks are willing to put up with Microsoft's "take away choice, control your system, DRM" strategy? Very few.
How many people are going to want to buy expensive hardware just to watch a small amount of movies? Some hardcore videophiles and a few script kiddies.
Anarxia was right, hardly any consumers will bother with this format any time soon--at least in terms of buying high quality DVD replacements. Maybe if smaller sized movies (say, a lower bitrate 512x384) works well on consumer grade computers, this format may be used for internet distribution...
Why couldn't a meta tag be created to allow permission for mirroring?
<meta name="mirror" content="allow"> Have the W3C declare it an offical tag meaning anyone is allowed to put exact copies on other sites.
Then again, if the site operator is submitting the story, why doesn't he/she put the document on some p2p systems, and submit a magnet url? Oh, that's right, the DRM cartel will sue him/her, and submit a bunch of bogus DMCA complaints, shutting down his/her site and kicking him/her off his/her ISP.
If zrosner put it on a p2p system, then you would have been able to download it, but then the RIAA would start suing (or make up DMCA complaints). This is what they are trying to stop: free speech!
Which was exactly his point. That is what M$ is doing. To keep the mortgage analogy, they say the mortgage is non-transferrable, and his brother is a different person. So to transfer title of the house, they require you to pay off the mortgage and make your brother get one too.
So it's ok for the RIAA and other corporations to control the internet but not the government?
It's insane. the wacko says "we have debated the issue of the government controlling the internet", yet we haven't debated the issue of MS, the RIAA, and the MPAA controlling the internet. Yeah, there have been debates about how they should do it (mostly in closed government meetings), but no public debates as to why they should be allowed to control the entire next generation communication system! Eventually, the internet is going to replace the telephone. I don't want a bunch of mafia goons saying whether or not I'm allowed to send email or make telephone calls.
If you don't want to see that, use the -quiet or -really-quiet options. Most of that information is important for knowing how far into the video you are, or what went wrong. Yeah, a GUI will show that information, but with the current state, I don't think many use the GUI anyway. It doesn't seem to work on my system at all--the GUI is just shows a bunch of fuzz.
All of those are related. Mplayer is not clean and doesn't have a working GUI because they've been working on the actual video playing code. Xine isn't fast and doesn't support many formats because they've been working on the GUI and making the code clean.
Maybe, maybe not. I thought XMMS was going to be the default media player for Linux (and UNIX). I love it for listening to music, but video development has been ignored.
Do media players need to be encoders as well? I'm not so sure it is a good idea to go there. While a shared code base may be a good idea, I don't think merging a player and encoder into one program is beneficial. They have different goals. The player's goal is to decode the video and drop frames if it isn't fast enough. The encoder's goal depends on the source.
If the source is realtime (such as a camera, TV or VCR), then the overall goal is similar--do whatever it takes to keep the process moving--drop frames, use cheap algorithms to keep up, etc. The problem is I don't think it will benefit much from a shared code base with a player. Encoding and decoding are separate processes.
If it's from a video file, then you don't want any frames dropped, so you can't use the player's decoder because of what it does to keep up with real time. I tried to convert a video file using mplayer/mencoder, and that's the problem I had. It would skip frames to "keep up" so the output file was much more poor quality than if it would just take the time to decode/encode the file properly.
I don't share your confidence. Keeping the code and design clean takes time. Yes, it is good--especially for the long term, but it does not speed up development. Fast development will usually cause messy code and lots of hacks. This may be the reason mplayer is in its current state--in fact, if you look at the linked mails, A'rpi seems to say that.
They are establishing precidents. Soon you may not be able to write any program unless it is under an opressive DRM system which the RIAA/MPAA control.
Note they aren't going after Microsoft for at least two reasons: 1) Microsoft could squash them like a bug. 2) Microsoft is helping them get the DRM system in place--one which I think MS will use to enter & monopolize the music & movie market and squash the RIAA & MPAA, but that's another story...
...and no, I don't think it's a good thing either. Another dictator is just as bad as the original. There is a very real chance the people will lose all the way around. By some accounts, we have already lost.
Maybe it won't happen that way, but they could get a large company (Microsoft) to produce a DRM system (Palladium), then sue anyone who "assists" copyright infringement by creating or running any free and open system (Linux, FreeBSD, etc).
The implications of these DRM
A DRM system based on public key encryption (such as Palladium is reported) is going to allow the maintainers to censor anyone they like. All they have to do is send a rejection certificate for the unwanted entity, and the system no longer allows that entity to publish anything on the DRM network (even send email). The way it seems now, I suppose they'll have each computer as an entity (so they can stop your computer from creating content), and you will probably have to estabish your identity to be allowed to create certain files (such as audio).
If they reject your computer's certificate, then you can just go buy a new one. But if they ban you from registering programs (or certain classes of programs), you'll be screwed. Say you're a popular independent musician. You refuse to do business with Microdisnews corp because of their unfair contracts. They see you as a possible threat to their monopoly. Guess what? You're now banned from distributing music on the internet! In fact, you can't even use any audio recording / editing programs! How are you supposed to turn out CDs now?
Also, you have to get Microsoft to sign your programs. Someone said this only applied to drivers, but how long do you think it'll take them to extend it to all programs? If they want to continue their constant stream of anti-trust violations, making everyone sign every single program is an easy way to do it.
I think you misunderstood the analysis. It said he might get off of the contributory infringement charges, but the analysis specificly avoided the direct infringment charges. Simply because if the facts show the defendant is guily of direct infringement, then he will lose (that part anyway).
My worry is he may also lose on the contributory infringment (I don't think the paper said he would for certain win it), even in a small way, and the RIAA will use this precident to go after anyone who creates generic technology which may possibly be used for copyright infringement. The RIAA, MPAA, and friends are really the oppressors of the information age. Goodbye internet!
I think it'd be right if some M$ execs were put in jail and the company was punished for their anti-trust violations. Then you wouldn't need to worry about having to pay for a new M$ license every time you buy/upgrade a computer.
A also think this leak may be a good sign of things to come. If M$'s Palladium keys are leaked, then us non-monoply users will still be able to communicate with the 90% of the world who insist that everyone use M$ only protocols and file formats.
Then why not try to make a p2p program which will allow anyone to catalog, index, rate, & whatever the entire web? I think it could be done. Oh that's right, the RIAA will claim you are helping people "pirate" music, and sue you. ...and don't forget all the crazies who sue
search engines. DeCSS? You program links to it, you're violating the DMCA! Will it contain sites criticizing certain "religions"? Get sued! Maybe you can move your operations to Sealand. ;-)
It says that exactly? Then it had better run on all computers! Personal Computer (PC) is a generic term for home computers--coined by Apple. Anyone test it on an Atari ST or Apple IIe? ;-)
I wouldn't ever trust them. What if they put a virus on the disc? Another poster mentioned disabling the autorun feature. It's a good idea. One less security problem to worry about...
You say copyright holder as if the only ones who can own copyrights are the RIAA, MPAA, and a few large companies. I just wrote this post, so I am a copyright holder. I have the right to distribute this post all I want with whatever method I choose.
The question is: should a device be made illegal if 10% of the population uses it to exchange without pay the non-essential works [1] created by a group of people who expect compensation for their work?
Should the entire population be denied use of said device, just because a portion of the people use it illegally and the victims refuse to find and press charges against individual violators?
Should the "victims" be allowed to put in place a censorship system (DRM) to replace the current communication structure which will allow the "victims" to not only control how their works are used (even by paying costumers), but to also allow them to delete any file they don't like and kick anyone off the system?
[1] Using the phrase "non-essential works" here means no one would die or even suffer if the works disappeared off the face of the earth. Let's face it. Music and movies are not required for living.
How about a more generic question: If you had a machine which would make you money, but it would also inconvenience, disrupt, and frustrate the lives of a million people, would you use it?
If a machine can do the work of ten people, and the twenty lazy slobs who have that job are to stupid to get a real ones, so they form a union. Then they demand: all the machines be shut down, twice the pay, and no work. Which causes the company to export the work overseas (while still paying the 20 slobs), and 100 people have to work 100 hour weeks and are only given housing in the slums and barely enough food to survive. Are the twenty lazy slobs being ethical? Do they deserve money for doing nothing?
Yeah, that isn't exacly how it happens, but it doesn't seem far off at this point.
More machines doing the work = smaller slave cast = larger middle class. When ownership of property centralizes, it usually ends up a bad thing, but automation doesn't necessarily do that. Especially in a corporate economy where anyone can own stock.
If I were you, I'd be proud of my job.
I didn't see Senator Fritz Hollings on your list. He is owned by News Corp and other media giants...
Become a freebander! Lets see if the corps can't control the media when anyone broacasts whatever they want!
The DRM cartel wants to take over the internet too. Just read about all the lawsuits against P2P programs. They're not trying to stop copyright infringement, they're trying to stop public access to local and worldwide communications technology!
Screw the FCC. They're just shills for corporate bribes. The problem is the government assists the thieves in stealing all the communication technologies from us. I don't think your solution will help. What is needed is to put the organized crime (and the corrupt public officals who are helping them) in prison. But unfortunately, the FBI will never do this. When did our "justice" system start meaning let all the criminals roam free, and punish the innocent???
Read the Friggin Articles!!!!!!! The RIAA press release is telling. They are really smoking some hardcore crack! They want to make LANs illegal!?!
These guys made programs which allow you to search a network. The flatlan site seems to be down, but read this FAQ about Phynd. It is a program which indexes the files available on various protocols (like FTP and Windows Shares). The RIAA could even use it to help find copyright violations. Instead they want to punish anyone who makes networking software. If they knew about the internet 20 years ago, it wouldn't exist--except in their offices.
Repeat after me. "The RIAA is doing this for anticompetitive reasons. The RIAA are a bunch of facist pigs. The RIAA are the real thieves. They want to steal the internet and computers away from the public. They want to establish a DRM censorship system where they can block anything they want--especially independent competitors."