Salens on the other hand is just a punk kid to did a little digital graffiti. It's ironic that Jennifer can make the connection to real world graffiti, but then go on to push for the digital version (which is cheaper and easier to clean up) to be a felony.
You seem to forget he didn't do this graffiti out in the open. HE first broke into someone's system, and then did the graffiti. If I spraypaint the outside of an office building, I get charged with vandalism. If I break into the office building and spray paint the CEO's office, I get charged with breaking and entering (and vandalism or whatever else I did while inside). It's not like the kid wrote a naughty note on a message board somewhere, he broke into a system and left the note all over.
Logically, this should be the case--it's a simple cost-benefit analysis. If the rate of catching the criminals stays the same, you can increase the "cost" by making a harsher penalty. The flaw in this reasoning is that the criminal isn't doing a cost-benefit analysis for something like breaking windows--after all, what's the real benefit? For that matter, people who break windows are generally unable to imagine consequences anyway.
Not true. Malicious vadalism tends not to occur in public view, which proves that the vandals have some understanding of the risk levels involved. While imagining the consequences may be a bit fuzzy, even anti-social types do recognize levels of severity of punishment, and are able to relatively accurately assess risks.
This is OT, but relavant to this discussion.
Harsh punishments have never been proven to decrease the activity. One of the most famous example was during the Middle Ages, pickpocketing was rampant. It was a crime that was punishable by death, and in that time that meant public hanging. Now, where do you think the most pickpocketing took place? That's right, at the hanging themselves, because that was an easy place to do it. Most criminals never consider getting caught. They do take normal precautions, but they don't think about what will happen if they get caught, because they think they won't. I mean come on, if they thought they might get caught they wouldn't do it.
Perhaps despite having worked for lawyers for several years I still don't have an astute legal mind, but Granholm's contention that regardless of damage, hacking should (and will) be considered a felony is a bit odd, considering that she then compares it to vandalism, which definitely does depend on the amount of damage involved.
I think vandalism is a really poor comparison. It may be good for when a hacker actually defaces a website, but the actualy hack itself is much more akin to breaking and entering. B&E is (I think) a felony, no matter what you are breaking into. Anything else you do while you are there is a seperate crime, with it's own charges. I think this is the same approach that should be taken to hacking. Hacking into a system is a crime. Anything you do while you are there may be another. If you just look around, all you get is hacking. If you deface a website, you might get the electronic equivalent of vandalism. If you destroy files, that's another charge. But the hacking into a system is a crime unto itself. Unlawful entry is unlawful entry, no matter if it's a house, business, or a computer system.
I think that the general problem here is that there is a perception that you cannot own and use tools in a responsible manner. You cannot outlaw a screwdriver because someone in Timbuktu used one to commit murder, rape, or burglary, because screwdrivers have legitimate legal uses. Guns, screwdrivers, and DeCSS/technology of the moment are tools. Do we outlaw them because our world has decide that because there is an illegal use, that these things must be outlawed?
Personal responsibility is the issue. Does someone become a dangerous criminal solely because they have a legally purchased and safely stored firearm, screwdriver, or copy of DeCSS(used for watching their legally purchased DVD on the Linux machine that is their only computer)? At what point does the government overstep its bound in quelling the fears of the 'people' when they remove legal ownership and access rights on the basis of spurious claims of lost revenue streams by corporations who are not being held accountable for their claims of loss?
What truly justifies things like Carnivore, if not the 'compelling interest' of a would be police state? Yes, Carnivore -could- be used in ways consistent with the Constitution, but who trusts an organization whose headquarters is the J. Edgar Hoover Building? I can assure you that Freeh is even less ethical than his infamous predecessor.Or whatever? Wanna bet we have a long legal fight before we get this tool outlawed?
If this isn't talking out of both sides of your mouth, I don't know what is. You argue that things that could do illegal things should be legal, because it is personal responisiblity to use them correctly. We have to assume people will use them for legal purposes, so we shouldn't ban them (and I agree with this for the most part). Then you argue that Carnivore should be illegal because it can be used in an illegal way. You don't have faith in the government to use it legally, yet you want the government to trust you to use DeCSS legally. Seems trust works both ways, if you want everyone to trust you, you have to trust them.
That one gets my nomination for worst analogy of the year award. An escort service is not a tool, it's an escort service! A screwdriver is a tool. If you stab someone with it instead of using it to screw things in, you are the one who is using it incorrectly. Napster is the exact same thing. If people are using it to break the law, the record companies should go after those people.
The escort service is a tool for finding a date. You canuse it improperly (to find a prostitute), but that's not what it there for (ask them, they'll tell you this). Just like Napster isn't there to find copy-righted MP3...oh wait, they even said that's what they are there for. Maybe it is a bad analogy, at least an escort service pretends to be a legitimate business.
Seriously, the point that Napster is just a tool needs to be brought up repeatedly in this court case. After all, that's all the service is. If some Napster execs were encouraging people to illegally copy music, charge them. If some Napster users were illegally copying music outside of the bounds of fair use trading, charge them. (Although I'm sure the record industry will conveniently forget about the fair use aspect and just charge everyone)
You know, escort services are just tools too. They just provide people with a date for the night, it's just that some people use it as an excuse for prostitution (no I'm not against prostitution, but it provides a good example). If these services are found to be providing prostitutes, they are either fined HUGELY or more likely shut down. There may be one or tow guys who use them to really get a date for a party and not have sex, but in general that isn't happening. Sounds kinda like Napster. NApster can't control what it's users do, just like an escort service can't control what it's employees do. They both can be used for legitimate purpose, but aren't be the overwhelming majority. So why should Napster get off scot free when it was designed for illegal activity, encourages people to engage in illegal activity, and turns a blind eye to that illegal activity?
It's important to remember that there's nothing about Napster that's especially interesting technologically. What happens when the RIAA learns people use, say, ICQ to trade MP3's? How's that different from Napster? Don't get me wrong; I personally think Napster has become the most egregious waste of computing resources since Pong. I just can't see how it could possibly be illegal. My question is, simply, where does it stop?
The difference is that Napster was designed from the ground up to violate copyrights and traffic copyrighted MP3s. Everyone seems to think that Napster is similar to IRC, or ICQ because you can transfer MP3s across those, but the only real similarity is that they transfer files. NApster transfers a specific kind of file, and it was designed to transfer specific files that are illegal. ICQ was designed to transfer any file, of any kind, and of any legality. Everyone seems to think the Napster deserves common carrier status, but it is anything but. It is the difference between a public bus line that will allow anyone, and a taxi service that caters to carrying criminals away from a crime scene, but occasionally carries an innocent person too. Napster chose to focus on illegal MP3s (unlike MP3.com who chose to carry legal MP3s, at least until they started My.MP3.com). If I choose to have a yard sale and invite people to sell stolen goods, I WILL be held accountable, even if there is one person selling legitamate goods.
What you MEANT to say was: "If Napster is being used for fair use by even one person, anywhere on earth, even if that person is a hermit living in a cave with magical electrical and internet hookups who has no other contact with the outside world whatsoever, to the point where no one's even completely certain he really exists, you have a case."
Since it is, he does. The legitimate use is NOT secondary, damn it all, even if it's less common.
So in other words, no one should ever compromise anything, ever. There may be one guy who has a legitamate need for anthrax, so we should all be allowed to have it. One guy in a cave may really need a nuclear weapon to protect himself, so it's okay for everyone to have it. HEll, there may be one guy who really needs to drive but can't pass the drivers test, so it's okay if everyone drives without a license. Everything in life is a compromise. If something has little (bordering on no) legitimate use, then it shoudl be treated that way. That's why guns are treated differently than knives, knives have a myriad of legitamate uses, while guns have few. Just because one person can find a way to use something in a way that is justidied doesn't mean we should just throw up oru hands and say that it's obviously a great and useful tool. Why are lock-picking tools illegal (except for locksmiths)? Surely there is one guy who has a use, but overwhelmingly that is not the case. The same rational applies here.
Fair use copying goes on every day, and to compare the Internet to a library where nothing gets copied is to completely misunderstand how college libraries are used.
You said the magic words..."fair use copying". People are copying a page or two, not whole books. If people started flocking to libraries and copying whole books (maybe they have free copy day or something that makes it economically feasible) do you think they would just let it happen? Do you think they would allow their resources to be used to copy hundreds of books a day? Not a chance, but because the resource is net access and it's music instead of books it's suddenly okay? If Napster was used for fair use by most people you would have a case. But I would guess that 90% of people use it download music so they don't have to pay for it. It's not stuff they have on CD already, it's stuff they don't have and want without paying for it. LAst time I checked, that's not covered under fair use.
and the jury is still out on whether you can make a playable copy of a DVD, I've yet to hear any convincing evidence for either side)
I can personally verify that on a trip to HK in August last year, I saw a DVD copy of "Mercury Rising" (I think that's what it's called, it was a Bruce Willis movie about a kid who cracked the NSA's super-secret code...). As far as I could tell, it had been duplicated from the official CD.
I should have stated that a little better. I know given enough money you can make a playable DVD, but can the average person make on with a simple DVD-ROM. If you have enough money to press your own DVDs, you can make damn near anything, but could someone who isn't running a full scale pirating business duplicate it?
CSS is control access, not copy protection like the official MPAA site claims. CSS does NOTHING to stop copying. If I have an encoded message on a piece of paper, I don't need to decrypt it to xerox it.
But, as people so often point out, there is no way to make something that can't be copied (and the jury is still out on whether you can make a playable copy of a DVD, I've yet to hear any convincing evidence for either side). People are continually saying how now that we have entered the "information age" everything is free because it can be copied and there is no way to stop it. So, what do you propose to stop this copying? Do we let people take what they want? Since everything can be copied (and once copied and on the net it can never be contained again) do we just give up and expect everyone to give everything away? And if we do do this, how do keep the economy running?
So again, while I appreciate your point, I think mass-posting DeCSS is a great form of protest.
While I appreciate a protest as much as anyone, spam is spam. A protest that does nothing but annoy people (which is really all this will do) accomplishes nothing but turning people against you.
If you call the plumber to do work for you, you are making an agreement with him -- you agree to pay him if he does the work. If you did not agree to that, he would not come.
And owning a copy of the music constitutes a contract. You are receiving a service, in fact you are going out and obtaining it. If you never own something by Britney Spears, there is no need to compensate her, as you are getting nothing, and she expects nothing in return. But when you go and find music by Britney Spears, it is the same as calling the plumber and asking him to come to your house. You have made an agreement to pay the price that is asked.
Yeah, it's on the Greatest Hits CD. I just picked it as a random example of a relatively hard to find song that everyone has heard of. It's on 2 other CDs as well, one of which is no longer produced or sold, and one of which is sold someplaces but very hard to find. The fact is that SOMEONE somewhere bought the CD. And if that CD is no longer for sale, and the song on it is not available to be purchased through an RIAA approved distribution method then they CAN NOT lose money from me downloading it. You CAN NOT lose money if someone copies something you are not selling.
Unless you try to sell it at a later point. If everyone who wanted a copy of song "foo" was to download it, instead of buy it, if they ever did rerelease the CD, no one would need to buy it. If you couldn't get Purple HAze, and downloaded it, when they rereleased the CD, you would no longer want it, because you have it. Sure, some people will still buy it, because they are completists, but most people don't have an urge to buy things they already own in another form.
Oh, of course, let me see... Now... where IS that purple haze single... Hrmmm. That's right, there isn't one! Well... I'll just buy the original album that had it on CD, what? No cd for that album! All they have is Band of Gypsies and Greatest Hits?! But all I want is Purple Haze.... Well, I guess since they aren't selling Purple Haze they can't possibly lose money if I download it. So there.
So what you are trying to say is that there is no way to buy Purple Haze? It's not on any CD available anywhere? That's funny, I just did a search on Amazon and came up with 87 CDs with the song Purple Haze on it. Even assume only 25% are correct and not duplicates, that's 21 CDs with the song. Seems like someone sure is selling it.
As for used CDs, you have every right to go and buy a used CD. The RIAA doesn't make any money off that sale, because they already made their money of the original sale. Unlike downloading it from the web, the money has already been made, and the person loses the ablility to use the CD once he sells it. Now, compare that to NApster, where one person buys a CD and a million people download it. Kinda different, huh?
People would buy a Brittany Spears album and "share" it with their 100 friends on the net, and each one of those would share it with their closest 100 friends, etc.
If people care so little about Brittany that they won't pay to support her, well, I guess that means she won't be able to pay her bills. I believe that's called capitalism. Whether or not they get to listen to her music is incidental to the matter. If the only way you can get people to pay you is to hold a figurative gun to their head, what a sad state of affairs it is for you.
Try that the next time the plumber comes to your house. You don't care about him, so after he gets done fixing whatever, tell him to leave and that your not going to pay him. You won't pay to support him, because you don't care enough about him. For some reason I don't think that that will fly. If you use someone's service or goods (and yes, listening to music can be considered using a service or good, it is the artist's "product" you are using) you have to pay for it. There is no clause about "If you don't feel like paying for it, or think it's too expensive (even though you agreed to the price up front) then you don't have to pay". Can your employer keep you working there and just not pay you because they don't care enough to pay to support you? No, they have to pay you for all the time you worked there.
Paying money doesn't mean I "deserve" to hear a song. I am entitled to use my ears whether the record execs want me to or not. If someone is playing a CD on their speakers and I walk by, I suppose you could say I don't "deserve" to be able to hear it, but it seems rather silly. Similarly, if I download a song and play it on my computer, you could say I don't "deserve" to be able to hear it. But it misses the point, really.
Your right, paying money doesn't mean you "deserve" to hear a song. It means you have the right to have a copy of the song. If you hear someone else's copy, or here it on the radio or whatever, that's fine. But that doesn't give you the right to "own" a copy of the song. Paying money gives you that right. If you download a copy of the song, you now "own" a copy of it, which means you should pay for that privilege (because it certainly isn't a right).
The point is that artists and record companies need to be reimbursed or else they won't be able to continue producing music. We shouldn't reimburse them simply because to do otherwise would be "wrong." We should reimburse them because we appreciate their efforts, we enjoy their songs, and we want them to produce more. If we do not enjoy the songs, if we wish they'd stop putting out such crap, then to reimburse them would be counter-productive. (Some might even say harmful.)
If you don't like what someone is doing, you shouldn't be purchasing their product, or using it. If you think it is worth taking the time to download, play, and take up your HS space, then obviously you enjoy it. There are many ways to sample songs before you buy them which have been around for quite a while, you should be using these to find out what you want to spend your money on. If you don't want to buy an album, you have no right to "own" a copy of the songs on that album (that's right, not even that one you really like). If you really like one songs, buy it as a single. But just because you don't want the whole CD doesn't make it right for you to steal even part of it. If I only want to plumber to come to my house and unscrew the cap to I can get into the pipes in my house, but he wants to charge me for the whole thing anyway, can I have him come over and unscrew the pipes and then kick him out whitout paying? Why should I pay for the whole thing when I only wanted part of it?
Speaking for myself, I believe we have the right (and sometimes obligation) to reimburse those who provide a valuable commodity, such as music or software; and we have the right to withhold reimbursement from those we choose.
So what your saying is that no one has a right to charge for what they do/make? Or more specifically, they have the right to charge for it, but you have the right to use their service/goods and not pay that charge (thus negating the purpose of charging in the first place). Do you have the right to charge your employer for your time (ie get paid)? Does your employer have the right to withhold paying you? What if they think you didn't work as hard as you should have this month, can they not pay you? What if they think you're charging too much for your time, can they just not pay you? If you use a good/service, you agree to pay for it. Not doing so is stealing (yes, I understand if it's a service nothing is lost, etc etc etc, it's all semantics).
I felt pretty safe buying online too -- Until somebody somewhere hijacked my card number, and I suddenly had over a $1000 worth of speakers and stereo equipment show up on my bill. No, I did not have to pay for it, and even if they caught the person who did it (a pretty good bet, since the moron also used it to pay his cell phone bill), I wouldn't know for sure that it was from an online purchase becuase they don't release any information about the investigation. But it makes you feel quite vulnerable, and does a lot to make you a little more cynical about tossing your card number around (it was an AmEx, by the way). So, I'm all for this because my security concerns are based on more than artificial worries.
Buying online is probably safer than buying in person. If you take the normal precautions (secure site that is known) you are almost guarenteed safety. Compare this with a restaurant. You eat your meal and give you card to Joe Waiter to carry away and do whatever he wants. No one steals credit cards off the internet, because it is hundreds of times easier to talk to your buddy who works at Denny's and ask him to get you some credit card receipts. People use stolen credit card numbers on the Net, they don't get them there...
and something goes wrong, you get the blue screen of death instead of your show???
Imagine the Nielsen ratings on THAT!
Microsoft's ratigns would compete with "Survivor"s...
Well, just check the cable channel Odyssey on sunday nights and see. The last 3 sundays I've turned it over there and it has been music and the BSOD (set to not reboot even). I'm beginning to think it's a regularly scheduled program on sundays.
Am I wrong, or is the RIAA trying to write-out fair use? I had always thought that recording a broadcast off the radio [or TV] for personal, private purposes was considered fair use! Wasn't the Betamax case all about just this?
And now the RIAA is trying to tag FAIR USE with the slur of "Bootleg Recordings". I cry foul.
For personal use it always has been and always will be fine. That's time-shifting and is completely covered by fair use. If you notice though, only one section poitns out that it includes "even if the recording isn't resold". You can record something off TV or radio and use it for yourself, but you can't resell it or charge others to watch it. Conversely, you can't record a live concert without permission (who exactly has to give permission I'm not sure, but I believe it's the performing artist).
If I link to a page [that links to a page]* that links to a DeCss, am I in trouble?
If so, I'm removing my links to search engines
Did no one read the judge's ruling??? It was very clear that to be in violation, you had to link to deCSS, know you were linking to deCSS (or whatever "illegal" material it was), and link to it for the express purpose of spreading it. Search engines don't fall under this ruling because they don't know they are linking to "illegal" material. Please stopping FUDing the issue with "all linking is now illegal". Linking in general is in no way threatened by this ruling. The web will not cease to exist. Please move along, there's nothing to see here that will destroy the world (wide web).
Ah, I see. So if I applied rot13 to protect my new commercial data distribution media and someone used/usr/games/rot13 and not my licenced decryption program to view it, they're in violation of the DMCA.
In the eyes of the DMCA, a lock made out of tissue paper is a lock nonetheless.
Everyone seems to be harping on the fact that CSS isn't a "good" encryption sceme, and therefore should be ignored. What does constitute a "good" encryption scheme? And who gets to decide? Does anything that gets cracked automatically become a "bad" encryption scheme? Is PGP "bad" because it has been cracked? Sure, it took longer than CSS but it was cracked nonetheless. Does it have to take a certain number of days to get cracked before it is "good"? They made an honest encryption attempt, figuring on the fact that is is illegal to crack it. Seems thats good enough to fit under the DMCA, like it or not
That's not how I read it. Some documents on the web may be perfectly legal distrbute yes, but there are mp3's that are legally distributed on napster too. Now what if someone put a copyrighted book on the web? (an act which is illegal by current copyright laws) When the search engines come and index this page containing the book they will then have links to copyrighted material, exacly the same as napster does! It is just that one indexes MP3's instead of HTML, besides that they are doing almost the exact same thing!
The difference is that Napster was designed for searching for illegal files, where as web search engines were not. That is what the whole law suit is about. Napster never tried to be a common carrier until they were sued. They advertised that you wouldn't find no name bands, only the biggest names (which would mean copyrighted MP3s). Napster is a tool designed to be used to find copyrighted MP3s, which is why it is in a different category from ISPs. They tried to get common carrier status and were denied.
Well that's not really the point. I don't even play mp3s all that much since my computer is getting a little old. The point is that I don't want the record companies having that much say over what I can and cannot do with a CD that I purchased. The fact that I never even used my.mp3.com has nothing to do with it.
They really have no say over what you can do with your CD. You can rip it to MP3, put those MP3s elsewhere and play them. You can upload them to your web site, download them at work and play them there. You can do anything you want with your CD except for distribute the music on it. It's the same concept that says I can't buy a book and make photocopies and give them to people. You own what you have bought, which is the CD, you don't own the content, so you aren't free to do anything with the content other than use it for the purpose it was sold for, which is to listen to. Other than in the area of redistribution, the record companies can't tell you what to do with your CD.
1) Reduce the terms on copyrights to 10 years from public release. There is no reason why it should take more than this time for copyright holders today to rake in the wealth they can get from this given the ease of obtaining legal copies of the work either from brick and morter or from the internet. Of course, this would be retroactive like all other copyright extention bills of late.
This has a lot of bad implications though. Think of all the small hits and one hit wonders in the eighties. Now think of all the eighties compilations that are being sold right now. The only person that would make anything from them would be the people who put together the CDs. I think copyright is definitely too long as it is, but I think that 10 years is too short. Possibly 30 years. By that time any music is considered an "oldie" and would not have much life left in it commercially.
this is a very troublesome issue. the way i interpret it is if the mpaa actually wins in the appellate/supreme court then the first amendment means nothing.
we all lose our right to link to something on the internet...
we cant speak out against things large corporations dont want us to...
plus so many more things i cant list them all.
am i interpreting this correctly?
This case says nothing about linking in general. The judge was very specific in pointing out why he ruled against linking the way he did. It is illegal to knowingly link to illegal material (in this case made illegal by the DMCA) for the purpose of spreading known illegal material. You could link to a site and say "HEy, this place has the deCSS code on it, let them know you think it's wrong" and not be breaking the law. You could link to a page and not know it has illegal material (and they have to prove you had exact knowledge of the illegal material) and not break the law. All you lose is the ability to deny everything because it's not on your server, even though you are the one helping spread it.
As for code being speech, I think it's somewhere in between. It is speech, but it is speech that can be directly used as a tool. The only decent comparison I can think of is if you could make a car you could fold into a briefcase. While it's folded, it's not a car (when it's not compiled, it's not usable), but with an easy and quick modification (unfolding the briefcase or compiling the source) it becomes something entirely different. It is somewhere between speech and a tool, and it should be held somewhere in between.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to forget he didn't do this graffiti out in the open. HE first broke into someone's system, and then did the graffiti. If I spraypaint the outside of an office building, I get charged with vandalism. If I break into the office building and spray paint the CEO's office, I get charged with breaking and entering (and vandalism or whatever else I did while inside). It's not like the kid wrote a naughty note on a message board somewhere, he broke into a system and left the note all over.
Not true. Malicious vadalism tends not to occur in public view, which proves that the vandals have some understanding of the risk levels involved. While imagining the consequences may be a bit fuzzy, even anti-social types do recognize levels of severity of punishment, and are able to relatively accurately assess risks.
This is OT, but relavant to this discussion.
Harsh punishments have never been proven to decrease the activity. One of the most famous example was during the Middle Ages, pickpocketing was rampant. It was a crime that was punishable by death, and in that time that meant public hanging. Now, where do you think the most pickpocketing took place? That's right, at the hanging themselves, because that was an easy place to do it. Most criminals never consider getting caught. They do take normal precautions, but they don't think about what will happen if they get caught, because they think they won't. I mean come on, if they thought they might get caught they wouldn't do it.
I think vandalism is a really poor comparison. It may be good for when a hacker actually defaces a website, but the actualy hack itself is much more akin to breaking and entering. B&E is (I think) a felony, no matter what you are breaking into. Anything else you do while you are there is a seperate crime, with it's own charges. I think this is the same approach that should be taken to hacking. Hacking into a system is a crime. Anything you do while you are there may be another. If you just look around, all you get is hacking. If you deface a website, you might get the electronic equivalent of vandalism. If you destroy files, that's another charge. But the hacking into a system is a crime unto itself. Unlawful entry is unlawful entry, no matter if it's a house, business, or a computer system.
Personal responsibility is the issue. Does someone become a dangerous criminal solely because they have a legally purchased and safely stored firearm, screwdriver, or copy of DeCSS(used for watching their legally purchased DVD on the Linux machine that is their only computer)? At what point does the government overstep its bound in quelling the fears of the 'people' when they remove legal ownership and access rights on the basis of spurious claims of lost revenue streams by corporations who are not being held accountable for their claims of loss?
What truly justifies things like Carnivore, if not the 'compelling interest' of a would be police state? Yes, Carnivore -could- be used in ways consistent with the Constitution, but who trusts an organization whose headquarters is the J. Edgar Hoover Building? I can assure you that Freeh is even less ethical than his infamous predecessor.Or whatever? Wanna bet we have a long legal fight before we get this tool outlawed?
If this isn't talking out of both sides of your mouth, I don't know what is. You argue that things that could do illegal things should be legal, because it is personal responisiblity to use them correctly. We have to assume people will use them for legal purposes, so we shouldn't ban them (and I agree with this for the most part). Then you argue that Carnivore should be illegal because it can be used in an illegal way. You don't have faith in the government to use it legally, yet you want the government to trust you to use DeCSS legally. Seems trust works both ways, if you want everyone to trust you, you have to trust them.
The escort service is a tool for finding a date. You canuse it improperly (to find a prostitute), but that's not what it there for (ask them, they'll tell you this). Just like Napster isn't there to find copy-righted MP3...oh wait, they even said that's what they are there for. Maybe it is a bad analogy, at least an escort service pretends to be a legitimate business.
You know, escort services are just tools too. They just provide people with a date for the night, it's just that some people use it as an excuse for prostitution (no I'm not against prostitution, but it provides a good example). If these services are found to be providing prostitutes, they are either fined HUGELY or more likely shut down. There may be one or tow guys who use them to really get a date for a party and not have sex, but in general that isn't happening. Sounds kinda like Napster. NApster can't control what it's users do, just like an escort service can't control what it's employees do. They both can be used for legitimate purpose, but aren't be the overwhelming majority. So why should Napster get off scot free when it was designed for illegal activity, encourages people to engage in illegal activity, and turns a blind eye to that illegal activity?
The difference is that Napster was designed from the ground up to violate copyrights and traffic copyrighted MP3s. Everyone seems to think that Napster is similar to IRC, or ICQ because you can transfer MP3s across those, but the only real similarity is that they transfer files. NApster transfers a specific kind of file, and it was designed to transfer specific files that are illegal. ICQ was designed to transfer any file, of any kind, and of any legality. Everyone seems to think the Napster deserves common carrier status, but it is anything but. It is the difference between a public bus line that will allow anyone, and a taxi service that caters to carrying criminals away from a crime scene, but occasionally carries an innocent person too. Napster chose to focus on illegal MP3s (unlike MP3.com who chose to carry legal MP3s, at least until they started My.MP3.com). If I choose to have a yard sale and invite people to sell stolen goods, I WILL be held accountable, even if there is one person selling legitamate goods.
Since it is, he does. The legitimate use is NOT secondary, damn it all, even if it's less common.
So in other words, no one should ever compromise anything, ever. There may be one guy who has a legitamate need for anthrax, so we should all be allowed to have it. One guy in a cave may really need a nuclear weapon to protect himself, so it's okay for everyone to have it. HEll, there may be one guy who really needs to drive but can't pass the drivers test, so it's okay if everyone drives without a license. Everything in life is a compromise. If something has little (bordering on no) legitimate use, then it shoudl be treated that way. That's why guns are treated differently than knives, knives have a myriad of legitamate uses, while guns have few. Just because one person can find a way to use something in a way that is justidied doesn't mean we should just throw up oru hands and say that it's obviously a great and useful tool. Why are lock-picking tools illegal (except for locksmiths)? Surely there is one guy who has a use, but overwhelmingly that is not the case. The same rational applies here.
You said the magic words..."fair use copying". People are copying a page or two, not whole books. If people started flocking to libraries and copying whole books (maybe they have free copy day or something that makes it economically feasible) do you think they would just let it happen? Do you think they would allow their resources to be used to copy hundreds of books a day? Not a chance, but because the resource is net access and it's music instead of books it's suddenly okay? If Napster was used for fair use by most people you would have a case. But I would guess that 90% of people use it download music so they don't have to pay for it. It's not stuff they have on CD already, it's stuff they don't have and want without paying for it. LAst time I checked, that's not covered under fair use.
I can personally verify that on a trip to HK in August last year, I saw a DVD copy of "Mercury Rising" (I think that's what it's called, it was a Bruce Willis movie about a kid who cracked the NSA's super-secret code...). As far as I could tell, it had been duplicated from the official CD.
I should have stated that a little better. I know given enough money you can make a playable DVD, but can the average person make on with a simple DVD-ROM. If you have enough money to press your own DVDs, you can make damn near anything, but could someone who isn't running a full scale pirating business duplicate it?
But, as people so often point out, there is no way to make something that can't be copied (and the jury is still out on whether you can make a playable copy of a DVD, I've yet to hear any convincing evidence for either side). People are continually saying how now that we have entered the "information age" everything is free because it can be copied and there is no way to stop it. So, what do you propose to stop this copying? Do we let people take what they want? Since everything can be copied (and once copied and on the net it can never be contained again) do we just give up and expect everyone to give everything away? And if we do do this, how do keep the economy running?
So again, while I appreciate your point, I think mass-posting DeCSS is a great form of protest.
While I appreciate a protest as much as anyone, spam is spam. A protest that does nothing but annoy people (which is really all this will do) accomplishes nothing but turning people against you.
And owning a copy of the music constitutes a contract. You are receiving a service, in fact you are going out and obtaining it. If you never own something by Britney Spears, there is no need to compensate her, as you are getting nothing, and she expects nothing in return. But when you go and find music by Britney Spears, it is the same as calling the plumber and asking him to come to your house. You have made an agreement to pay the price that is asked.
Unless you try to sell it at a later point. If everyone who wanted a copy of song "foo" was to download it, instead of buy it, if they ever did rerelease the CD, no one would need to buy it. If you couldn't get Purple HAze, and downloaded it, when they rereleased the CD, you would no longer want it, because you have it. Sure, some people will still buy it, because they are completists, but most people don't have an urge to buy things they already own in another form.
So what you are trying to say is that there is no way to buy Purple Haze? It's not on any CD available anywhere? That's funny, I just did a search on Amazon and came up with 87 CDs with the song Purple Haze on it. Even assume only 25% are correct and not duplicates, that's 21 CDs with the song. Seems like someone sure is selling it.
As for used CDs, you have every right to go and buy a used CD. The RIAA doesn't make any money off that sale, because they already made their money of the original sale. Unlike downloading it from the web, the money has already been made, and the person loses the ablility to use the CD once he sells it. Now, compare that to NApster, where one person buys a CD and a million people download it. Kinda different, huh?
If people care so little about Brittany that they won't pay to support her, well, I guess that means she won't be able to pay her bills. I believe that's called capitalism. Whether or not they get to listen to her music is incidental to the matter. If the only way you can get people to pay you is to hold a figurative gun to their head, what a sad state of affairs it is for you.
Try that the next time the plumber comes to your house. You don't care about him, so after he gets done fixing whatever, tell him to leave and that your not going to pay him. You won't pay to support him, because you don't care enough about him. For some reason I don't think that that will fly. If you use someone's service or goods (and yes, listening to music can be considered using a service or good, it is the artist's "product" you are using) you have to pay for it. There is no clause about "If you don't feel like paying for it, or think it's too expensive (even though you agreed to the price up front) then you don't have to pay". Can your employer keep you working there and just not pay you because they don't care enough to pay to support you? No, they have to pay you for all the time you worked there.
Your right, paying money doesn't mean you "deserve" to hear a song. It means you have the right to have a copy of the song. If you hear someone else's copy, or here it on the radio or whatever, that's fine. But that doesn't give you the right to "own" a copy of the song. Paying money gives you that right. If you download a copy of the song, you now "own" a copy of it, which means you should pay for that privilege (because it certainly isn't a right).
The point is that artists and record companies need to be reimbursed or else they won't be able to continue producing music. We shouldn't reimburse them simply because to do otherwise would be "wrong." We should reimburse them because we appreciate their efforts, we enjoy their songs, and we want them to produce more. If we do not enjoy the songs, if we wish they'd stop putting out such crap, then to reimburse them would be counter-productive. (Some might even say harmful.)
If you don't like what someone is doing, you shouldn't be purchasing their product, or using it. If you think it is worth taking the time to download, play, and take up your HS space, then obviously you enjoy it. There are many ways to sample songs before you buy them which have been around for quite a while, you should be using these to find out what you want to spend your money on. If you don't want to buy an album, you have no right to "own" a copy of the songs on that album (that's right, not even that one you really like). If you really like one songs, buy it as a single. But just because you don't want the whole CD doesn't make it right for you to steal even part of it. If I only want to plumber to come to my house and unscrew the cap to I can get into the pipes in my house, but he wants to charge me for the whole thing anyway, can I have him come over and unscrew the pipes and then kick him out whitout paying? Why should I pay for the whole thing when I only wanted part of it?
Speaking for myself, I believe we have the right (and sometimes obligation) to reimburse those who provide a valuable commodity, such as music or software; and we have the right to withhold reimbursement from those we choose.
So what your saying is that no one has a right to charge for what they do/make? Or more specifically, they have the right to charge for it, but you have the right to use their service/goods and not pay that charge (thus negating the purpose of charging in the first place). Do you have the right to charge your employer for your time (ie get paid)? Does your employer have the right to withhold paying you? What if they think you didn't work as hard as you should have this month, can they not pay you? What if they think you're charging too much for your time, can they just not pay you? If you use a good/service, you agree to pay for it. Not doing so is stealing (yes, I understand if it's a service nothing is lost, etc etc etc, it's all semantics).
I felt pretty safe buying online too -- Until somebody somewhere hijacked my card number, and I suddenly had over a $1000 worth of speakers and stereo equipment show up on my bill. No, I did not have to pay for it, and even if they caught the person who did it (a pretty good bet, since the moron also used it to pay his cell phone bill), I wouldn't know for sure that it was from an online purchase becuase they don't release any information about the investigation. But it makes you feel quite vulnerable, and does a lot to make you a little more cynical about tossing your card number around (it was an AmEx, by the way). So, I'm all for this because my security concerns are based on more than artificial worries.
Buying online is probably safer than buying in person. If you take the normal precautions (secure site that is known) you are almost guarenteed safety. Compare this with a restaurant. You eat your meal and give you card to Joe Waiter to carry away and do whatever he wants. No one steals credit cards off the internet, because it is hundreds of times easier to talk to your buddy who works at Denny's and ask him to get you some credit card receipts. People use stolen credit card numbers on the Net, they don't get them there...
Imagine the Nielsen ratings on THAT!
Microsoft's ratigns would compete with "Survivor"s...
Well, just check the cable channel Odyssey on sunday nights and see. The last 3 sundays I've turned it over there and it has been music and the BSOD (set to not reboot even). I'm beginning to think it's a regularly scheduled program on sundays.
And now the RIAA is trying to tag FAIR USE with the slur of "Bootleg Recordings". I cry foul.
For personal use it always has been and always will be fine. That's time-shifting and is completely covered by fair use. If you notice though, only one section poitns out that it includes "even if the recording isn't resold". You can record something off TV or radio and use it for yourself, but you can't resell it or charge others to watch it. Conversely, you can't record a live concert without permission (who exactly has to give permission I'm not sure, but I believe it's the performing artist).
If so, I'm removing my links to search engines
Did no one read the judge's ruling??? It was very clear that to be in violation, you had to link to deCSS, know you were linking to deCSS (or whatever "illegal" material it was), and link to it for the express purpose of spreading it. Search engines don't fall under this ruling because they don't know they are linking to "illegal" material. Please stopping FUDing the issue with "all linking is now illegal". Linking in general is in no way threatened by this ruling. The web will not cease to exist. Please move along, there's nothing to see here that will destroy the world (wide web).
In the eyes of the DMCA, a lock made out of tissue paper is a lock nonetheless.
Everyone seems to be harping on the fact that CSS isn't a "good" encryption sceme, and therefore should be ignored. What does constitute a "good" encryption scheme? And who gets to decide? Does anything that gets cracked automatically become a "bad" encryption scheme? Is PGP "bad" because it has been cracked? Sure, it took longer than CSS but it was cracked nonetheless. Does it have to take a certain number of days to get cracked before it is "good"? They made an honest encryption attempt, figuring on the fact that is is illegal to crack it. Seems thats good enough to fit under the DMCA, like it or not
The difference is that Napster was designed for searching for illegal files, where as web search engines were not. That is what the whole law suit is about. Napster never tried to be a common carrier until they were sued. They advertised that you wouldn't find no name bands, only the biggest names (which would mean copyrighted MP3s). Napster is a tool designed to be used to find copyrighted MP3s, which is why it is in a different category from ISPs. They tried to get common carrier status and were denied.
They really have no say over what you can do with your CD. You can rip it to MP3, put those MP3s elsewhere and play them. You can upload them to your web site, download them at work and play them there. You can do anything you want with your CD except for distribute the music on it. It's the same concept that says I can't buy a book and make photocopies and give them to people. You own what you have bought, which is the CD, you don't own the content, so you aren't free to do anything with the content other than use it for the purpose it was sold for, which is to listen to. Other than in the area of redistribution, the record companies can't tell you what to do with your CD.
1) Reduce the terms on copyrights to 10 years from public release. There is no reason why it should take more than this time for copyright holders today to rake in the wealth they can get from this given the ease of obtaining legal copies of the work either from brick and morter or from the internet. Of course, this would be retroactive like all other copyright extention bills of late.
This has a lot of bad implications though. Think of all the small hits and one hit wonders in the eighties. Now think of all the eighties compilations that are being sold right now. The only person that would make anything from them would be the people who put together the CDs. I think copyright is definitely too long as it is, but I think that 10 years is too short. Possibly 30 years. By that time any music is considered an "oldie" and would not have much life left in it commercially.
we all lose our right to link to something on the internet...
we cant speak out against things large corporations dont want us to...
plus so many more things i cant list them all.
am i interpreting this correctly?
This case says nothing about linking in general. The judge was very specific in pointing out why he ruled against linking the way he did. It is illegal to knowingly link to illegal material (in this case made illegal by the DMCA) for the purpose of spreading known illegal material. You could link to a site and say "HEy, this place has the deCSS code on it, let them know you think it's wrong" and not be breaking the law. You could link to a page and not know it has illegal material (and they have to prove you had exact knowledge of the illegal material) and not break the law. All you lose is the ability to deny everything because it's not on your server, even though you are the one helping spread it.
As for code being speech, I think it's somewhere in between. It is speech, but it is speech that can be directly used as a tool. The only decent comparison I can think of is if you could make a car you could fold into a briefcase. While it's folded, it's not a car (when it's not compiled, it's not usable), but with an easy and quick modification (unfolding the briefcase or compiling the source) it becomes something entirely different. It is somewhere between speech and a tool, and it should be held somewhere in between.