"On the face of it, government involvement seems like a good idea. However, what about all we non-US citizens?"
Well, just like (most) other countries don't use the dollar, it seems like each could have it's own micropayment.
Perahps the micropayment value could be hitched to the national currency value, and so the exchange rates would follow between countries, just like regular money does.
hypocrisy, rhetoric: is it time for something new?
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 3, Informative
But this problem even seems extend all the way down to newly installed Web servers that come with thier own default 'Welcome to your Web server' page (with links). IIS does it, Apache does it, everybody does it.
Should they all be expected to change their Terms of Service too? "Warning: when you install Apache, it may include a default page with links to Apache and partner sites."
"That domain name should have come up as "404-No Such Domain."
Not to nit-pick, but a 404 is for Page Not Found and it would need to be sent back by a Web server running at that address. In other words, that domain would have to resolve to an IP that points to a Web server if you want to get a 404.
Just about all new domains (and new hosted sites once you move that domain to an ISP) start off with a Coming Soon page.
"The lawsuit wasn't over the 'Coming Soon' page, but over links to Register.com services on the coming soon page."
But plenty of ISPs also have their own set of links on their Coming Soon pages -- it's certainly not just Register.com that does this.
And plenty of those ISPs are small 'boutique' companies -- shouldn't they all now be worried if their Coming Soon pages include links back to their site?
I agree that the fasttrack subpoena process is sketchy, but also I find all the "but what about kiddie porn" arguments against it to be just as lamely opportunistic as when the same "but what about kiddie porn" arguments are used against P2P.
I don't really know the details, but back when the ISPs agreed to the DMCA, they accepted the fasttrack subpoena process as a way to shift liability from them to their customers.
In any case, I disagee that the fact that people are being sued is besides the point. This thread is about exactly that.
"That still does not make her a criminal. I have all the Counting Crows CDs. They are on my shelf next to the CD player upstairs. I wanted to rip them to MP3 so I could take them on my roadtrip. I found out that a couple songs on one of them are scratched and won't play or rip. So I fire up Kazza (lite) and download the two songs that I can't rip. In reality, I download them each a few times so I can find the best rip. So now I have copies of songs where I own the CD but I didn't rip all the songs myself. True story."
But the thing is, that isn't legal. For instance, I have some old tapes and they sound like crap, but that doesn't legally entitle me to fresh new MP3s.
However, that is a load more reasonable than collecting thousands of files without any intention of ever paying for anything, which is (generally) who the RIAA will be going after (for now).
"BTW, without MP3s and sharing, wouldn't you lose a big part of your client base for Andromedia? Or do people who pirate music also make off with your work?;)"
I do indeed care about this sort of stuff because of my app Andromeda. In my case, I'm trying to make a living off something that can be P2P'd, just like music.
So when I see the RIAA suing people for copying their work, as opposed to suing the P2P technology itself, it seems a lot more reasonable to me.
People want you to think this is only about music, but it's about everything digital.
When I built Andromeda, I quite specifically set out to make something that would be fair and reasobale.
But your assertion that P2P users are my customers is just wrong. People that are increasingly of the opinion that music should be free simply don't make good customers!;)
"You are wrong. As the law stands now, downloading copyright material is not illegal.
It is illegal to distribute copyrighted material."
No, you are wrong. The Napster ruling clearly stated that both uploaders and downloaders violated copyright law.
The RIAA is going after uploaders because:
They're easy sitting duck targets, providing as much evidence as the RIAA wants to collect.
Targeting uploading better appeals to the selfish instinct. If people just turn off uploading, they'll be safe (for now). But if enough people do so, downloading is busted too.
"Is that really the case? If you were the type (like myself) to rip your new CDs within 24 hours of purchase, perhaps as soon as removing them from shrink-wrap, wouldn't my default-settings rip be the same as someone else's rip who was using the same software with the same defaults?"
If you both had identical CDs, and the same rippers, and the same settings, and the same CDDB data, and the same CD read errors (presumably none) then you would most likely wind up with the same checksum.
"But see, that's the kicker. Currently the RIAA does not need to prove (or even provide evidence of the charge) to a judge or anyone else that you did anything wrong. All they have to do is fill out a form and they get to subpoena your contact information from the ISP."
Of course they do! The subpoena doesn't establish guilt -- it only provides the name of the person that the RIAA wants file suit against.
So next, these 260 people (those that don't settle) will go to court, and not until then would they be guilty of anything.
btw, the question of whether this 'fast track' subpoena process is ok is entirely different from the question of whether it's reasonable for the RIAA to sue people that have illegally amassed collections of thousands of MP3s.
"Why is downloading an MP3 for which I already have the CD not legal?"
Basically, because copyright law grants copyright owners the exclusive right to distribute their work. Other laws grant you the right to make personal copies for your own use, but that doesn't extend to dowloading copies from somebody else.
Remember My.MP3.com? They ripped about 100,000 CDs and provided access to the ones that you had the corresponding physical CD for. That was roughly the same time as Napster, and it seemed a hell of a lot more reasonable than Napster. But the courts nailed them, even before they got Napster.
It seems much more reasonable if people download MP3s for CDs that they actually own, but -- come on now -- that's at best a tiny percent of what's actually going on, and that's just not who the RIAA is going to make an example of.
Frankly, if I have the CDs, I'd rather rip them myself anyway. That way I'd have control over quality, consistency, and it would be loads faster than P2P'ing all the same files...
"Just because she didn't rip the MP3s to a CD doesn't mean she doesn't own the CD?"
No, but just because she didn't rip the MP3s, well then, she didn't rip the MP3s. And that's what she would have had to do, and what her lawyers implied that she did.
In the slim chance that the RIAA targets somebody that actually owns the vast majority of corresponding CDs, I highly doubt that they would bother puruing that case.
But they might, because the issue is that they want people to stop making those MP3s available for downloading.
Again there's a misconception that this is legal:
Download an MP3 for which I don't have the CD
Keep the MP3 and buy the CD
Decide not to buy the CD and delete the MP3
That's not leagal. And neither is:
Download an MP3 for which I do have the CD
Frankly if that's what everybody was doing, I doubt the RIAA would make much of a fuss.
"Ah but the catch is that they don't know that you didn't own the CD."
Oh, but they do.
With Jane Doe, aka nycfashiongirl, they looked at the meta tags in her files, which included stuff like "ripped by l33t crew" and so on.
Additionally, her MP3s identically matched checksums of files originally available on Napster and the chance of her ripping her own identical copies is vanishingly small.
The evidence that these people have illegal coies is very good.
btw, there's nothing I've ever seen that makes me believe that it's legal to download files that you own the CDs for. That's definitely not 'Fair Use.'
But if you actually get targeted by the RIAA and can prove that you already owned all the CDs, I'd guess that they would drop that case anyway.
A little while ago I was lucky enough to go to the screening for "Standing In The Shadows Of Motown" at the Apollo Theater here in NYC.
It was sponsored in part by Microsoft as a vehicle to show off WM9 for theater use.
I must say it was pretty impressive -- the whole movie was projected from one DVD disk (though not the standard DVD compression) through hi-res projectors. It looked great -- the only time I really noticed was on the credits -- thin white text on a black background brings out the compression artifacts.
The cost of a DVD vs. a huge reel of film is substantial -- but the question, in part, is whether theaters will install the pricey projectors...
A little while ago I was lucky enough to go to the screening for "Standing In The Shadows Of Motown" at the Apollo Theater here in NYC.
It was sponsored in part by Microsoft as a vehicle to show off WM9 for theater use.
I must say it was pretty impressive -- the whole movie was projected from one DVD disk (though not the standard DVD compression) through hi-res projectors. It looked great -- the only time I really noticed was on the credits -- thin white text on a black background brings out the compression artifacts.
The cost of a DVD vs. a huge reel of film is substantial -- but the question, in part, is whether theaters will install the pricey projectors...
"Why is such flamebait scored 5 insightful? You can say that file trading is copyright infringement. Others will say it's fair use, but when you call it theft, or call it immoral, "them's fightin' words." Morality is subjective."
Anybody that calls it fair use, if that's supposed to mean Fair Use -- the provision that permits using a portion of one work within another to make a criticism or parody -- would be wrong.
And if by fair use you mean reasonable, providing unlimited access to others' copyrighted works isn't reasonable anyway.
If you don't like the words "theft" or "immoral" no matter, "illegal" will suffice:
il-le-gal: 1. Prohibited by law.
pro-hib-it-ed: 1. To forbid by authority.
Copyright law grants copyright holders the exclusive rights to distribute their own works. When somebody makes unauthorized copies via file sharing, it is indeed illegal. You may not like it, and the people who get hit with lawsuits certainly won't like it, but sharing copyrighted work is illegal, and sharing thoousands of them is going to get some unlucky people into a load of trouble.
"But is it bad for me to provide a way (with or without authentication) to access said music from work or from another location?
While they are not on a P2P system, much of my music is online and available to me and to anyone who guesses my IP address and the magical mystery port number of the day. No authentication in place. If someone is going to "steal" music simply because I have made it easy for myself to access my music from a friend's house or work, is it any different than leaving a binder of CDs (copies or originals) on my car seat with a door unlocked?"
The important distinction is that when it comes to serving tunes from off your own server, you most likely don't want to provide access to everybody.
You've probably got limited bandwidth, and don't want to waste it all on a bunch of people you don't know, and so you have a natural incentive to keep your collection to yourself.
fwiw, it's for people like you that I made Andromeda, and I think you raise an important question: what is reasonable. Unfortunately, all the foolish arguments that try to represent unlimited Kazaa downloading as 'Fair Use' prevent a more interesting and worthwhile exploration of what really is reasonable.
In your case, assuming that you bought and rippped your own music, the RIAA isn't going to complain if you listen to it over the network. The next question is what if you let a friend listen.
Also, as you mention, what if somebody stumbles onto your site. But again, you don't publish your IP and you change your ports, and so your collection isn't any threat.
"In the end, the company and its employees do get rewards from their "sense of civic good will". And this is why the company does it."
Don't forget tax incentives...;)
IBM is a publicly traded company, and its goal is to maximize return-on-investment. If supporting a cause helps better achieve that goal, they will support that cause.
You're absolutely correct that the people within the company most likely do personally care, but the execs in charge are pulling in tidy salaries for one reason: to make money for shareholders.
Slashdot Mirror
Go bankrupt or something."
Sing on, sweet rhetoric.
What do you actually object to? Did you even read it?
Well, just like (most) other countries don't use the dollar, it seems like each could have it's own micropayment.
Perahps the micropayment value could be hitched to the national currency value, and so the exchange rates would follow between countries, just like regular money does.
If you're not a Salon subscriber, you can click the free 'day pass' link for the full articles.
Personally, I'd like to hear more specifics about alternative systems, and less about how the RIAA is the Great Satan.
Micropayments might be more appealing if managed by 'public trust' rather than 'dot-com.'
I haven't entirely thought it through, but is that better? Worse?
Should they all be expected to change their Terms of Service too? "Warning: when you install Apache, it may include a default page with links to Apache and partner sites."
Not to nit-pick, but a 404 is for Page Not Found and it would need to be sent back by a Web server running at that address. In other words, that domain would have to resolve to an IP that points to a Web server if you want to get a 404.
Just about all new domains (and new hosted sites once you move that domain to an ISP) start off with a Coming Soon page.
But plenty of ISPs also have their own set of links on their Coming Soon pages -- it's certainly not just Register.com that does this.
And plenty of those ISPs are small 'boutique' companies -- shouldn't they all now be worried if their Coming Soon pages include links back to their site?
btw, that Register Coming Soon page was awful, with a flood of popups. Suprisingly un-pro thing to do.
Isn't a Coming Soon page pretty common for most new domains?
I don't really know the details, but back when the ISPs agreed to the DMCA, they accepted the fasttrack subpoena process as a way to shift liability from them to their customers.
In any case, I disagee that the fact that people are being sued is besides the point. This thread is about exactly that.
But the thing is, that isn't legal. For instance, I have some old tapes and they sound like crap, but that doesn't legally entitle me to fresh new MP3s.
However, that is a load more reasonable than collecting thousands of files without any intention of ever paying for anything, which is (generally) who the RIAA will be going after (for now).
I do indeed care about this sort of stuff because of my app Andromeda. In my case, I'm trying to make a living off something that can be P2P'd, just like music.
So when I see the RIAA suing people for copying their work, as opposed to suing the P2P technology itself, it seems a lot more reasonable to me.
People want you to think this is only about music, but it's about everything digital.
When I built Andromeda, I quite specifically set out to make something that would be fair and reasobale.
But your assertion that P2P users are my customers is just wrong. People that are increasingly of the opinion that music should be free simply don't make good customers! ;)
It is illegal to distribute copyrighted material."
No, you are wrong. The Napster ruling clearly stated that both uploaders and downloaders violated copyright law.
The RIAA is going after uploaders because:
If you both had identical CDs, and the same rippers, and the same settings, and the same CDDB data, and the same CD read errors (presumably none) then you would most likely wind up with the same checksum.
A somewhat recent /. discussion is here.
Of course they do! The subpoena doesn't establish guilt -- it only provides the name of the person that the RIAA wants file suit against.
So next, these 260 people (those that don't settle) will go to court, and not until then would they be guilty of anything.
btw, the question of whether this 'fast track' subpoena process is ok is entirely different from the question of whether it's reasonable for the RIAA to sue people that have illegally amassed collections of thousands of MP3s.
Basically, because copyright law grants copyright owners the exclusive right to distribute their work. Other laws grant you the right to make personal copies for your own use, but that doesn't extend to dowloading copies from somebody else.
Remember My.MP3.com? They ripped about 100,000 CDs and provided access to the ones that you had the corresponding physical CD for. That was roughly the same time as Napster, and it seemed a hell of a lot more reasonable than Napster. But the courts nailed them, even before they got Napster.
It seems much more reasonable if people download MP3s for CDs that they actually own, but -- come on now -- that's at best a tiny percent of what's actually going on, and that's just not who the RIAA is going to make an example of.
Frankly, if I have the CDs, I'd rather rip them myself anyway. That way I'd have control over quality, consistency, and it would be loads faster than P2P'ing all the same files...
No, but just because she didn't rip the MP3s, well then, she didn't rip the MP3s. And that's what she would have had to do, and what her lawyers implied that she did.
In the slim chance that the RIAA targets somebody that actually owns the vast majority of corresponding CDs, I highly doubt that they would bother puruing that case.
But they might, because the issue is that they want people to stop making those MP3s available for downloading.
Again there's a misconception that this is legal:
- Download an MP3 for which I don't have the CD
- Keep the MP3 and buy the CD
- Decide not to buy the CD and delete the MP3
That's not leagal. And neither is:- Download an MP3 for which I do have the CD
Frankly if that's what everybody was doing, I doubt the RIAA would make much of a fuss.Oh, but they do.
With Jane Doe, aka nycfashiongirl, they looked at the meta tags in her files, which included stuff like "ripped by l33t crew" and so on.
Additionally, her MP3s identically matched checksums of files originally available on Napster and the chance of her ripping her own identical copies is vanishingly small.
The evidence that these people have illegal coies is very good.
btw, there's nothing I've ever seen that makes me believe that it's legal to download files that you own the CDs for. That's definitely not 'Fair Use.'
But if you actually get targeted by the RIAA and can prove that you already owned all the CDs, I'd guess that they would drop that case anyway.
It was sponsored in part by Microsoft as a vehicle to show off WM9 for theater use.
I must say it was pretty impressive -- the whole movie was projected from one DVD disk (though not the standard DVD compression) through hi-res projectors. It looked great -- the only time I really noticed was on the credits -- thin white text on a black background brings out the compression artifacts.
The cost of a DVD vs. a huge reel of film is substantial -- but the question, in part, is whether theaters will install the pricey projectors...
It was sponsored in part by Microsoft as a vehicle to show off WM9 for theater use.
I must say it was pretty impressive -- the whole movie was projected from one DVD disk (though not the standard DVD compression) through hi-res projectors. It looked great -- the only time I really noticed was on the credits -- thin white text on a black background brings out the compression artifacts.
The cost of a DVD vs. a huge reel of film is substantial -- but the question, in part, is whether theaters will install the pricey projectors...
Anybody that calls it fair use, if that's supposed to mean Fair Use -- the provision that permits using a portion of one work within another to make a criticism or parody -- would be wrong.
And if by fair use you mean reasonable, providing unlimited access to others' copyrighted works isn't reasonable anyway.
If you don't like the words "theft" or "immoral" no matter, "illegal" will suffice:
il-le-gal: 1. Prohibited by law.
pro-hib-it-ed: 1. To forbid by authority.
Copyright law grants copyright holders the exclusive rights to distribute their own works. When somebody makes unauthorized copies via file sharing, it is indeed illegal. You may not like it, and the people who get hit with lawsuits certainly won't like it, but sharing copyrighted work is illegal, and sharing thoousands of them is going to get some unlucky people into a load of trouble.
While they are not on a P2P system, much of my music is online and available to me and to anyone who guesses my IP address and the magical mystery port number of the day. No authentication in place. If someone is going to "steal" music simply because I have made it easy for myself to access my music from a friend's house or work, is it any different than leaving a binder of CDs (copies or originals) on my car seat with a door unlocked?"
The important distinction is that when it comes to serving tunes from off your own server, you most likely don't want to provide access to everybody.
You've probably got limited bandwidth, and don't want to waste it all on a bunch of people you don't know, and so you have a natural incentive to keep your collection to yourself.
fwiw, it's for people like you that I made Andromeda, and I think you raise an important question: what is reasonable. Unfortunately, all the foolish arguments that try to represent unlimited Kazaa downloading as 'Fair Use' prevent a more interesting and worthwhile exploration of what really is reasonable.
In your case, assuming that you bought and rippped your own music, the RIAA isn't going to complain if you listen to it over the network. The next question is what if you let a friend listen.
Also, as you mention, what if somebody stumbles onto your site. But again, you don't publish your IP and you change your ports, and so your collection isn't any threat.
Don't forget tax incentives... ;)
IBM is a publicly traded company, and its goal is to maximize return-on-investment. If supporting a cause helps better achieve that goal, they will support that cause.
You're absolutely correct that the people within the company most likely do personally care, but the execs in charge are pulling in tidy salaries for one reason: to make money for shareholders.
You don't get it.
It takes money to rent buses and buy gas to get to a rally.
It takes money to print and mail flyers.
Money can indeed be spent in ways that help bring out political change, and pretending otherwise doesn't make it so.
If you're interested, check out the site, and feel free to send me an email and ask questions.