You stated yourself why you're wrong. Record labels provide marketing power. Marketing is expensive and a big risk. Record companies are making money because they take these risks. Artists either can't afford or are unwilling to take the same risk, and therefore, sign with a label that takes the risk for them, and therefore gets the lions share of the profit.
I believe on FreeNet, your computer automatically downloads stuff from other users and puts the files on your machine, which then serves as a node for distribution. Therefore, if the FBI raids your home and finds a bunch of copyrighted files, you can say the files must have been put there automatically and that you didn't download them. If it doesn't actually work this way, it probably should.
Actually, that incorrect. If there was no copyright, I could make some changes to Linux, sell that version, and not be required to release the source code.
That is a stupid analogy. There is no legal obligation for the RIAA to provide you with a dvd player when you buy a dvd. When a court orders you to hand over documents, however, that is a legal matter, and you need to comply fully by law.
"The best point made in this article was that the RIAA was stressing that they could NOT contact the users themselves"
Wrong. Just because you can contact songswapper23521, and send him an IM, doesn't mean you can find out that this person is John Smith. Your comment show a lack of understanding of technology.
Did you ever consider that antitrust legislation is so vague that the govt. can make up whatever rules on the fly they want to to persecute any company they choose? Given this, the outcome against MS was just. The govt. simply declared them a monopoly and set some ground rules.
You might consider finding less biased sources rather than picking and choosing articles that back your agenda. A lot more people should have been arrested in the US, not for speaking freely, but for infringing on the rights of people to live their lives. Civil disobedience my ass. They didn't think twice about taking away other people's rights to get some media attention. Who are the real criminals?
Ahh., they didn't arrest him based on anything you mentioned above. They are simply observations made by witnesses or data collected by the FBI. You don't just throw out evidence because you don't think it's relevant. That's for the DA to determine.
If you need to ask suck a question, you need to sit down and think about the difference between objective morality and moral relativism, and the consequence of accepting either system.
"Basically you're saying that your moral judgement of what is right matters more than the moral judgement of those who actually have to live there. And that's insane, not to mention arrogant, colonialist, and wrong."
Your statement is a proclamation of moral relativism, basically saying that everyone has the right to believe what they want, regardless of objective truth. This is complete bs. A rational mind can determine an objective morality, and to allow a govt. to be based on something other than reason, such as mysticism, would be just as bad as not having done anything in the 1st place.
"But consider: the soviets didn't just get up one morning, send all those people off and kill them in one fell swoop before lunch. They sent one person, and then another, and then another, and then another...the MO of a state that does not respect the rights of its citizens is much more like that of a serial killer than of a suicide bomber."
What are you talking about? After the the reds siezed power, they executed a large number of people they felt were enemies of their new state. And let's not for get Stalin. He'd have to rule a hell of a long time to kill millions of people one at a time.
You completely missed the point. Saying this guy was disappeared because he was held six weeks before being charged instead of the normal limit belittles the experience of those who have really been disappeared,i.e. sent to jail for years or even executed because of speaking out about their views. This guy did more than speak out, according to the govt., and he is being charged and tried. Basically, quit insulting our intelligence by trying to put the US govt. actions on the level of totalitarian states, and quit using the slippery slope logical fallicy to claim the govt's actions in these case will lead us to such a totalitarian state.
Not many people will pay 50 cents for a song they've never heard before. You skipped all the expensive steps that the record companies spend their money on, i.e. promotion. And that's not including piracy. If you sell it in an open format, what's preventing someone from getting it from Kazaa for free after you sell a few copies?
Money spent paying lawyers and lawsuit claims is money not spent paying programmers to write more code. Therefore, less code is written and innovation is stifled.
If you believe the DMCA is wrong, don't use it. Instead, use normal copyright law and pay for a lawyer and court costs and hope a judge will authoriz you to make eBay reveal this guy's identity, and then take him to court for damages. If you claim this is the way the RIAA must fight copyright violations, you should do the same thing yourself.
That's BS. Both people had something stolen from them, and both are looking to protect their property through legal action. The only difference is the extent of the damage caused by the copyright violator, which results in a different set of damages.
Hmm. Everyone was up in arms when Verizon wouldn't release the name of a copyright violator to the RIAA. Should eBay be forced to reveal who this copyright violator is, and do you need a judge to sign off on it?
no, every web page is a shared file. every program on download.com, cnet, etc are shared files. I would say the majority of filesharing is not illegal.
That's exactly his point. If it's a legal file, there is a method to get it simply with a web browser. You don't need Morpheus except to get stuff that someone would be arrested for if he put it on a web site.
But without knowledge of the files being traded, they can't be held responsible for contributing to the problem, even if they do have the power to block users.
No. He only ruled Kazaa could be sued in the US. Apparently, if they actually are sued they'd win in his court and not be held liable. All perfectly reasonable and consistent.
Actually, according to the article, the gnutella based companies were not liable because they were not storing file location info on their own computers. That's why Napster was put out of business. An analogy would be that it is illegal to host a swap meet where people trade stolen merchandise. However, since gnutella just provides a mechanism for file sharing, but no database, they are not liable. The college students on the other hand, were maintaining a database of locations of illegal songs, so they are liable.
Slashdot Mirror
You stated yourself why you're wrong. Record labels provide marketing power. Marketing is expensive and a big risk. Record companies are making money because they take these risks. Artists either can't afford or are unwilling to take the same risk, and therefore, sign with a label that takes the risk for them, and therefore gets the lions share of the profit.
I believe on FreeNet, your computer automatically downloads stuff from other users and puts the files on your machine, which then serves as a node for distribution. Therefore, if the FBI raids your home and finds a bunch of copyrighted files, you can say the files must have been put there automatically and that you didn't download them. If it doesn't actually work this way, it probably should.
Actually, that incorrect. If there was no copyright, I could make some changes to Linux, sell that version, and not be required to release the source code.
That's a great idea. They should destroy evidence, just like when Enron's accounting firm shredded their documents.
That is a stupid analogy. There is no legal obligation for the RIAA to provide you with a dvd player when you buy a dvd. When a court orders you to hand over documents, however, that is a legal matter, and you need to comply fully by law.
"The best point made in this article was that the RIAA was stressing that they could NOT contact the users themselves"
Wrong. Just because you can contact songswapper23521, and send him an IM, doesn't mean you can find out that this person is John Smith. Your comment show a lack of understanding of technology.
Did you ever consider that antitrust legislation is so vague that the govt. can make up whatever rules on the fly they want to to persecute any company they choose? Given this, the outcome against MS was just. The govt. simply declared them a monopoly and set some ground rules.
You might consider finding less biased sources rather than picking and choosing articles that back your agenda. A lot more people should have been arrested in the US, not for speaking freely, but for infringing on the rights of people to live their lives. Civil disobedience my ass. They didn't think twice about taking away other people's rights to get some media attention. Who are the real criminals?
Ahh., they didn't arrest him based on anything you mentioned above. They are simply observations made by witnesses or data collected by the FBI. You don't just throw out evidence because you don't think it's relevant. That's for the DA to determine.
If you need to ask suck a question, you need to sit down and think about the difference between objective morality and moral relativism, and the consequence of accepting either system.
"Basically you're saying that your moral judgement of what is right matters more than the moral judgement of those who actually have to live there. And that's insane, not to mention arrogant, colonialist, and wrong."
Your statement is a proclamation of moral relativism, basically saying that everyone has the right to believe what they want, regardless of objective truth. This is complete bs. A rational mind can determine an objective morality, and to allow a govt. to be based on something other than reason, such as mysticism, would be just as bad as not having done anything in the 1st place.
"But consider: the soviets didn't just get up one morning, send all those people off and kill them in one fell swoop before lunch. They sent one person, and then another, and then another, and then another...the MO of a state that does not respect the rights of its citizens is much more like that of a serial killer than of a suicide bomber."
What are you talking about? After the the reds siezed power, they executed a large number of people they felt were enemies of their new state. And let's not for get Stalin. He'd have to rule a hell of a long time to kill millions of people one at a time.
You completely missed the point. Saying this guy was disappeared because he was held six weeks before being charged instead of the normal limit belittles the experience of those who have really been disappeared,i.e. sent to jail for years or even executed because of speaking out about their views. This guy did more than speak out, according to the govt., and he is being charged and tried. Basically, quit insulting our intelligence by trying to put the US govt. actions on the level of totalitarian states, and quit using the slippery slope logical fallicy to claim the govt's actions in these case will lead us to such a totalitarian state.
the whole Apple music catalog could be available on Kazaa. Just download, burn, rip, and share.
Not many people will pay 50 cents for a song they've never heard before. You skipped all the expensive steps that the record companies spend their money on, i.e. promotion. And that's not including piracy. If you sell it in an open format, what's preventing someone from getting it from Kazaa for free after you sell a few copies?
Money spent paying lawyers and lawsuit claims is money not spent paying programmers to write more code. Therefore, less code is written and innovation is stifled.
I guess the average astronaut wouldn't be able to afford a subscription to the NY Times while at the ISS then.
If you believe the DMCA is wrong, don't use it. Instead, use normal copyright law and pay for a lawyer and court costs and hope a judge will authoriz you to make eBay reveal this guy's identity, and then take him to court for damages. If you claim this is the way the RIAA must fight copyright violations, you should do the same thing yourself.
That's BS. Both people had something stolen from them, and both are looking to protect their property through legal action. The only difference is the extent of the damage caused by the copyright violator, which results in a different set of damages.
The RIAA is having a hell of a time getting the name and address of copyright violators. Why do you think this guy is going to have any better luck?
Hmm. Everyone was up in arms when Verizon wouldn't release the name of a copyright violator to the RIAA. Should eBay be forced to reveal who this copyright violator is, and do you need a judge to sign off on it?
no, every web page is a shared file. every program on download.com, cnet, etc are shared files. I would say the majority of filesharing is not illegal.
That's exactly his point. If it's a legal file, there is a method to get it simply with a web browser. You don't need Morpheus except to get stuff that someone would be arrested for if he put it on a web site.
But without knowledge of the files being traded, they can't be held responsible for contributing to the problem, even if they do have the power to block users.
No. He only ruled Kazaa could be sued in the US. Apparently, if they actually are sued they'd win in his court and not be held liable. All perfectly reasonable and consistent.
Actually, according to the article, the gnutella based companies were not liable because they were not storing file location info on their own computers. That's why Napster was put out of business. An analogy would be that it is illegal to host a swap meet where people trade stolen merchandise. However, since gnutella just provides a mechanism for file sharing, but no database, they are not liable. The college students on the other hand, were maintaining a database of locations of illegal songs, so they are liable.