First of all I don't see how "wide scale" has any bearing on whether something should be civil or criminal. If we have "wide scale slander" does that mean slander should become criminal too?
There's no law (that I know of) against standing on your head in your underwear while throwing tomatoes at passing dogs. The reason is, quite simply, that not very many people would want to do that. If someone does do this, then they can be sued/charged under existing statues. However, if large numbers of people start performing an illegal act, it becomes productive to pass some more specific legislation.
BTW, in regards to the converse argument, it seems on/. that large numbers of people believe that music piracy should be legal simply because it is wide scale.
-a
Re:Check out Internet Mail 2000
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 2
This from a guy whose.sig is only one step above spam.
You sound like the people who thought that the Internet presented a "whole new paradigm" and that the old business models were obsolete. Turns out they were wrong, and that eventually the dotcom boom turned into a speculative bubble.
Hell, no. I didn't believe that at all. I saw the crash coming from miles off. I put all my money into ultra-conservative investments about a year before the crash happened.
FWIW, my comment was a tongue-in-cheek attempt to parrot an attitude I hear on/. every day, which is a whole whack of people who have absolutely not business sense decreeing that everyone else has an obsolete business case. Of course, the business case for free software can't really be considered obsolete, since it never made sense in the first place.
Personally, I don't think open source software will eliminate commercial software either. I think, one of 3 things will happen: 1) courts will refuse to enforce the license because you can't prove damages, 2) governments will pass laws restricting viral licensing because it is anti-business, or 3) companies will steal open source source code but they will become very good at covering their tracks.
"Network users have a back door to your hard drive while you're online, thereby seeing your personal, private information, such as bank records, social security number, etc."
Hmm... there have been e-mail viruses that randomly send personal files to your friends. How long before viruses start placing your personal files in your shared folders?
I'm sure some/. readers would care to speculate on who would like to write such a virus...
The same stipulation in the GPL states that if any part of a GPL'ed program turns out to be GPL-incompatible, you lose the right to distribute any of it.
For most of US history copyright violation was a purely civil matter. They never should have started stuffing criminal statues under a civil title.
For most of US history, music piracy was not possible on such a wide scale like it is today. The law needs to adapt to the times. Lets look at how the law really works. Lets see you go into a mall and buy a DAT player or any related digital audio device - ten year old technology. Perfectly good technology. Can't find one? The entire technology/market was EXTERMINATED by copyright law.
But strangely enough, you *can* walk into a mall and buy an MP3 player. How about scientific conferences being moved out of the United States and US researchers droping out of some feilds out of fear of imprisonment under copyight law?
Irrational overreaction. How about journalists being told that a LINK in an article is illegal under copyright law?
I imagine this is a link to some illegal material, such as a link to warez or copyright circumvention technology. That doesn't bug me one bit. We've got a senator publicly announcing it's a good idea for vigilanties to blow up computers in the name of copyright.
The American government appears to be composed largely of right-wing extremists and religious fanatics. But then again, someone had to elect these people. And to get back to this specific law the way it really works is that anyone accused of copyright infringment can be threatened with X counts adding up to Y years in prison and Z million/billion dollars in fines if they don't "confess" and accept whatever deal is offered.
I hate to break this to you, but that's the way *every* law works. They threaten murderers with the death penalty in hopes they'll settle for life. They coerce testimony out of reluctant witnesses with threats of prison time. Look at the RPI search engine case.
I don't remember it well enough to comment. And the case is all because he had a completely content-neutral search engine.
I generally don't buy the "it's not a bong, it's a water pipe" defense.
"We" are complaining that they are not making the source freely available, it is very different. We are complaining that they are NOT shareing information with the community, they are complaining that we ARE sharing information with the community. The posts about MPAA/RIAA/DMCA violating our rights are in fact arguing the same thing as posts about companies no abiding by the GPL. "We" think that information should be free to be used by everyone and not burdened by restrictive silly licenses, copyrights, and patents.
Basically:
YOU are doing what you want. THEY are doing what they want. YOU think you are right and they are wrong (big surprise) THE LAW says you are both wrong. SO THERE!
Not only does the ISP lose incentive, it also has to essentially pay for "RIAA employees." If the RIAA continually submits subpeonas for 75 people a day, somebody on the ISP payroll has to be trudging around digging up IP addresses and sending them to the RIAA.
Look on the bright side. As I'm sure you're aware, computers allow repetitive tasks to be automated. Maybe they'll hire an unemployed Perl programmer to write a simple script that searches through the logs and prints out the relevant data. Then they won't have to have someone "trudging around" digging up IP addresses.
The one pattern I see is that the overwhelming number of the artists seem to be those that appeal to under 25's. Obviously the RIAA have decided to go for those who can least afford to offer legal resistance (school kids and college students).
Or maybe it just turns out that the file sharing demographic is disproportionally composed of young people... nah, you're right. They must be specifically targeting people who can't afford a lawyer.
"The RIAA is also not a monopoly. There are plenty of small labels out there" There are plenty of non-ticketmaster shows out there put on by smaller bands at smaller venues.
Ticketmaster has exclusive deals with all the big venues. That's the point. It's almost impossible to bring in a big-name act without going through Ticketmaster. "but it's apparently not as easy to be a music label as many people think." Is that why so many bands run their own label for years before getting signed by a major label?
Do you have to nitpick? I'll rephrase: it's apparently not as easy to be a successful music label as many people think.
My point is this: Sure, there are hundreds of indie labels out there. How many of them do you know of that sell CDs for $2-$3 each? (The suggested retail value according to/.) The money to record an album argument is crap, considering a) it has to be paid back, and b) it's overpriced overproduced recordings anyway.
???
Try going to a bank and convincing them to loan you $1,000,000 to tide you over while you spend 2 years pursuing a music career. I disagree that most bands "that don't suck" have already produced several albums before they get signed. Nowadays, maybe more of them have, seeing as how it's easier to burn your own CDs now. I doubt many of those bands have sold more than a hundred CDs, though.
The idea of a community computer lab is that you *pay* someone to teach you what *you* want to know. There's another place you can go where you pay someone to teach you what *they* want you to know... it's called a university.
Later on, you also state: "Music labels front the money for an album and they assume much of the risk if it fails." Not quite true. Although the RIAA does assume risk, they basically force the artist to cover all their expenditures
They front the money (provide it up-front). I didn't say it was a gift.
What I'm saying is that it would be pretty difficult to claim a high retail version of something you no longer sell. The punishment for this crime is specified in Sec. 2319. A single copy of a single file with a "total retail value" of one cent shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year. If you send a single file multiple times a five year prision term may apply, and 10 years on a second offence.
What's the maximum penalty for shoplifting? And yet Winona walks out with community service. Despite your shock, I'm sure you're aware of the way the law *really* works. First, note that you just cited maximum sentences and not minimum sentences. As the lawyer said here the other day, your average file trader on Kazaa is going to face a civil suit, not criminal charges.
Of course the other 80% of threads in response to this article go on to say "and that's why I use Kazaa instead of BuyTunes." What did Lars Ulrich say about Napster? "We're not opposed to Napster, but no one give us the option not to participate. And for that, Metallica is demonized. So BuyTunes is, at worst, no worse than P2P.
the law says it is a crime and the copyright holder can sue AND have you put in prison for it.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. (If you think back to the ask slashdot article a few days ago where they talked to the copyright narc...)
There's a higher standard for criminal file sharing than for a civil suit. You would have to share more than that one file. The penalty for file sharing (and the threshhold for criminal charges) is based on damages.
Many/.ers don't believe that file sharing causes damages, but the law disagrees. Anyway, it's hard to claim high damages for a film that you are no longer selling.
Ticketmaster charges what, 50% service charge? As sick as that is (and it's really disgusting), it's nowhere close to what the RIAA gets from artists. If I had to choose between the two, I'd have to pick ticketmaster.
Ticketbastard charges an exorbitant fee to sell tickets, mostly because they have a de facto monopoly through exclusive deals with venues. They don't front the money for the concert and they don't assume any risk.
Music labels front the money for an album and they assume much of the risk if it fails. The RIAA is also not a monopoly. There are plenty of small labels out there, but it's apparently not as easy to be a music label as many people think. The main complaint I have with the labels is that they force bands to agree to 6 album deals. That's really unfair. As for your first album, the label is taking a big risk on you, so I think it's only fair that they get 90% of the profits.
Face it. Ticketbastard is a much greater evil than the RIAA.
Actually, it's pretty clear. Distributing copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission is illegal. Nothing murky about it. The sense that I seem to get from slashdot is people really, really want to share files, so they tell themselves there's nothing wrong with it.
Clearly the way it works is that any cirumstance that I happen to disagree with at the time can be labeled 'murky'.
Personally, I like the fact that/.'ers have blatant disregard for copyright. It makes me feel less guilty about the fact that I have blatant disregard for the GPL and I violate it every chance I get.
There are people who trade rare, hard to find (read: suppressed by the studios) cartoons. Most are indeed over 50 years old. Let me mention a few names. "Song Of The South." "Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarves." "Tin Pan Alley Cats." "Uncle Tom's Cabana." "Herr vs. Hare." "The Blitz Wolf." "Tokio Jokio." "The Japoteurs." etc. etc.
Do you have any evidence that the MPAA is targeting people who share these files?
If Microsoft (or anyone else) could prove that Linux violated any patents, then it would be illegal (according to the GPL) for anyone to distribute Linux, even if they took out a license for the patent.
Many free software projects don't even follow the GPL that closely. How often do you see GPL'ed projects which incorporate incompatible code (e.g. by requiring the "obnoxious advertising" clause).
Some of these licenses are going to be ruled unenforceable in some parts of the world before this is all over. But which ones?
Slashdot Mirror
First of all I don't see how "wide scale" has any bearing on whether something should be civil or criminal. If we have "wide scale slander" does that mean slander should become criminal too?
There's no law (that I know of) against standing on your head in your underwear while throwing tomatoes at passing dogs. The reason is, quite simply, that not very many people would want to do that. If someone does do this, then they can be sued/charged under existing statues. However, if large numbers of people start performing an illegal act, it becomes productive to pass some more specific legislation.
BTW, in regards to the converse argument, it seems on
-a
This from a guy whose .sig is only one step above spam.
-a
You sound like the people who thought that the Internet presented a "whole new paradigm" and that the old business models were obsolete. Turns out they were wrong, and that eventually the dotcom boom turned into a speculative bubble.
Hell, no. I didn't believe that at all. I saw the crash coming from miles off. I put all my money into ultra-conservative investments about a year before the crash happened.
FWIW, my comment was a tongue-in-cheek attempt to parrot an attitude I hear on
Personally, I don't think open source software will eliminate commercial software either. I think, one of 3 things will happen: 1) courts will refuse to enforce the license because you can't prove damages, 2) governments will pass laws restricting viral licensing because it is anti-business, or 3) companies will steal open source source code but they will become very good at covering their tracks.
-a
How about to support the developers that work to make your 'free software' in their spare time. They need money too.
Why should I pay money to support their obsolete business model? Adapt or die.
-a
"Network users have a back door to your hard drive while you're online, thereby seeing your personal, private information, such as bank records, social security number, etc."
/. readers would care to speculate on who would like to write such a virus...
Hmm... there have been e-mail viruses that randomly send personal files to your friends. How long before viruses start placing your personal files in your shared folders?
I'm sure some
-a
The same stipulation in the GPL states that if any part of a GPL'ed program turns out to be GPL-incompatible, you lose the right to distribute any of it.
-a
The GPL doesn't say you can't use Linux if it contains patented code, just that you can't re-distribute it.
-a
For most of US history copyright violation was a purely civil matter. They never should have started stuffing criminal statues under a civil title.
For most of US history, music piracy was not possible on such a wide scale like it is today. The law needs to adapt to the times.
Lets look at how the law really works. Lets see you go into a mall and buy a DAT player or any related digital audio device - ten year old technology. Perfectly good technology. Can't find one? The entire technology/market was EXTERMINATED by copyright law.
But strangely enough, you *can* walk into a mall and buy an MP3 player.
How about scientific conferences being moved out of the United States and US researchers droping out of some feilds out of fear of imprisonment under copyight law?
Irrational overreaction.
How about journalists being told that a LINK in an article is illegal under copyright law?
I imagine this is a link to some illegal material, such as a link to warez or copyright circumvention technology. That doesn't bug me one bit.
We've got a senator publicly announcing it's a good idea for vigilanties to blow up computers in the name of copyright.
The American government appears to be composed largely of right-wing extremists and religious fanatics. But then again, someone had to elect these people.
And to get back to this specific law the way it really works is that anyone accused of copyright infringment can be threatened with X counts adding up to Y years in prison and Z million/billion dollars in fines if they don't "confess" and accept whatever deal is offered.
I hate to break this to you, but that's the way *every* law works. They threaten murderers with the death penalty in hopes they'll settle for life. They coerce testimony out of reluctant witnesses with threats of prison time.
Look at the RPI search engine case.
I don't remember it well enough to comment.
And the case is all because he had a completely content-neutral search engine.
I generally don't buy the "it's not a bong, it's a water pipe" defense.
-a
"We" are complaining that they are not making the source freely available, it is very different. We are complaining that they are NOT shareing information with the community, they are complaining that we ARE sharing information with the community. The posts about MPAA/RIAA/DMCA violating our rights are in fact arguing the same thing as posts about companies no abiding by the GPL. "We" think that information should be free to be used by everyone and not burdened by restrictive silly licenses, copyrights, and patents.
Basically:
YOU are doing what you want.
THEY are doing what they want.
YOU think you are right and they are wrong (big surprise)
THE LAW says you are both wrong.
SO THERE!
-a
Not only does the ISP lose incentive, it also has to essentially pay for "RIAA employees." If the RIAA continually submits subpeonas for 75 people a day, somebody on the ISP payroll has to be trudging around digging up IP addresses and sending them to the RIAA.
Look on the bright side. As I'm sure you're aware, computers allow repetitive tasks to be automated. Maybe they'll hire an unemployed Perl programmer to write a simple script that searches through the logs and prints out the relevant data. Then they won't have to have someone "trudging around" digging up IP addresses.
-a
I think what I really need is a robot that will attend meetings on my behalf and make people *think* I'm listening in via teleconferencing.
-a
Oligopolies are highly underrated. Think to yourself, where would we be without oligopolies? *Anarchy*, man! *Anarchy*.
-a
The one pattern I see is that the overwhelming number of the artists seem to be those that appeal to under 25's. Obviously the RIAA have decided to go for those who can least afford to offer legal resistance (school kids and college students).
Or maybe it just turns out that the file sharing demographic is disproportionally composed of young people... nah, you're right. They must be specifically targeting people who can't afford a lawyer.
-a
"The RIAA is also not a monopoly. There are plenty of small labels out there" There are plenty of non-ticketmaster shows out there put on by smaller bands at smaller venues.
Ticketmaster has exclusive deals with all the big venues. That's the point. It's almost impossible to bring in a big-name act without going through Ticketmaster.
"but it's apparently not as easy to be a music label as many people think." Is that why so many bands run their own label for years before getting signed by a major label?
Do you have to nitpick? I'll rephrase: it's apparently not as easy to be a successful music label as many people think.
My point is this: Sure, there are hundreds of indie labels out there. How many of them do you know of that sell CDs for $2-$3 each? (The suggested retail value according to
The money to record an album argument is crap, considering a) it has to be paid back, and b) it's overpriced overproduced recordings anyway.
???
Try going to a bank and convincing them to loan you $1,000,000 to tide you over while you spend 2 years pursuing a music career. I disagree that most bands "that don't suck" have already produced several albums before they get signed. Nowadays, maybe more of them have, seeing as how it's easier to burn your own CDs now. I doubt many of those bands have sold more than a hundred CDs, though.
-a
The idea of a community computer lab is that you *pay* someone to teach you what *you* want to know. There's another place you can go where you pay someone to teach you what *they* want you to know... it's called a university.
-a
Later on, you also state: "Music labels front the money for an album and they assume much of the risk if it fails." Not quite true. Although the RIAA does assume risk, they basically force the artist to cover all their expenditures
They front the money (provide it up-front). I didn't say it was a gift.
-a
What I'm saying is that it would be pretty difficult to claim a high retail version of something you no longer sell.
The punishment for this crime is specified in Sec. 2319. A single copy of a single file with a "total retail value" of one cent shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year. If you send a single file multiple times a five year prision term may apply, and 10 years on a second offence.
What's the maximum penalty for shoplifting? And yet Winona walks out with community service. Despite your shock, I'm sure you're aware of the way the law *really* works. First, note that you just cited maximum sentences and not minimum sentences. As the lawyer said here the other day, your average file trader on Kazaa is going to face a civil suit, not criminal charges.
-a
too bad IPv6 doesn't have DNS eh? Oh wait, it does.
That would be fine, except for the half hour it takes me to type in the IP of the DNS server.
-a
Of course the other 80% of threads in response to this article go on to say "and that's why I use Kazaa instead of BuyTunes." What did Lars Ulrich say about Napster? "We're not opposed to Napster, but no one give us the option not to participate. And for that, Metallica is demonized. So BuyTunes is, at worst, no worse than P2P.
-a
the law says it is a crime and the copyright holder can sue AND have you put in prison for it.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. (If you think back to the ask slashdot article a few days ago where they talked to the copyright narc...)
There's a higher standard for criminal file sharing than for a civil suit. You would have to share more than that one file. The penalty for file sharing (and the threshhold for criminal charges) is based on damages.
Many
-a
I'm not supporting the idea of perpetual copyright. But I don't know of anyone sharing these files and I don't know of anyone being persecuted for it.
-a
Ticketmaster charges what, 50% service charge? As sick as that is (and it's really disgusting), it's nowhere close to what the RIAA gets from artists. If I had to choose between the two, I'd have to pick ticketmaster.
Ticketbastard charges an exorbitant fee to sell tickets, mostly because they have a de facto monopoly through exclusive deals with venues. They don't front the money for the concert and they don't assume any risk.
Music labels front the money for an album and they assume much of the risk if it fails. The RIAA is also not a monopoly. There are plenty of small labels out there, but it's apparently not as easy to be a music label as many people think. The main complaint I have with the labels is that they force bands to agree to 6 album deals. That's really unfair. As for your first album, the label is taking a big risk on you, so I think it's only fair that they get 90% of the profits.
Face it. Ticketbastard is a much greater evil than the RIAA.
-a
Actually, it's pretty clear. Distributing copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission is illegal. Nothing murky about it. The sense that I seem to get from slashdot is people really, really want to share files, so they tell themselves there's nothing wrong with it.
Clearly the way it works is that any cirumstance that I happen to disagree with at the time can be labeled 'murky'.
Personally, I like the fact that
-a
There are people who trade rare, hard to find (read: suppressed by the studios) cartoons. Most are indeed over 50 years old. Let me mention a few names. "Song Of The South." "Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarves." "Tin Pan Alley Cats." "Uncle Tom's Cabana." "Herr vs. Hare." "The Blitz Wolf." "Tokio Jokio." "The Japoteurs." etc. etc.
Do you have any evidence that the MPAA is targeting people who share these files?
-a
Some interesting scenarios, though:
If Microsoft (or anyone else) could prove that Linux violated any patents, then it would be illegal (according to the GPL) for anyone to distribute Linux, even if they took out a license for the patent.
Many free software projects don't even follow the GPL that closely. How often do you see GPL'ed projects which incorporate incompatible code (e.g. by requiring the "obnoxious advertising" clause).
Some of these licenses are going to be ruled unenforceable in some parts of the world before this is all over. But which ones?
-a