" It's an INTERVIEW with the system's author and he's giving his opinion. Which, come to think of it, is what one DOES in an interview, you know, ask someone what they think? Sheesh."
You are very correct, but it's interesting to compare this to the reaction a few months back when an interview with Bill Gates was referenced on/. When Bill was asked his opinion of the level of threat that Linux presented and Bill gave his expected answer, it was quite a sight to see: everybody was taking their turn calling him variations on "arrogant" and "+5, Insightful"s were being handed out like Fun Sized Snickers bars at Halloween. Meanwhile, here on September 13th, Hans Reiser makes a similar statement (as is his prerogative) and folks are largely basking in the sunshine that is pouring out of his ass.
" Yes. Apple sold it. Not some RIAA-sponsored site, or one put up by Sony, Vivendi or any of the rest of them. And if you think that the entertainment people are happy about that, you are sadly mistaken."
Remember, the record companies do 99% of their business through resellers. That's largely how their business model works. The iTMS is just another reseller to them, like Amazon or Tower Records. The difference is that it's a wildly popular reseller, and they make more margin than they do in the traditional channel -- no returns, price protections, co-op ads, and the squillion other things that eat at margins in the traditional brick and mortar channels.
"And control of distribution is the crux of the problem: no matter how many songs that iTunes sells for them it won't make any difference because iTunes isn't owned or controlled by the RIAA, and Apple Computer is not part of their group."
That's how it's always worked. The record companies have traditionally worked in what's called a two-tier distribution mechanism: they sell the CD into distribution, who in turn sells it to a reseller. Stating that the record companies are upset because they don't own the iTMS is a bit like stating that they are unhappy because they don't own Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Amazon, Tower Records, or any of the innumerable music stores out there. It's correct, but meaningless.
"No, they most certainly do not get it, will never get it, and would like nothing better than for the Internet to just go away."
The record industry has survived half a dozen format changes over the past 50 years. The iTMS is huge. Meanwhile, "Open source" music labels like Magnatune, which fit many Slashdotter's model of the perfect record label, are flailing. The major labels get this Internet thing just fine.
"I'd like to see how this is going to happen. If they had that much money, I'm sure they would have had a better defense in court."
A company for which I worked was deep into talks with Kazaa for advertising on their service a couple of years back. The contract wasn't for a particularly long time but Kazaa wanted well into the six figures. This was around the time that Kazaa was running those "Join the revolution" full-page ads in the NYT.
The commentary on the court case also went into some detail on Nikki Hemming's luxurious house. The consensus seems to be that Kazaa has reaped hundred of millions of dollars. This seems accurate to me.
"Kazzaa isn't the same though. While it got a large amount of its user base from digital pirates, they have had a section of their documentation set aside to explain that they don't endorse infringing copyrights with their software."
Most P2P software has this. It's meaningless.
The court records show that Sharman condoned, encouraged and profited from piracy. They even ran ad campaigns that made it clear that they knew what was going on, and that they wanted people to use their network for piracy.
"I hope the courts in AU will realize that allowing people to join a network that has digital pirates on it isn't the fault of the creator when it means that entire servers and ISPs should be shut down as a result."
Kazaa's wild success as a medium for piracy was most certainly as a result of Sharman's efforts. Sharman isn't a gathering "information wants to be free" hippies... they're a for-profit company, set up in the tax haven of Vanatu, for the singular purpose of making lots of money by tapping into the huge demand for pirated material. And they were a success -- they've made untold millions.
If you thought that their warnings to users not to engage in piracy were genuine or heartfelt, or would let them escape the law, you were mistaken.
"The media outfits, unfortunately, have chosen to not adapt."
Wow. Apple just sold their 50 millionth track on the iTunes Music store. Online music sales are now 5% of the total music market, and they're growing logarithmically. And the record labels probably make more money via online sales than the traditional channels. It may have taken a few years of stumbling for them to figure it out (and with the help of smart people like Steve Jobs), but this "the media companies just don't get it" line is getting harder and harder to believe.
"Instead, they have used the law (in numerous countries) to threaten and intimidate people and companies, and have gone to the extreme of buying custom-written laws, all with the intent of preserving the "status quo ante"."
Media companies, just like you and me, can walk and chew gum at the same time. They've even admitted to using the carrot and stick approach with regard to the online music business. One one hand, they're taking advantage of the wildly growning demand for paid, legal music downloads, and on the other hand, they are taking advantage of their rights under the law, which is entirely their prerogative.
If a good friend of yours told you that somebody was using technology to break the law and give them grief, and they told you that they were just going to roll over and not contact the authorities, you would likely accuse them of being a huge pussy -- and rightly so. Technology or no technology, you and your friends fight back when you think you're wronged -- so you can certainly expect big businesses to do the same.
"When push comes to shove, they may be able to come up with a legal definition to try to separate Kazaa from these."
Huh? This was all covered in the decision. Sharman tried the "we're just a carrier" defense and were laughed at.
"But most likely, this sucks, because the judge didn't realize quite the landmine he was stepping into."
Reading the decision shows that they went way beyond that. I think many people who've RTFA but who haven't RTFCD are under the impression that the ruling was made after 20 minutes; the reality is that the case stretched on for many, many months, and included the testimony of computer science professors from UC Berkeley and other institutions. The common Slashdot mentality of "everybody is naive and stupid besides me" doesn't apply here. Really, guys... read the decision if you want to understand the background.
"I'm not personally familiar with Australian law, I hope someone who is will be able to give us a bit of insight. But until then, I really can't understand how the judge made this ruling."
No worries -- the decision is online. It's some 350 paragraphs, but it's pretty well laid out and should answer all the questions you have: what they were being charged with, what evidence was collected, and why the judge ruled as he did.
"Kazaa is a data transfer protocol-a crappy one, granted, but that's all it is."
Nope: Kazaa is a product by Sharman Networks, who were shown to have a business that relied on inciting, encouraging, and profiting from widescale piracy. The decision (I have provided the link above) has all the smoking guns.
"Are the makers of FTP clients now liable if an FTP user downloads copyrighted material?"
"And how have they proven that there was even a single lost sale? Do they have a line of kids outside the courthouse door ready to parade in and declare: "Yes I would have bought that CD, but I was able to pirate it off of the Internet instead.""
The cool thing is that Sharman did this work for them. They held focus groups in which people told them why they used Kazaa. Sharman made the mistake of keeping emails discussing the focus group results, and this was used as evidence against them.
Either way, this is probably one of those prima facie things. If, say, you were an expert witness for the defence and you claimed that out of tens of millions of downloads via Kazaa, not one of them was performed in an effort to avoid buying the CD, you would probably have been quite profoundly mocked. "The laugh test" holds more weight in the legal system than lay people tend to think.
"This is an awful decision. If we were to hold manufacturers responsible for what people did with their products, we wouldn't have guns, knives, VCRs, computers, cameras (kiddie porn!), or even pencils."
Settle down there, Chicken Little. My guess is that you're only going by the capsule news report and you haven't read the actual decision -- understandable, as it's some 160 pages, but the sad truth is that issues like these can't often be accurately conveyed in just a few words.
Take the time to read it and you'll understand why the court ruled the way they did: because Kazaa was shown to have deliberately built a business on inciting, promoting and allowing widespread piracy.
It's not always easy to determine that a company like Sharman Networks needs to stop doing what it's doing, while (to use your example) a pencil manufacter can continue doing business, but these things need to be done. As silly as it sounds, nailing the bad actors like Kazaa ultimately strengthens your right to use a camera or a pencil.
"Ok, so, extending this precedent, Comcast (for example) provides access to a network (the Internet) that it knows is being used for piracy. Ergo, all ISPs are authorising people to infringe copyright. I am amazed a court actually swallowed this."
That's because you lack an understanding of the subtleties of the court case. This is excusable if all you've read is the all-too-brief summaries on the newswire.
Kazaa's legal team also tried a variation of the "we're just like an ISP!" argument, but the trail of evidence showed that this is quite simply not the case. Various smoking guns demonstrated quite clearly what many Slashdotters already suspected: unlike a typical ISP, Kazaa went out of their way to build a business on inciting and promoting piracy.
In short... the court was indeed smarter than you may have thought after reading the summary.
"Come on now, this is the same argument that's been going on for decades concerning VHS tapes, cassettes, CDs, DVDs, etc. Sure Kazaa has its share of illegal bits and bytes, but if you want to censore everything, might as well get rid of the internet altogether."
You (and the folks who've modded your post insightful) have apparently made the mistake of going off the all-too-brief summary, without delving into the background of why Kazaa was nailed.
The court case took several months, and for good reason -- there were endless witnesses and mountains of evidence. Various smoking guns were found (including incriminating emails and ad campaigns) that made it clear that Kazaa is not operating their business as would a manufacturer of VHS tapes, cassettes, CDs and DVDs.
It's because these bad actors finally get nailed -- the folks like Sharman who claim to be merely providing a service when in reality they're going out of their way to build a business on inciting piracy -- that we will retain our right to use DVD burners and other neutral tools.
"The Freenet project requires $2,300 per month to pay for its full time developer, Matthew Toseland."
There's lots of talk around Slashdot of:
Artists who expect to be paid for their work being labelled "greedy"
this being the end of an era in which there's a viable business model in selling something that can be easily pirated
true artists not needing money -- after all, if they want to be paid, they're businesspeople, not artists
similar nonsense, ad nauseum.
Thus it's somewhat ironic that Messr. Toseland expects to be paid for his efforts. It's great and all that he's working so hard on this software that lets so many people get copies of movies and music without paying for it, but it's a funny way to try to make a living.
"Seems that applying existing techniques to solve new problems is patentable."
Exactly -- that's the key fact that so many posters are missing.
All the posters who think they have prior art would have to show it on a portable MP3 player and working sufficiently similar to the method described in the patent. "Heirarchical browser" is an insufficient description of the patent.
"Apple lost that lawsuit when the Judge held that GUIs and their look and feel could not be patented or copyrighted, so it seems like that could be used as a precedent in their favor on this lawsuit."
As somebody else has pointed out, that's not the background behind the ruling, but keep in mind that Apple holds lots of GUI-related patents. A few examples:
"Oh, but of course, the NeXT example covers a browser for files and the Smalltalk example covers a browser for objects, and in the mad calculus of patent law this is totally different from a browser for music files."
Precisely. You have pointed out what all the "prior art! prior art! Bok bok bok!" screamers have missed: it's the platform that counts here. Even an app that plays MP3 files on the PC likely wouldn't count; the "my PC is just a big fancy MP3 player!" argument likely won't cut it. The legal geniuses around here will likely need to find prior art on an MP3 player.
Additionally, "Hierarchical browser" is oversimplifying the patent by an order of magnitude. If all readers have to go on is the two-word summary (RTFA is hard enough, but RTFPA is not to be expected), I can certainly understand why they're not sure how such a trivial concept was patent-worthy.
"Now, the Internet makes unnecessary and replaces the marketing, advertizing, and distributing functions of the RIAA. You can record your own music and distribute it over the internet. Charge a reasonable price, offer free sample tracks, create a website. Eventually, bands will realize that they don't need any middleman taking a cut to sell their music to people."
Thank you for clarifying this. The thing is, I've seen many Slashdotters say the same thing for well on five years now. Meanwhile, the record industry is just gaining more and more and more momentum on the Internet. To be sure, indie labels and self-published musicians are making good use of the 'net, but so are the majors. It's simply another advertising, marketing and distribution medium to them.
Anyway, you said "eventually" -- fine. Out of curiousity, do you have a guess at when you think this will happen? Within five years? Ten? There are no right or wrong answers here... just interested in your personal estimate of when the Internet will make major labels obsolete.
"They are scared to death of the internet. They hate the idea that I can could pay $12-14 for 12-14 tracks of music that I know I like, as opposed to 2 good songs and 12 pieces of filler because that would force them to put out the effort to create more good music."
I've lost you here. The ability to pick just the songs I want is one of the cool things about iTunes and the rest of the online stores. Lots of other people must agree; Apple has sold 50 million tracks this way and the record companies are laughing all the way to the bank. Why would they be scared?
"They hate the idea of something that can be replicated with no physical effort, because those who make money off pressing CDs will be destroyed by it if they don't adapt."
You're correct that the people who own the factories that press CDs might see declining sales as the market shifts from physical media to online purchases, but it's typically not the record labels who own the plants. The record labels will be happy to sell you a track in any format they like -- a sale is a sale.
"There's no question that the RIAA will be destroyed by the Internet."
As I mentioned above: 50 million songs sold by iTunes. And the rate at which consumers are buying tracks online is only getting bigger. The RIAA stumbled around for years trying to get online purchasing to work. It took Apple, Napster and other resellers to show them how to do it, but it's certainly looking like online music sales are the best thing that've happened to the record industry in... well, forever.
How is the Internet going to turn around and destroy them, and when do you think this will happen?
"For every person scared off by these tactics, two others will be angered into sharing more. I cannot imagine that they are not aware of that by now."
You can help them become aware of it by showing evidence that this is true. Do you have a citation? I've never met anybody who's been "angered into sharing more" upon hearing about litigation against pirates. Have you?
"I can't imagine the **AA's are really dumb enough to believe that this strategy will work-the one thing said about them that is untrue is that they are idiots."
Apple just sold its 50 millionth track online. The online music business is growing logarithmically. If you have evidence that their strategy isn't working, then great -- post it. Simple bromides like "the record industry doesn't get it" or "consumers don't want DRM" is great for self-congratulatory karma-whoring, but it looks like the record industry is finally taking hold of the online market.
"This is, however, a way to keep them in the public eye while they desperately scramble for a way to regain control over distribution-which is their true goal."
You're 100% correct: the music industry is in the business of distributing music. I would have thought that obvious, but there may be some people reading this who weren't aware of it.
"They're not losing money. Check their earnings reports."
Very broad statement. Some record companies are doing okay (particularly the conglomerates like Time Warner that have their fingers in a lot of pies and just happen to have a record label arm); some are scrimping by with 5% net margin over the year, and yeah, some of the publicly traded companies are losing money. But the vast majority of record labels -- the indies; the ones with twelve employees -- are not publicly traded.
"But what they are losing is control over largescale methods of distribution. That's what they can't stomach."
Correct again. If a company stops making money, it goes out of business. This is one of those universal things that isn't unique to the record industry.
"I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."
The study was no surprise. I've pirated music in the past. Today, I spend about $30 a month on the iTMS. My grandmother has never pirated music. She spends no money online for music. This is because she does not own a PC.
Folks who've used file sharing software tend to buy music because they are Internet-savvy and they like music. Copyright infringement is not a prerequisite for buying music online! The important corelations are having a computer, familiarity with the Internet, and an appreciation for getting music via their PC. The music industry can find plenty of people who fall into that category without also falling into the "putting thousands of files into their share directory" category that tends to make people ripe for legal action.
The record industry has acknowledged that they are using a "carrot and stick" approach toward curbing piracy. Apple has just sold their 50 millionth track, and the online music industry is still growing logarithmically. Their approach seems to be working just fine.
"BTW, How much is exactly one song worth when shared? If the music industry did not lose sales or money, then what are the damages? I thought there is a principle in law that says if you did not suffer damages, then you can not sue. For example, if I trip in front of your house on your property, but am not hurt, I can't sue because there was no harm."
An interesting question, but not relevant here. The RIAA tends to target the "whales" of file sharing who have thousands of songs in their share directories. They do so for exactly the reason you allude to: it's much easier to show potential damage than, say, suing the fellow who's shared just one song.
"Bollocks. If I were to take something from a shop, then the shop can't sell it to someone else, and thus can be said to have lost not only revenue but also an asset."
Okay, now do the one about "it's not piracy unless you're on a boat and have an eye patch."
"Identity theft," "theft of service," "stealing your thunder," "stolen kisses," et cetera: the imprecise nature of the English language must drive many Slashdotters up the wall. For the benefit of those same folks, I should explain that "up the wall" is a figure of speech and should not be interpreted literally.
"Yes, law enforcement is going after the smugglers and organized crime syndicates. But no, the *AAs aren't taking legal action against them. If the RIAA and the MPAA went after the big piracy rings and smuggling outfits with the voracity it sobpoenas little 10-year old Johnny, then I wouldn't have much of a problem."
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I'll see if I can explain it better for the benefit of anybody who hasn't yet sat through some civics classes.
The difference is civil vs. criminal law. The law allows copyright holders to go after the individuals by filing lawsuits. These are civil cases and police organizations aren't involved. If the MPAA tried to call the cops over one guy with $500 worth of movies on their hard drive, they would likely be laughed at.
When copyright infringement gets big -- warez rings and the like -- then it enters the realm of criminal law. Then, it's a job for the police. Likewise, it's not appropriate for MPAA employees to don body armor and storm the factory with guns blazing.
If that isn't clear, maybe an example will help. Let's say you own a retail store. You sell some items to a customer on credit, but you're having a hard time getting them to pay you. It's just for $100 or so, so you take them to court. It's a civil case that can ideally be resolved without the police.
Now, let's say that an armed robber breaks into your store, menaces your employees with a firearm, and makes off with $5,000 in cash. That's a criminal act and it's not appropriate for you to take the law into your own hands. It's time to call the cops and let them do their job. Sure, you could track down the robber, vigilante-style, and take care of things yourself, but this is more rooted in revenge films than in real life.
For what it's worth, busts of organized warez rings often start with a tip-off from a software company. Microsoft has called the cops on numerous system integrators who are preloading systems with pirated software. Microsoft might be the first to learn about the piracy, but they know when to step back and let the police do their job.
"After that 80-year-old "child actor" in the MPAA was found to be the source of most bootleg DVDs (courtesy of Oscar), how come we didn't hear about the mob he fed getting frogmarched off some kind of plank?"
Because people are either reading too quickly, or have another reading comprehension issue. They're reading "organized crime" and must be thinking of the Italian mafia or something. The fellow to which you're referring is Carmine Caridi, and he was indeed busted by the FBI. He gave his screeners to one guy. That's a total of two guys, and that is the type of "organized crime" to which the article refers... not the Italian mafia. "Organized crime" is a very broad term, but this fact seems to have been lost on most people who've read the article.
Generally speaking, individual BT users are typically sued by the copyright holders. When it's the warez rings, then it's the job of the feds.
There are plentiful examples of the feds making busts of organized warez groups... Google is your friend.
"Umm... is it because bitorrent users don't arrange to have you killed?"
Why do you say that? Most of the people I've met who are members of warez groups tend to be more of the 90 lb. weakling type; the sort who'd be afraid to even touch a gun, let alone arrange to have someone killed.
Likewise, most of the Chinese factory owners I've met are small, quiet men whom I could easily take in a fistfight. Granted, these are folks who run legit factories, but I can't imagine that the guys running off DVD copies of screeners are that much more intimidating.
If your experience is otherwise, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
"as stated elsewhere most BT users won't break your knees, crush your nuts in a vise or bust a cap in your ass if you go after them."
And neither will the warez groups and the Chinese DVD factory owners and the guys with the contacts at the studio who get the screeners. There's a HUGE reading comprehension issue here, folks -- you're reading "organized crime" and I guess you're thinking of the Italian-American mafia or something. You're smarter than that. You should understand that "organized crime" means just that: more than one person working in cooperation. RTFA if you'd like to learn more. I can't believe this post was modded "insightful."
Regardless of this, the feds bust warez groups, bootleg DVD operations and other organized piracy schemes
Slashdot Mirror
" It's an INTERVIEW with the system's author and he's giving his opinion. Which, come to think of it, is what one DOES in an interview, you know, ask someone what they think? Sheesh."
You are very correct, but it's interesting to compare this to the reaction a few months back when an interview with Bill Gates was referenced on /. When Bill was asked his opinion of the level of threat that Linux presented and Bill gave his expected answer, it was quite a sight to see: everybody was taking their turn calling him variations on "arrogant" and "+5, Insightful"s were being handed out like Fun Sized Snickers bars at Halloween. Meanwhile, here on September 13th, Hans Reiser makes a similar statement (as is his prerogative) and folks are largely basking in the sunshine that is pouring out of his ass.
" Yes. Apple sold it. Not some RIAA-sponsored site, or one put up by Sony, Vivendi or any of the rest of them. And if you think that the entertainment people are happy about that, you are sadly mistaken."
Remember, the record companies do 99% of their business through resellers. That's largely how their business model works. The iTMS is just another reseller to them, like Amazon or Tower Records. The difference is that it's a wildly popular reseller, and they make more margin than they do in the traditional channel -- no returns, price protections, co-op ads, and the squillion other things that eat at margins in the traditional brick and mortar channels.
"And control of distribution is the crux of the problem: no matter how many songs that iTunes sells for them it won't make any difference because iTunes isn't owned or controlled by the RIAA, and Apple Computer is not part of their group."
That's how it's always worked. The record companies have traditionally worked in what's called a two-tier distribution mechanism: they sell the CD into distribution, who in turn sells it to a reseller. Stating that the record companies are upset because they don't own the iTMS is a bit like stating that they are unhappy because they don't own Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Amazon, Tower Records, or any of the innumerable music stores out there. It's correct, but meaningless.
"No, they most certainly do not get it, will never get it, and would like nothing better than for the Internet to just go away."
The record industry has survived half a dozen format changes over the past 50 years. The iTMS is huge. Meanwhile, "Open source" music labels like Magnatune, which fit many Slashdotter's model of the perfect record label, are flailing. The major labels get this Internet thing just fine.
"And what you don't seem to understand is..."
"You can't be that naive about this."
Oh, please.
"I'd like to see how this is going to happen. If they had that much money, I'm sure they would have had a better defense in court."
A company for which I worked was deep into talks with Kazaa for advertising on their service a couple of years back. The contract wasn't for a particularly long time but Kazaa wanted well into the six figures. This was around the time that Kazaa was running those "Join the revolution" full-page ads in the NYT.
The commentary on the court case also went into some detail on Nikki Hemming's luxurious house. The consensus seems to be that Kazaa has reaped hundred of millions of dollars. This seems accurate to me.
"Kazzaa isn't the same though. While it got a large amount of its user base from digital pirates, they have had a section of their documentation set aside to explain that they don't endorse infringing copyrights with their software."
Most P2P software has this. It's meaningless.
The court records show that Sharman condoned, encouraged and profited from piracy. They even ran ad campaigns that made it clear that they knew what was going on, and that they wanted people to use their network for piracy.
"I hope the courts in AU will realize that allowing people to join a network that has digital pirates on it isn't the fault of the creator when it means that entire servers and ISPs should be shut down as a result."
Kazaa's wild success as a medium for piracy was most certainly as a result of Sharman's efforts. Sharman isn't a gathering "information wants to be free" hippies... they're a for-profit company, set up in the tax haven of Vanatu, for the singular purpose of making lots of money by tapping into the huge demand for pirated material. And they were a success -- they've made untold millions.
If you thought that their warnings to users not to engage in piracy were genuine or heartfelt, or would let them escape the law, you were mistaken.
"The media outfits, unfortunately, have chosen to not adapt."
Wow. Apple just sold their 50 millionth track on the iTunes Music store. Online music sales are now 5% of the total music market, and they're growing logarithmically. And the record labels probably make more money via online sales than the traditional channels. It may have taken a few years of stumbling for them to figure it out (and with the help of smart people like Steve Jobs), but this "the media companies just don't get it" line is getting harder and harder to believe.
"Instead, they have used the law (in numerous countries) to threaten and intimidate people and companies, and have gone to the extreme of buying custom-written laws, all with the intent of preserving the "status quo ante"."
Media companies, just like you and me, can walk and chew gum at the same time. They've even admitted to using the carrot and stick approach with regard to the online music business. One one hand, they're taking advantage of the wildly growning demand for paid, legal music downloads, and on the other hand, they are taking advantage of their rights under the law, which is entirely their prerogative.
If a good friend of yours told you that somebody was using technology to break the law and give them grief, and they told you that they were just going to roll over and not contact the authorities, you would likely accuse them of being a huge pussy -- and rightly so. Technology or no technology, you and your friends fight back when you think you're wronged -- so you can certainly expect big businesses to do the same.
"When push comes to shove, they may be able to come up with a legal definition to try to separate Kazaa from these."
Huh? This was all covered in the decision. Sharman tried the "we're just a carrier" defense and were laughed at.
"But most likely, this sucks, because the judge didn't realize quite the landmine he was stepping into."
Reading the decision shows that they went way beyond that. I think many people who've RTFA but who haven't RTFCD are under the impression that the ruling was made after 20 minutes; the reality is that the case stretched on for many, many months, and included the testimony of computer science professors from UC Berkeley and other institutions. The common Slashdot mentality of "everybody is naive and stupid besides me" doesn't apply here. Really, guys... read the decision if you want to understand the background.
"I'm not personally familiar with Australian law, I hope someone who is will be able to give us a bit of insight. But until then, I really can't understand how the judge made this ruling."
No worries -- the decision is online. It's some 350 paragraphs, but it's pretty well laid out and should answer all the questions you have: what they were being charged with, what evidence was collected, and why the judge ruled as he did.
"Kazaa is a data transfer protocol-a crappy one, granted, but that's all it is."
Nope: Kazaa is a product by Sharman Networks, who were shown to have a business that relied on inciting, encouraging, and profiting from widescale piracy. The decision (I have provided the link above) has all the smoking guns.
"Are the makers of FTP clients now liable if an FTP user downloads copyrighted material?"
No. I hope you can understand why.
"And how have they proven that there was even a single lost sale? Do they have a line of kids outside the courthouse door ready to parade in and declare: "Yes I would have bought that CD, but I was able to pirate it off of the Internet instead.""
The cool thing is that Sharman did this work for them. They held focus groups in which people told them why they used Kazaa. Sharman made the mistake of keeping emails discussing the focus group results, and this was used as evidence against them.
Either way, this is probably one of those prima facie things. If, say, you were an expert witness for the defence and you claimed that out of tens of millions of downloads via Kazaa, not one of them was performed in an effort to avoid buying the CD, you would probably have been quite profoundly mocked. "The laugh test" holds more weight in the legal system than lay people tend to think.
"This is an awful decision. If we were to hold manufacturers responsible for what people did with their products, we wouldn't have guns, knives, VCRs, computers, cameras (kiddie porn!), or even pencils."
Settle down there, Chicken Little. My guess is that you're only going by the capsule news report and you haven't read the actual decision -- understandable, as it's some 160 pages, but the sad truth is that issues like these can't often be accurately conveyed in just a few words.
Take the time to read it and you'll understand why the court ruled the way they did: because Kazaa was shown to have deliberately built a business on inciting, promoting and allowing widespread piracy.
It's not always easy to determine that a company like Sharman Networks needs to stop doing what it's doing, while (to use your example) a pencil manufacter can continue doing business, but these things need to be done. As silly as it sounds, nailing the bad actors like Kazaa ultimately strengthens your right to use a camera or a pencil.
"Ok, so, extending this precedent, Comcast (for example) provides access to a network (the Internet) that it knows is being used for piracy. Ergo, all ISPs are authorising people to infringe copyright. I am amazed a court actually swallowed this."
That's because you lack an understanding of the subtleties of the court case. This is excusable if all you've read is the all-too-brief summaries on the newswire.
Kazaa's legal team also tried a variation of the "we're just like an ISP!" argument, but the trail of evidence showed that this is quite simply not the case. Various smoking guns demonstrated quite clearly what many Slashdotters already suspected: unlike a typical ISP, Kazaa went out of their way to build a business on inciting and promoting piracy.
In short... the court was indeed smarter than you may have thought after reading the summary.
"Come on now, this is the same argument that's been going on for decades concerning VHS tapes, cassettes, CDs, DVDs, etc. Sure Kazaa has its share of illegal bits and bytes, but if you want to censore everything, might as well get rid of the internet altogether."
You (and the folks who've modded your post insightful) have apparently made the mistake of going off the all-too-brief summary, without delving into the background of why Kazaa was nailed.
The court case took several months, and for good reason -- there were endless witnesses and mountains of evidence. Various smoking guns were found (including incriminating emails and ad campaigns) that made it clear that Kazaa is not operating their business as would a manufacturer of VHS tapes, cassettes, CDs and DVDs.
It's because these bad actors finally get nailed -- the folks like Sharman who claim to be merely providing a service when in reality they're going out of their way to build a business on inciting piracy -- that we will retain our right to use DVD burners and other neutral tools.
"The Freenet project requires $2,300 per month to pay for its full time developer, Matthew Toseland."
There's lots of talk around Slashdot of:
Thus it's somewhat ironic that Messr. Toseland expects to be paid for his efforts. It's great and all that he's working so hard on this software that lets so many people get copies of movies and music without paying for it, but it's a funny way to try to make a living.
"Seems that applying existing techniques to solve new problems is patentable."
Exactly -- that's the key fact that so many posters are missing.
All the posters who think they have prior art would have to show it on a portable MP3 player and working sufficiently similar to the method described in the patent. "Heirarchical browser" is an insufficient description of the patent.
"Apple lost that lawsuit when the Judge held that GUIs and their look and feel could not be patented or copyrighted, so it seems like that could be used as a precedent in their favor on this lawsuit."
As somebody else has pointed out, that's not the background behind the ruling, but keep in mind that Apple holds lots of GUI-related patents. A few examples:
"Oh, but of course, the NeXT example covers a browser for files and the Smalltalk example covers a browser for objects, and in the mad calculus of patent law this is totally different from a browser for music files."
Precisely. You have pointed out what all the "prior art! prior art! Bok bok bok!" screamers have missed: it's the platform that counts here. Even an app that plays MP3 files on the PC likely wouldn't count; the "my PC is just a big fancy MP3 player!" argument likely won't cut it. The legal geniuses around here will likely need to find prior art on an MP3 player.
Additionally, "Hierarchical browser" is oversimplifying the patent by an order of magnitude. If all readers have to go on is the two-word summary (RTFA is hard enough, but RTFPA is not to be expected), I can certainly understand why they're not sure how such a trivial concept was patent-worthy.
"Now, the Internet makes unnecessary and replaces the marketing, advertizing, and distributing functions of the RIAA. You can record your own music and distribute it over the internet. Charge a reasonable price, offer free sample tracks, create a website. Eventually, bands will realize that they don't need any middleman taking a cut to sell their music to people."
Thank you for clarifying this. The thing is, I've seen many Slashdotters say the same thing for well on five years now. Meanwhile, the record industry is just gaining more and more and more momentum on the Internet. To be sure, indie labels and self-published musicians are making good use of the 'net, but so are the majors. It's simply another advertising, marketing and distribution medium to them.
Anyway, you said "eventually" -- fine. Out of curiousity, do you have a guess at when you think this will happen? Within five years? Ten? There are no right or wrong answers here... just interested in your personal estimate of when the Internet will make major labels obsolete.
"They are scared to death of the internet. They hate the idea that I can could pay $12-14 for 12-14 tracks of music that I know I like, as opposed to 2 good songs and 12 pieces of filler because that would force them to put out the effort to create more good music."
I've lost you here. The ability to pick just the songs I want is one of the cool things about iTunes and the rest of the online stores. Lots of other people must agree; Apple has sold 50 million tracks this way and the record companies are laughing all the way to the bank. Why would they be scared?
"They hate the idea of something that can be replicated with no physical effort, because those who make money off pressing CDs will be destroyed by it if they don't adapt."
You're correct that the people who own the factories that press CDs might see declining sales as the market shifts from physical media to online purchases, but it's typically not the record labels who own the plants. The record labels will be happy to sell you a track in any format they like -- a sale is a sale.
"There's no question that the RIAA will be destroyed by the Internet."
As I mentioned above: 50 million songs sold by iTunes. And the rate at which consumers are buying tracks online is only getting bigger. The RIAA stumbled around for years trying to get online purchasing to work. It took Apple, Napster and other resellers to show them how to do it, but it's certainly looking like online music sales are the best thing that've happened to the record industry in... well, forever.
How is the Internet going to turn around and destroy them, and when do you think this will happen?
"For every person scared off by these tactics, two others will be angered into sharing more. I cannot imagine that they are not aware of that by now."
You can help them become aware of it by showing evidence that this is true. Do you have a citation? I've never met anybody who's been "angered into sharing more" upon hearing about litigation against pirates. Have you?
"I can't imagine the **AA's are really dumb enough to believe that this strategy will work-the one thing said about them that is untrue is that they are idiots."
Apple just sold its 50 millionth track online. The online music business is growing logarithmically. If you have evidence that their strategy isn't working, then great -- post it. Simple bromides like "the record industry doesn't get it" or "consumers don't want DRM" is great for self-congratulatory karma-whoring, but it looks like the record industry is finally taking hold of the online market.
"This is, however, a way to keep them in the public eye while they desperately scramble for a way to regain control over distribution-which is their true goal."
You're 100% correct: the music industry is in the business of distributing music. I would have thought that obvious, but there may be some people reading this who weren't aware of it.
"They're not losing money. Check their earnings reports."
Very broad statement. Some record companies are doing okay (particularly the conglomerates like Time Warner that have their fingers in a lot of pies and just happen to have a record label arm); some are scrimping by with 5% net margin over the year, and yeah, some of the publicly traded companies are losing money. But the vast majority of record labels -- the indies; the ones with twelve employees -- are not publicly traded.
"But what they are losing is control over largescale methods of distribution. That's what they can't stomach."
Correct again. If a company stops making money, it goes out of business. This is one of those universal things that isn't unique to the record industry.
"I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."
The study was no surprise. I've pirated music in the past. Today, I spend about $30 a month on the iTMS. My grandmother has never pirated music. She spends no money online for music. This is because she does not own a PC.
Folks who've used file sharing software tend to buy music because they are Internet-savvy and they like music. Copyright infringement is not a prerequisite for buying music online! The important corelations are having a computer, familiarity with the Internet, and an appreciation for getting music via their PC. The music industry can find plenty of people who fall into that category without also falling into the "putting thousands of files into their share directory" category that tends to make people ripe for legal action.
The record industry has acknowledged that they are using a "carrot and stick" approach toward curbing piracy. Apple has just sold their 50 millionth track, and the online music industry is still growing logarithmically. Their approach seems to be working just fine.
"BTW, How much is exactly one song worth when shared? If the music industry did not lose sales or money, then what are the damages? I thought there is a principle in law that says if you did not suffer damages, then you can not sue. For example, if I trip in front of your house on your property, but am not hurt, I can't sue because there was no harm."
An interesting question, but not relevant here. The RIAA tends to target the "whales" of file sharing who have thousands of songs in their share directories. They do so for exactly the reason you allude to: it's much easier to show potential damage than, say, suing the fellow who's shared just one song.
"Bollocks. If I were to take something from a shop, then the shop can't sell it to someone else, and thus can be said to have lost not only revenue but also an asset."
Okay, now do the one about "it's not piracy unless you're on a boat and have an eye patch."
"Identity theft," "theft of service," "stealing your thunder," "stolen kisses," et cetera: the imprecise nature of the English language must drive many Slashdotters up the wall. For the benefit of those same folks, I should explain that "up the wall" is a figure of speech and should not be interpreted literally.
"Yes, law enforcement is going after the smugglers and organized crime syndicates. But no, the *AAs aren't taking legal action against them. If the RIAA and the MPAA went after the big piracy rings and smuggling outfits with the voracity it sobpoenas little 10-year old Johnny, then I wouldn't have much of a problem."
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I'll see if I can explain it better for the benefit of anybody who hasn't yet sat through some civics classes.
The difference is civil vs. criminal law. The law allows copyright holders to go after the individuals by filing lawsuits. These are civil cases and police organizations aren't involved. If the MPAA tried to call the cops over one guy with $500 worth of movies on their hard drive, they would likely be laughed at.
When copyright infringement gets big -- warez rings and the like -- then it enters the realm of criminal law. Then, it's a job for the police. Likewise, it's not appropriate for MPAA employees to don body armor and storm the factory with guns blazing.
If that isn't clear, maybe an example will help. Let's say you own a retail store. You sell some items to a customer on credit, but you're having a hard time getting them to pay you. It's just for $100 or so, so you take them to court. It's a civil case that can ideally be resolved without the police.
Now, let's say that an armed robber breaks into your store, menaces your employees with a firearm, and makes off with $5,000 in cash. That's a criminal act and it's not appropriate for you to take the law into your own hands. It's time to call the cops and let them do their job. Sure, you could track down the robber, vigilante-style, and take care of things yourself, but this is more rooted in revenge films than in real life.
For what it's worth, busts of organized warez rings often start with a tip-off from a software company. Microsoft has called the cops on numerous system integrators who are preloading systems with pirated software. Microsoft might be the first to learn about the piracy, but they know when to step back and let the police do their job.
"After that 80-year-old "child actor" in the MPAA was found to be the source of most bootleg DVDs (courtesy of Oscar), how come we didn't hear about the mob he fed getting frogmarched off some kind of plank?"
Because people are either reading too quickly, or have another reading comprehension issue. They're reading "organized crime" and must be thinking of the Italian mafia or something. The fellow to which you're referring is Carmine Caridi, and he was indeed busted by the FBI. He gave his screeners to one guy. That's a total of two guys, and that is the type of "organized crime" to which the article refers... not the Italian mafia. "Organized crime" is a very broad term, but this fact seems to have been lost on most people who've read the article.
Generally speaking, individual BT users are typically sued by the copyright holders. When it's the warez rings, then it's the job of the feds.
There are plentiful examples of the feds making busts of organized warez groups... Google is your friend.
"Umm... is it because bitorrent users don't arrange to have you killed?"
Why do you say that? Most of the people I've met who are members of warez groups tend to be more of the 90 lb. weakling type; the sort who'd be afraid to even touch a gun, let alone arrange to have someone killed.
Likewise, most of the Chinese factory owners I've met are small, quiet men whom I could easily take in a fistfight. Granted, these are folks who run legit factories, but I can't imagine that the guys running off DVD copies of screeners are that much more intimidating.
If your experience is otherwise, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
"as stated elsewhere most BT users won't break your knees, crush your nuts in a vise or bust a cap in your ass if you go after them."
And neither will the warez groups and the Chinese DVD factory owners and the guys with the contacts at the studio who get the screeners. There's a HUGE reading comprehension issue here, folks -- you're reading "organized crime" and I guess you're thinking of the Italian-American mafia or something. You're smarter than that. You should understand that "organized crime" means just that: more than one person working in cooperation. RTFA if you'd like to learn more. I can't believe this post was modded "insightful."
Regardless of this, the feds bust warez groups, bootleg DVD operations and other organized piracy schemes
ALLTHE
TIME.
Here's an example, and another one, and another one, and another one.
It took me all of like two minutes with Google to find these.