"So you mean, if I rip my copy of Britney's "Baby Slap My Ass With a Trout" and compress it with LAME 2.6, it will be different from everyone else's copy compressed with LAME 2.6?"
Maybe. For example, a lot of the MP3s traded over P2P have ID3 tags with stuff like "Ripped by Clan 42" -- and when that matches stuff from way back in the Napster days, it makes for pretty compelling evidence.
"These rulings may weaken the case of the MPAA and RIAA if they get to the point of getting to a court"
Well, no. These rulings should have no bearing on another trial, if it does make it to the Supreme Court. Additionally, it also ensures more end-user lawsuits.
"but I suspect their whole idea of litigation is much like the threats against individuals - no matter if they had a solid case against the MPAA/RIAA, just going through those motions would cost more than settling, so they'll push operators into a settlement under *AA terms."
The evidence is quite good, from what I remember, including stuff like hashes matching files originally recorded back during the Napster days.
"As far as I know, none of the individuals that the RIAA/MPAA have "sued" ended up actually being sued, just settling due to the threats."
I'm not sure if there have been any full trials, but there have been default judgements issued by judges. Settlement generally goes for about $3000 and default judgements for considerably more.
I think people generally settle, because, you know, they got caught.
"i may be comfused, but i was under the impression that none of these cases had actually gone through the court process, let alone been lost. could you post a link for one of these lost cases?"
Sure, try this -- though it seems to reference "default" judgments. Regardless, the people who lose those default judgments wind up paying more than those who settle.
"What really needs to happen is that someone with an extensive music collection, and the desire to fight this, needs to leave various P2P applications open 24/7 with access to their vast, legal music collection, so that someone will notice."
Go for it!
PS: those who stood up (and didn't settle) lost more money.
On the other hand, I think Kazaa is just a scuzzy operation, and I'd rather see them get sued than a bunch of end-users. But the Grokster ruling means that's not going to be the way it works, at least not for now.
If you don't like the RIAA, don't buy their stuff, and don't copy it. Go find new independent artists, and support them directly.
"In light of the recent court decision, will Apple still be able to use the DMCA to bully Sourceforge into taking down the software?"
The two issues are unrelated. If Apple is asking Sourceforge to take down software that circumvents access control, that's a DMCA thing.
This ruling, on the other hand, says that P2P vendors cannot be generally held accountable for how some (most) may use their software. This ruling does not permit circumvention of access control, as added by DMCA
There was recently an article on Wired saying that Fark is selling some story placement.
However, I have sympathy for places like Fark that are trying to figure out how to cover costs, and pay a few salaries. According to the logic of many threads here and elsewhere:
1) they should not sell subscriptions
2) they should not require a logon
3) nobody clicks banner ads anyway
So what's a good guy with a good site to do? (Hint: donations and t-shirts isn't the answer)
"On the other hand, one of the quotes in the C-Net article from an Apple fan says something like "Just because you don't like iTunes doesn't give you the right to reverse engineer the iPod". Well, yes it does. In fact, reverse engineering is the only thing Real has a right to do in this case, and it's why most legal experts think Apple has no real case against Real if this goes to court (search related articles on C-Net). If Real did reverse engineer the iPod, then more power to them. They're acting within copyright law."
I think the question is whether Real had to circumvent Apple access-control min order to reverse-engineer the iPod. In other words, I think it depends on just what it took to achieve this bit of reverse-engineering. (from DMCA)
However, I'm sure that Real knows perfectly well about that, and so I'd be pretty surprised if they were stupid enough to violate the DMCA in order to get this done... (Real must know to keep a "clean room" for doing something like this)
People think Communism is bad because it didn't work.
Some may argue that the USSR, etc., wasn't "real Communism" but then the question remains: why wasn't it? Do traits of human nature (especially of those inclined to seek power) make such ideals unachievable.
In any case, I think an economic argument in support of free software would carry more weight coming from someone other than "OSNews publisher, ex-Red Hat employee David Adams."
"If you don't think you can find any non-RIAA music on P2P networks, you're being just as blatantly ignorant as someone who says all music should be totally free"
er, when, exactly did I say that? All I said was that the EFF condones illegal file shring, and to back that up I produced two high visibility examples from the EFF's own site, as well as the dictionary definition of "condone."
If it would make you feel better to see me say that some filesharing over P2P is legal, I will:
"Pro-P2P != Pro copyright infringement. There is no lack of consistency. They think the software is good, but do not condone the illegal activities done on it."
If you don't think an ad campaign declaring "File Sharing: It's Music to our Ears" condones just such illegal filesharing, then I guess we'll never see this the same way.
Likewise, their promotional "MP3 Caper" sets it all up as a hip dude that wants music.
Condone: "To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure."
What's especially creepy is that groups like the EFF are now getting interested in monitoring network traffic. In their case, as part of a "solution" to compensate authors when their work gets p2p'd.
Look here and see for yourself: "Figuring out what is popular can be accomplished through a mix of anonymously monitoring what people are sharing."
Even if we believed in "anonymous monitoring" there would then be no way to detect when people are cheating through download bots, etc...
The EFF has long staked out a pro-P2P position, and has gladly accepted lots of membership dollars on account of it. At least when it comes to P2P, they entirely lack logical consistency.
"Asking people to pay for a license that doesn't cover everything and doesn't make it clear what isn't covered puts an unfair burden on them. For the most part, people are downloading music because it is incredibly easy to do. Making that voluntarily harder won't solve anything."
And that's exactly why I say that the EFF proposal is just smoke and mirrors...
Slashdot Mirror
I say the robot should catch the flies, and then use them to lure frogs. Imagine the power.
Maybe. For example, a lot of the MP3s traded over P2P have ID3 tags with stuff like "Ripped by Clan 42" -- and when that matches stuff from way back in the Napster days, it makes for pretty compelling evidence.
Well, no. These rulings should have no bearing on another trial, if it does make it to the Supreme Court. Additionally, it also ensures more end-user lawsuits.
"but I suspect their whole idea of litigation is much like the threats against individuals - no matter if they had a solid case against the MPAA/RIAA, just going through those motions would cost more than settling, so they'll push operators into a settlement under *AA terms."
The evidence is quite good, from what I remember, including stuff like hashes matching files originally recorded back during the Napster days.
"As far as I know, none of the individuals that the RIAA/MPAA have "sued" ended up actually being sued, just settling due to the threats."
I'm not sure if there have been any full trials, but there have been default judgements issued by judges. Settlement generally goes for about $3000 and default judgements for considerably more.
I think people generally settle, because, you know, they got caught.
So, expect trial losses to cost more than settlement.
Unless, of course, the defendent didn't actually share thousands of files -- I mean, does anybody actually do that? ;-)
If it works in GMail, expect to see GIM.
Check out the Nile and the coastline of Europe.
And the freeddom to use the code in closed commercial applications makes it *even more free* than restricting it to only other open source projets.
And Doc Ock was unavailable for comment...
OK, and as I said in the parent post, just about every case so far has either settled for about $3000, or lost for about $5000-$10000.
A default judgmenet is a loss, and those who have lost via default judgmenets are paying more than those who have settled.
Sure, try this -- though it seems to reference "default" judgments. Regardless, the people who lose those default judgments wind up paying more than those who settle.
Go for it!
PS: those who stood up (and didn't settle) lost more money.
Is that the sort of "class defense" you had in mind?
This is the correct approach.
The Grokster ruling basically reinforces the notion that the only people that rightsholders can sue at this point are the endusers.
Personally, I agree that you shouldn't generally hold a technology accountable for how some may misuse it. Along those lines, the EFF themselves used to suggest that the RIAA should be suing infringers.
On the other hand, I think Kazaa is just a scuzzy operation, and I'd rather see them get sued than a bunch of end-users. But the Grokster ruling means that's not going to be the way it works, at least not for now.
If you don't like the RIAA, don't buy their stuff, and don't copy it. Go find new independent artists, and support them directly.
The two issues are unrelated. If Apple is asking Sourceforge to take down software that circumvents access control, that's a DMCA thing.
This ruling, on the other hand, says that P2P vendors cannot be generally held accountable for how some (most) may use their software. This ruling does not permit circumvention of access control, as added by DMCA
The catch is more end-user lawsuits...
However, I have sympathy for places like Fark that are trying to figure out how to cover costs, and pay a few salaries. According to the logic of many threads here and elsewhere:
1) they should not sell subscriptions
2) they should not require a logon
3) nobody clicks banner ads anyway
So what's a good guy with a good site to do? (Hint: donations and t-shirts isn't the answer)
I think the question is whether Real had to circumvent Apple access-control min order to reverse-engineer the iPod. In other words, I think it depends on just what it took to achieve this bit of reverse-engineering. (from DMCA)
However, I'm sure that Real knows perfectly well about that, and so I'd be pretty surprised if they were stupid enough to violate the DMCA in order to get this done... (Real must know to keep a "clean room" for doing something like this)
Some may argue that the USSR, etc., wasn't "real Communism" but then the question remains: why wasn't it? Do traits of human nature (especially of those inclined to seek power) make such ideals unachievable.
In any case, I think an economic argument in support of free software would carry more weight coming from someone other than "OSNews publisher, ex-Red Hat employee David Adams."
Though I must say Catwoman comes close.
Their "File Sharing: It's Music to our Ears" campaign specifically shows a lineup of criminals, targeted for illegally downloading music.
If these were legal files, then this would be a non-issue, and there would be no need to use the criminal imagry.
er, when, exactly did I say that? All I said was that the EFF condones illegal file shring, and to back that up I produced two high visibility examples from the EFF's own site, as well as the dictionary definition of "condone."
If it would make you feel better to see me say that some filesharing over P2P is legal, I will:
Some filesharing over P2P is legal.
But, the vast majority isn't.
If you don't think an ad campaign declaring "File Sharing: It's Music to our Ears" condones just such illegal filesharing, then I guess we'll never see this the same way.
Likewise, their promotional "MP3 Caper" sets it all up as a hip dude that wants music.
Condone: "To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure."
Look here and see for yourself: "Figuring out what is popular can be accomplished through a mix of anonymously monitoring what people are sharing."
Even if we believed in "anonymous monitoring" there would then be no way to detect when people are cheating through download bots, etc...
From the dictionary: "condone -- To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure."
From the EFF site: File Sharing: It's Music to our Ears and The MP3 Caper, etc.
The EFF has long staked out a pro-P2P position, and has gladly accepted lots of membership dollars on account of it. At least when it comes to P2P, they entirely lack logical consistency.
And that's exactly why I say that the EFF proposal is just smoke and mirrors...