There is a simple explanation for why major label will never release music in an MP3 format. I know someone who bought an electronic album from E-Music.com. He paid $8.00 for the right to download all the songs from the album and promptly did so. He then placed them in his directory with all his other MP3's. Which meant they were immediately shared on Napster after he got them. This means that he paid for them, but anyone on Napster didn't have to. Figuring that most people are on Napster to find pirated music, they'll see it, download it, and never pay for it.
People want music to be available on the web, but they only want it in MP3 format. But if it's offered in MP3 format, it is immediately shared, so less people will buy it. The only way to offer music on the web is in a way where it can't be easily shared, and MP3 sure isn't it.
Everyone is saying how they want their privacy while at work, and their employers shouldn't be able to even access their machines at work, but what about the company's privacy concerns?
I work for a company that is in the pharmaceutical industry. This is a very competitive industry, and corporate espionage is not unheard of. If the company can't look at email if they feel they need to, what is to stop an employee from pulling down all the information on the server and sending it to a competitor? Who is to say that encrypted file is a letter to your mom and not the memo you just received about company policy and the data just received from another company you work with?
People survived for years without having personal email at work, and they can do it now. If it's something you don't want your employer to know about, don't send it through his sytem. The company has as much right to protect their privacy as you do.
Of course not going there isn't a good option. The only option to something you disagree with is to steal it! Think McDonalds hamburgers are bad, steal them! That way no one else can have them. Think Burger King costs too much? Steal a Whopper! Forget not eating there, show them you really don't like them (because you would only steal it if you REALLY disagreed). It works for Napster, it can work anywhere!!!!
To me, there is a huge difference between linking directly to a file and linking to a page.
I disagree. Both a "page" a "file" are merely information. Distiguishing between a "page" and a "file" is silly and abritrary, and very likely to cause problems, especially since a "page" is just a particular format of "file". I wouldn't make sense to rule, for example, that linking to HTML pages is always legal, but other file types may be illegal. What if, in the future, "pages" are no longer HTML files, but some other format? Also, even "pages" may have illegal content (e.g. UUEncoding an MP3 and displaying the resulting text as an HTML file).
A web page is a file, but the constitution is also a piece of paper, I can burn a piece of paper, therefore I can burn the constitution. A web page is a specific type of file, that can by interpretted by a browser to convey information or link to other pages. I'm not saying a page couldn't be illegal, anything CAN be illegal in one context or another, what I am saying is that in a generic context, linking to a page would be legal. IF it can be shown you knew that page contained the full text of a copyrighted book, then yes, a "page" would be the same as an illegal MP3 file. I am trying to abstract the idea of linking to a page that links to a page that links to something illegal would be illegal (because that would kill the internet) linking directly to illegal material. Linking directly to illegal material (whether it be an MP3, or a text file, or whatever) is a concious act that in most cases can be avoided (yes, there is that tiny.00001% chance that the funny pic you linked to could become an pirated MP3 file, but there is also that same chance that a cow will fall from the sky and land on my head, I wouldn't count on either happening). There must be a level of responsibilty that goes with linking directly to a file. Ignorance is not an excuse. This is especially true when you tout on your web page that the files are illegal.
An interesting analogy, but as with most relating the Internet to Real Life, it doesn't really work. This is because MP3Board is still not involved, even if it provides a direct link to the file. The analogy you describe would be work only if MP3Board had a service where they would temporarily store a file for you, so that you can download it directly from MP3Board at a later time, which is certainly not the case. Also, the analogy fails because the site does not "give" MP3s; in a really basic sense, all that the site is doing is "displaying" a file to a person's browser, and the person who is viewing it is making a local copy for himself.
The whole point behind linking to a file being legal is that they are not storing the file on their computer. YEt, in my analogy, I am not storing the watch. I am passing the watch onto another person, much as a link passes a file to a person (not a good description, but I think you understand). I may not know the watch is stolen, you may not know the file is illegal, but you are held liable for the watch (receiving stolen goods is a crime, even if they are not explitied stated that the goods are stolen), you should be held liable for the file.
I think this is more a case about what you are linking to. MP3board is linking directly to illegal files, which they know are illegal, and tout as illegal. TO me, there is a huge difference between linking directly to a file and linking to a page. If you link to a web page, the content can change without your knowledge. If you link to a file, it can be assumed you know what is in that file to begin with, and the chances of the contents of a file being changed are extremely slim. As long as they keep this lawsuit about linking to files, and not linking to pages, the Internet is in no danger.
To use a (weird) analogy, consider the case of someone looking to buy a stolen watch. It is not illegal for me to say that Bob sells stolen watches down at the corner. This would be the equivalent of linking to a page, basically pointing someone in the right direction. Now, what happens, if this person goes, talks to Bob, and leaves without taking his (stolen) watch with him? Bob then comes to me, asks me to give him the watch, which I do. This is what MP3board is doing. They are handing the MP3s to people. It's not their watch, and they didn't sell it, but they are involved nonetheless.
Moreover let's say someone is succesfully using the username and IP to identify me. And let's further assume he wants to sue me because I am sharing a file called "Metallica-DownloadThis.mp3". My question is: How does he know there is indeed a copyrighted song in this file? It might just be my latest dumped core that I automatically rename to Metallica-DownloadThis.mp3 because the band pissed me off or I think it is funny. In that context, having a file called Metallica-DownloadThis.mp3 and sharing it though Napster or Gnutella is perfectly legal
It may not be illegal, but having a file names that is enough suspicion to investigate further. If I have a baggie that looks like it has crack in it, and I show it to a cop, he's going to arrest me. If you have something that looks exactly like a pirated file, they have enough grounds to pursue it. You may be found innocent in court, but that doesn't mean they aren't going to try and prove it was a pirated file.
I, for one, would not pay. In fact, I would immensly enjoy trying to crack this protection scheme. I would enjoy trying to crack it way more than I would enjoy watching the film. An I would enjoy watching a film I cracked (or recieved a cracked copy of) way more than watching a film I paid for.
So what you are saying (and apparently the moderaters agree with you) is that all the people that have been spewing about "If they make something easy to get and affordable on the net, we'll buy it instead of steal it" is a huge load of crap? Here is something that is distributed in the "great new way" everyone wants, yet no one is willing to pay for it, because it will be cracked and available for free. Once again, it is proven that high prices don't cause piracy, piracy is justified by bitching about high prices.
The way I understand it is that record companies basically serve as a bank where musicians can get a loan to produce and market an album. This basically how Lars Ulrich explained it. Now, when the album goes on sale, all the money made from sales goes to pay the record company first, and the artist doesn't see a penny until the loan is paid back. What I want to know is this: What happens if the album doesn't sell enough to cover the loan? Does the artist still own it? Are they beholden to the record company to produce more albums? What happens?
No, the artist doesn't owe the record company any money. If the label drops them after one bad album, the label will NEVER recover that money (unless for some reason, the album later takes off). That is what most people don't factor into the cost of a CD. PRobably not more than 50% of CDs (and that's being VERY generous) make back the money that wasd spent to make them. The rest of the CDs have to make the money to pay for themselves, and to give the record companies enough money to cover their losses. For every N'Sync there is a Billy Pilgrim that, no matter how good they are, has a CD or two, never really takes off and makes money, and the record company drops them and takes a bath.
don't go flying off the handle just yet
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 3
Before everyone screams, maybe we should see what these "Recovery CDs" can contain. We ordered a system from Dell a few months ago with Windows 2000 Professional on it. It came with what I assume is a "Recovery CD" instead of the full software. The only difference is that it checks to see if the system is a Dell system before it will let you install. And yes, it kept my boss from pirating it and installing it on other (non-Dell) systems. If that is the only restriction on "Recovery CDs" then there isn't a problem.
Restriction on Binding Middleware Products to Operating System Products. Microsoft shall not, in any Operating System Product distributed six or more months after the effective date of this Final Judgment, Bind any Middleware Product to a Windows Operating System...
This is the one that really gets me. This whole trial started over the "illegal" tying of IE into Windows, and according to this, they don't have to take it out. Since it's already in, it gets to stay in.
I can't see where anyone can claim they weren't out to get get MS from the begining, when the very thing that the whole trial was about isn't fixed in the end.
If you don't like the fact that you have to pay so much for it [...] then protest by not buying it.
``The government is slapping a $1000 tax on all TV sales and resales. If you don't like paying the extra $1000 then protest by not having a TV.''
Is that a sensible argument? No. Most people really want a TV enough that they'll buy one anyway. It would be an ineffective protest.
Actually, all that means is most people don't agree with you. Any protest without enough people means not enough people support your cause for you to make a change. Obviously, in this case, most people would think a TV would be worth the price, and not be overpriced, since they paid the price.
"Copyright" is a tax on copying, which you may believe to be good or bad. Maybe I object to the amount of market power that ends up in the hands of a few huge corporations as a result of this tax. Simply abstaining from buying CDs would be an ineffective protest. If these corporations also fund politicians' election campaigns, I may not have much strength to fight it politically either.
Abstaining from buying CDs is an effective protest if people support you. What that means is the majority of people have to think CDs are not worth the price they are paying for them, and think that enough that they are willing to not buy them. Everyone thinks everything is overpriced, but if you are willing to keep paying that price for it, then it's not overpriced. Imagine if 50% of the CD buying population agreed that CDs were overpriced, and thought this enough that they were willing to stop buying CDs. That would be an effecitive protest, and I would bet money that it would work.
However, a campaign of mass civil disobedience can work. If enough people support unauthorised copying it will be impossible to stop and the authorities might think about changing the law. I'm not supporting such a protest here [or rejecting it]. I'm just saying that the view which says "boycott it if you don't like it" doesn't address the problem. If someone really believes that the law is unjust (and isn't just acting selfishly) then they may be justified in performing unauthorised copying.
To use your own example, people would be justified in stealing TVs then, since that would be simple civil disobidience. Civil disobidience is not taking something that doesn't belong to you. Copying CDs isn't fighting a law, it's fighting a price. And I find it hard to believe anyone is copying music for unselfish reasons. They don't want to pay the price for the music (for whatever reason they give) yet they still feel they are entitled to the music without paying for it. That seems pretty selfish to me.
Didn't anybody read the original article (the one linked to above)? Other kids put up sites wich attacked him and his friends. He retaliated in kind and he is the only one being punished. Why not punish all of them? Oh, I know, because the rest of them were preppy assholes that agreed with the principle of the school. And the principle wanted the kid out of the way.
I didn't mention the other sites for 2 reasons. Number 1 is that I don't have any idea what was on those sites. Did they say "Joe is dumb" and everyone just assumed it was him, or did they go into detail about what they think is wrong with him, or did they claim he had sex with farm animals? I have no idea, so I can't comment on their sites and what happened to them. Number 2 is that he went far beyond talking about a few students to talking about a large amount of students and faculty. Saying "Joe is gay" can't really cause harm to a student. They may get picked on a little more, but it's not going to cause harm. Saying it about a teacher could cause him to lose his job if parents here this and believe it and are homophobic enough to want him fired. I'm not saying the other web sites were all right, but I don't know enough about them to comment on them.
But is this really that libelous? If the kid had yelled something obnoxious in the halls, would they have called the cops? The issue here is that there is an overreaction to the material because of the medium that it is being used. Because this was on a web page, the kid is getting an punishment that is out of proportion to the crime, in essence, getting punished for knowing html.
Part of the difference is the difference in scope. These kids called him names in front of 10 people (or however many people were standing around when they did it). He put up a website that could be viewed by potentially millions of people a day. It's the difference between me calling you an idiot in front of 3 people, or doing it in front of a crowd of millions.
On a slightly more legal angle(although IANAL), doesn't libel mean that the speech had to cause harm? What actual harm happened because of the web page being up? Did the school administrators get fired because this kid claimed they were drunks? It seems to me that while as immature and obnoxious as writing a nasty web page is, its hardly something you should get arrested and kicked out of the state for.
I believe your right, it has to be harmful. Of course we don't know exactly what all was put up on the website, so it may or may not have been able to cause harm. If it was something like "Teacher X has sex with children" they may be able to prove it, because that could definitely impact his job. Even some of the things he did say (specifically about teachers being "drunks") could put enough doubt in parents minds to cause problems. It's a tough call, because obviously his intent was to harm, and some things could possibly have some effact, but it seems extreme for a web page were he basically calls people names.
What frightens me most is the father basically saying what he did was okay. He stands up for the kid and says he didn't do anything really wrong, and even seems proud that he accomplished his goal of being run out of town.
Umm.. that's considered price-fixing. The record industry is setting a price and telling the retailers that they aren't allowed to sell a cd for less than that price, or they will face consequences (such as loss of ad money, or a refusal to deal with that particular store again). When you get the five largest record companies all doing this, you get an antitrust violation due to the harm they are doing to consumers and the market.
You're right, that is price fixing. My point was they didn't say anything about the price of CDs. CD prices won't come down, and the FTC didn't say they should.
As much piracy? No. But there would still be plenty of it.
Maybe, but I doubt it would be any worse than what you get with vhs tapes or cassette tapes. Once the prices came down on these, people didn't bother to copy them. They were cheap enough to buy that it didn't make sense to bother with copying.
Except that you can only copy so many videos by hand. Everyone seems to like this comparison, but they have basically nothing in common. To copy a video, you need 2 VCRs, a blank tape for every copy you make and LOTS of time. Distibuting a copy of a video to a million people is basically impossible. Now, to get a copy of a song to a million people you need a computer with a CD-ROM (which is almost every one), an internet connection, and Napster). With MP3s you can distribute an infinite number of songs to an infinite number of people (yes, it's hyperbole, I know) with little effort. It cost people time and money to get a (sometimes much) lesser quality copy of a video, whereas it is completely free to get a vitually exact copy of a song.
The industry stole from us, and then complains about us stealing from them. They're being just as hypocritical.
And as we all know, if someone steals from you, you are morally correct to steal from them. They way to show they are hypocritical is to not make their mistakes while showing others what they are doing. You invalidate your own arguement in the same breath you invalidate theirs.
I don't remember if Slashdot ran a story on this or not, but a week or so ago, the Federal Trade Commision concluded that music producers were engaging in price-fixing (forget the proper term, I'm sure someone will help me out). The FTC found that CDs cost TOO MUCH!
No, the FTC concluded that the record industry can't withhold advertising money from stores that offer their CD's at less than the recommended price. What this means is Best Buy or whoever can offer CDs at less than they pay for them (which is what was happening to attact people to the store and then hopefully sell them a big ticket item). CDs in general will not go down in price because of this.
And now it's time for all of the music industry to follow suit. They need to lower prices. Piracy is a result of outrageous prices! If CDs costed $4.95 a piece, would we see as much piracy? NO!!!
As much piracy? No. But there would still be plenty of it. Most people want something for nothing. That is why they use Napster, not as some grand protest.
And am I the only one who is sick and tired of music artists telling us bullshit like, "We don't have any control over the prices of CDs". I HATE THAT. Lars Ulrich sat there, and lied to our faces. You know it's bad when someone like Metallica cares so much about profits, that they are willing to lie, and try to get warm and fuzzy with their fans. Don't believe for a second. Artists have a lot more control than you think. They've just been locked into the "system" for so long, that they've lost sight of what's really important.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Artists have no control over how much they pay for a cd. They sign with a label, they make the music, the label advertises them and markets them and produces and sells the cds. The band can want to give away their CD for free, but it ain't gonna happen. The selling process is controled by the label.
If you ask me, I say keep running Napster, or Gnutella, as your taste preferes. And stop letting the criminal music industry tell you that you are a theif. Art should be free for everyone to enjoy!
So if you want to make a statement, don't buy RIAA CDs. Buy indie Cds, or go to MP3.com. That would make a statement. But when you try to make a statement about how the music industry is greedy and charge too much, and then go and show your own greed by stealing someone else's intellectual property, the only statement you make is about you own hypocrisy.
I saw this list last night, and my first thought was that it couldn't possibly be right, as most of the compromises on this list are UNIX related. NT accounts for twice as many web server compromises as every other OS combined, even though it holds only 21% of the Internet web server market. (look at http://www.netcraft.com and http://www.attrition.org for verification of these figures) Therefore, the most popular attacks should almost all be NT related. I brought this up to a friend, and he proposed that only the good sysadmins (read:mostly unix) actually either detected the intrusions, or bothered to report them. I can accept that, but I'm interested to hear other opinions.
A big part of this is that places like L0pht make programs for the Windows exploits, which means any kiddie can use a simple program to find and exploit the problem. There are far less of these programs for *NIX exploits (either because the *NIX exploits would be harder to create a program for, or because more people hate MS and focus on them). Just because it's popular to bash MS doesn't make it a fact everything said about MS is true.
After all the mess with Napster, mp3s, et alle, its good to see a band doing the Right Thing with mp3s. They Might Be Giants has a very 'geeky' and loyal fan base, but has trouble with record contracts. So, they get together with emusic.com, and say "We want to put out a mp3 only album". It sells wonderfully, even if its only a collection of bsides with a few new songs. A few months later, they add a mailing list, and people subscribe to get the latest TMBG news and here's the kicker: a FREE mp3 from the band with a short story behind that weeks selection. It may be a song from a live show that was particularly memorable, it may be a new song they're fooling around with, doesn't matter, the fans love it. Just last week, TMBG decided to put their upcoming EP on emusic.com. You pay $7.99, and get to download the 7 or so mp3s, and they then mail you the cd! Wow! Does it get any better? You've got fans that aren't mad at you, you get your music out, you make a couple bucks (probably more than you would if you had to deal with a record company), and people are generally happy! Whats so wrong with that?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I wish more bands would do things like that. But i don't think we should force any band to do it. If you want to release MP3's, go right ahead. Give away all the music you want, do whatever you want with your music. The catch is you can't make other people do what you want with THEIR music. If TMBG want to give away songs, more power to them. But if Metallica doesn't, you shouldn't steal them. It's similar to the GPL. It's a great license, but just because it's a great license doesn't mean we should force everyone to use it. It's one choice of many, just like releasing MP3's is a choice you can make.
If you know the license is there, and you bypass it, that means it doesn't apply? So if I don't read the GPL I can do whatever I want to with the Linux Source, right? I never agreed to the license, so it must be true. Just because you bypass something, doesn't make it not exist. I can bypass a no trepassing sign and claim I didn't know about it, but it still exists, and still applies. Same goes for software licenses. Saying otherwise is just plain dumb.
The statistic about *ONE* unsigned artist is particularly sobering.
And you aren't the least bit suspicious that that number is cooked up?
Just think for a second about what would be involved in coming up with an accurate number of unsigned bands being traded on Napster. I think he's either a) Ignorant (he isn't the brightest man I've even run across, after all) or b) lying.
Let's sya the number isn't accurate. Let's say it's an order of magnitude off, or even 2 or 3. That means while 1,400,000 million Metallica songs were downloaded, 1,000 unsigned artists were downloaded. That's 1400 songs by just Metallica to ever song by an unsigned artist. Now, let's say Metallica is 5% of all Napster traffic. Thats means there were...counting on fingers and toes... 28000 copyrighted songs to every song by an unsigned artist. Which makes songs by unsigned artists statistically insignificant.
Don't get me wrong, I like Napster, and I use Napster. But I hate to see people trying to rationalize what they're doing as being the "right" thing. At the very least be honest and don't try to bullshit everyone about it.
See, they go after the poster, the one that commited the crime, slap him with a small fine and embrass the hell out of him so he doesn't do it again, penthouse gets from cash from it and everyone is happy.
Which is exactly why the compromise that is before congress is such a goodthing. Napster doesn't track users, so finding a user and going after them is difficult if not impossible. If Napster required some form of identification (even something as mundane as an address or something similar to what ISPs have) then they COULD go after the users. But, since Napster is allowing people to use their service anonymously, they don't have anyone else to go after. Good laws only work when all the sides work together to make them work.
The problem that I have with the lawsuite and the way people are taking it is that Napster is not to blame. Napster is just a service it's some of the people using it that are breaking the law. You're right, Napster isn't directly to blame, but they aren't helping either. If a certain plane has illegal drugs on it every time it flies into the US, and the crew is legitimately ignorant of where they came from, how long to you think this plane is going to be flying into the US? Or, a better example. If I have an open house with 1000 people (that I don't invite, I just put the word out that I will be having people over for a reason I don't define) every weekend and they end up trading drugs, guns, stolen credit cards, etc., how long do you think this will be going on? I don't know the people, I don't pay attention to what they trade, I don't make any money off of it, there are even a few people trading legal things, so what's the problem? I shouldn't be held responsible, even though it's at my house right? Even when people tell me what's going on I shouldn't be held responsible or be forced to make them stop, since I don't want to censor anyone, right? Wrong. You've responsible even though you don't pay attention to what's going on, and at the very least these little "gatherings" will be stopped.
So instead, everyone goes to Napster's house (or servers as the case may be) and does illegal things through them. I don't see much of a difference, especially when they are told what is going on.
Internet purchases will eventually be taxed, and they should be taxed, the only question is what tax will be used.
First, internet purchases should be taxed. Everyone is up in arms about Wal-Mart, etc, but the real people who will lose are the small local businesses. You run a small store, you pay taxes, and fight the big corporations. Suddenly, not only are you losing to the corporations, you are losing to the tax-free internet business. You go out of business quickly, because the online merchants have a clear advantage. Also, consider how much money the governments will lose (I'm not saying we need more or less taxes, but unless taxes are lowered overall, we need the same amount of money). The brick and mortar business are paying for roads, police and fire departments, local city improvements, etc with their taxes. Yet an internet business in the same area uses all of these things, yet doesn't have to pay for any of it? That doesn't make any sense at all. If they use all of the local amenities, they should pay the same local taxes as everyone else.
The big question is how to set up the tax system. It seems charging the tax rate of the customer's local communities put a large burden on the company to keep track of every tax rate in the country. If they charge the tax rate of the city the company is in, we end up with the wealthiest cities charging internet companies almost no taxes to lure them there, which puts us in the same boat. About the only thing I can figure is to make a nationwide "internet sales tax" rate, which would then be charged on all internet purchases. This rate could be the average of all the sales tax rates nationwide, and would go to whoever normally gets the local sales tax of the customer. That way, it's fair to all involved. But we can't just say at least 50% of sales will be over the internet, and expect things to keep working normally if there's no tax on these purchases.
Seriously, guys - this is the real test, the one we've been waiting for. Is it illegal to LINK to material that is deemed 'unworthy' under our laws? To use a gun metaphor (which will probably start a flame war).. it's legal to sell a gun, or a knife, etc. in the US.. it's just illegal to use them to harm somebody else. In this case, 2600.com isn't even PROVIDING the materials.. it just tells people where they can be obtained. Can I be sued for telling you where a gunstore is?
I think it depends on whether they were linking directly to the source itself, or a web page that contained the source. I believe it should be legal to link to page which contains the source, either as a link or as text on the page, because you have no control over what's on the page. You could have a link to a page with somethign legal, and the owner of the page changes the links on the page and links to DeCSS or puts up kiddie porn pictures, or whatever illegal thing you can think of. You have no control over what is on the page, and could be linking to something illegal without ever knowing it (because the page was changed after you made your link). If you link directly to a file (either a picture in the kiddie porn example, or the DeCSS source code in this one) you know exactly what you are linking to. To use an example, in the first case, someone is asking you where they can buy a stolen watch, and you tell them to go and see Vinnie down at the corner. In the second example, they go and see Vinnie, and Vinnie hands you the gun, and you hand it to the person. You're personally involved in the transaction, not just pointing them in the right direction.
Has anyone figured out why NSI was being so childish about not giving back the domain even after the lawsuit was dropped? And why they took it in the first place even when they didn't have to? One would think with all the bad press they've already received that they would try as hard as possible to get back in the public's good graces... Guess not.
(IIRC, the court order simply said that etoy couldn't use it, not that they couldn't own it.)
I have no idea why they kept it this long (that's a load of crap, once it was established that etoy was right and clear with etoys it should have been returned). I do undertstand why they froze it in the first place though. It is standing policy (among most places that are in charge of regulating things like this, not just NSI) that if there is a (serious)legal challenge, they freeze the challenged site until it is resolved. Basically, once the judge ruled in favor of restraining etoy (even temporarily) it was enough of a legal threat for the NSI to freeze the site. IMHO, this is good policy. If there is a dispute that has enough merit to make it into the courts, then the dispute should be settled in the court. They are basically covering their own butt by suspending it (and with as screwed up as NSI is, they need to cover their ass when they can).
I can't say I disagree with the people who are against the way this bill can obviously be used, but I wonder what affect it will have on the use of the GPL. In essense, the GPL and UCITA are the same thing (yes, they are used in completely different ways, but at their base they are rules/laws used to govern what you can and can't do with software you acquire). If it's ruled that you can't have rules like the UCITA, then that seems like it would greatly impact the GPL and it's enforcement. It seems either you can't place such limitations on what users can do with software (ie distributing source code with software or not reverse engineering), or users are free to do whatever they want with their software once they get it, regardless of any licenses on it.
Slashdot Mirror
People want music to be available on the web, but they only want it in MP3 format. But if it's offered in MP3 format, it is immediately shared, so less people will buy it. The only way to offer music on the web is in a way where it can't be easily shared, and MP3 sure isn't it.
I work for a company that is in the pharmaceutical industry. This is a very competitive industry, and corporate espionage is not unheard of. If the company can't look at email if they feel they need to, what is to stop an employee from pulling down all the information on the server and sending it to a competitor? Who is to say that encrypted file is a letter to your mom and not the memo you just received about company policy and the data just received from another company you work with?
People survived for years without having personal email at work, and they can do it now. If it's something you don't want your employer to know about, don't send it through his sytem. The company has as much right to protect their privacy as you do.
Of course not going there isn't a good option. The only option to something you disagree with is to steal it! Think McDonalds hamburgers are bad, steal them! That way no one else can have them. Think Burger King costs too much? Steal a Whopper! Forget not eating there, show them you really don't like them (because you would only steal it if you REALLY disagreed). It works for Napster, it can work anywhere!!!!
I disagree. Both a "page" a "file" are merely information. Distiguishing between a "page" and a "file" is silly and abritrary, and very likely to cause problems, especially since a "page" is just a particular format of "file". I wouldn't make sense to rule, for example, that linking to HTML pages is always legal, but other file types may be illegal. What if, in the future, "pages" are no longer HTML files, but some other format? Also, even "pages" may have illegal content (e.g. UUEncoding an MP3 and displaying the resulting text as an HTML file).
A web page is a file, but the constitution is also a piece of paper, I can burn a piece of paper, therefore I can burn the constitution. A web page is a specific type of file, that can by interpretted by a browser to convey information or link to other pages. I'm not saying a page couldn't be illegal, anything CAN be illegal in one context or another, what I am saying is that in a generic context, linking to a page would be legal. IF it can be shown you knew that page contained the full text of a copyrighted book, then yes, a "page" would be the same as an illegal MP3 file. I am trying to abstract the idea of linking to a page that links to a page that links to something illegal would be illegal (because that would kill the internet) linking directly to illegal material. Linking directly to illegal material (whether it be an MP3, or a text file, or whatever) is a concious act that in most cases can be avoided (yes, there is that tiny
An interesting analogy, but as with most relating the Internet to Real Life, it doesn't really work. This is because MP3Board is still not involved, even if it provides a direct link to the file. The analogy you describe would be work only if MP3Board had a service where they would temporarily store a file for you, so that you can download it directly from MP3Board at a later time, which is certainly not the case. Also, the analogy fails because the site does not "give" MP3s; in a really basic sense, all that the site is doing is "displaying" a file to a person's browser, and the person who is viewing it is making a local copy for himself.
The whole point behind linking to a file being legal is that they are not storing the file on their computer. YEt, in my analogy, I am not storing the watch. I am passing the watch onto another person, much as a link passes a file to a person (not a good description, but I think you understand). I may not know the watch is stolen, you may not know the file is illegal, but you are held liable for the watch (receiving stolen goods is a crime, even if they are not explitied stated that the goods are stolen), you should be held liable for the file.
To use a (weird) analogy, consider the case of someone looking to buy a stolen watch. It is not illegal for me to say that Bob sells stolen watches down at the corner. This would be the equivalent of linking to a page, basically pointing someone in the right direction. Now, what happens, if this person goes, talks to Bob, and leaves without taking his (stolen) watch with him? Bob then comes to me, asks me to give him the watch, which I do. This is what MP3board is doing. They are handing the MP3s to people. It's not their watch, and they didn't sell it, but they are involved nonetheless.
It might just be my latest dumped core that I automatically rename to Metallica-DownloadThis.mp3 because the band pissed me off or I think it is funny. In that context, having a file called Metallica-DownloadThis.mp3 and sharing it though Napster or Gnutella is perfectly legal
It may not be illegal, but having a file names that is enough suspicion to investigate further. If I have a baggie that looks like it has crack in it, and I show it to a cop, he's going to arrest me. If you have something that looks exactly like a pirated file, they have enough grounds to pursue it. You may be found innocent in court, but that doesn't mean they aren't going to try and prove it was a pirated file.
So what you are saying (and apparently the moderaters agree with you) is that all the people that have been spewing about "If they make something easy to get and affordable on the net, we'll buy it instead of steal it" is a huge load of crap? Here is something that is distributed in the "great new way" everyone wants, yet no one is willing to pay for it, because it will be cracked and available for free. Once again, it is proven that high prices don't cause piracy, piracy is justified by bitching about high prices.
No, the artist doesn't owe the record company any money. If the label drops them after one bad album, the label will NEVER recover that money (unless for some reason, the album later takes off). That is what most people don't factor into the cost of a CD. PRobably not more than 50% of CDs (and that's being VERY generous) make back the money that wasd spent to make them. The rest of the CDs have to make the money to pay for themselves, and to give the record companies enough money to cover their losses. For every N'Sync there is a Billy Pilgrim that, no matter how good they are, has a CD or two, never really takes off and makes money, and the record company drops them and takes a bath.
Before everyone screams, maybe we should see what these "Recovery CDs" can contain. We ordered a system from Dell a few months ago with Windows 2000 Professional on it. It came with what I assume is a "Recovery CD" instead of the full software. The only difference is that it checks to see if the system is a Dell system before it will let you install. And yes, it kept my boss from pirating it and installing it on other (non-Dell) systems. If that is the only restriction on "Recovery CDs" then there isn't a problem.
This is the one that really gets me. This whole trial started over the "illegal" tying of IE into Windows, and according to this, they don't have to take it out. Since it's already in, it gets to stay in.
I can't see where anyone can claim they weren't out to get get MS from the begining, when the very thing that the whole trial was about isn't fixed in the end.
``The government is slapping a $1000 tax on all TV sales and resales. If you don't like paying the extra $1000 then protest by not having a TV.''
Is that a sensible argument? No. Most people really want a TV enough that they'll buy one anyway. It would be an ineffective protest.
Actually, all that means is most people don't agree with you. Any protest without enough people means not enough people support your cause for you to make a change. Obviously, in this case, most people would think a TV would be worth the price, and not be overpriced, since they paid the price.
"Copyright" is a tax on copying, which you may believe to be good or bad. Maybe I object to the amount of market power that ends up in the hands of a few huge corporations as a result of this tax. Simply abstaining from buying CDs would be an ineffective protest. If these corporations also fund politicians' election campaigns, I may not have much strength to fight it politically either.
Abstaining from buying CDs is an effective protest if people support you. What that means is the majority of people have to think CDs are not worth the price they are paying for them, and think that enough that they are willing to not buy them. Everyone thinks everything is overpriced, but if you are willing to keep paying that price for it, then it's not overpriced. Imagine if 50% of the CD buying population agreed that CDs were overpriced, and thought this enough that they were willing to stop buying CDs. That would be an effecitive protest, and I would bet money that it would work.
However, a campaign of mass civil disobedience can work. If enough people support unauthorised copying it will be impossible to stop and the authorities might think about changing the law.
I'm not supporting such a protest here [or rejecting it]. I'm just saying that the view which says "boycott it if you don't like it" doesn't address the problem. If someone really believes that the law is unjust (and isn't just acting selfishly) then they may be justified in performing unauthorised copying.
To use your own example, people would be justified in stealing TVs then, since that would be simple civil disobidience. Civil disobidience is not taking something that doesn't belong to you. Copying CDs isn't fighting a law, it's fighting a price. And I find it hard to believe anyone is copying music for unselfish reasons. They don't want to pay the price for the music (for whatever reason they give) yet they still feel they are entitled to the music without paying for it. That seems pretty selfish to me.
I didn't mention the other sites for 2 reasons. Number 1 is that I don't have any idea what was on those sites. Did they say "Joe is dumb" and everyone just assumed it was him, or did they go into detail about what they think is wrong with him, or did they claim he had sex with farm animals? I have no idea, so I can't comment on their sites and what happened to them. Number 2 is that he went far beyond talking about a few students to talking about a large amount of students and faculty. Saying "Joe is gay" can't really cause harm to a student. They may get picked on a little more, but it's not going to cause harm. Saying it about a teacher could cause him to lose his job if parents here this and believe it and are homophobic enough to want him fired. I'm not saying the other web sites were all right, but I don't know enough about them to comment on them.
Part of the difference is the difference in scope. These kids called him names in front of 10 people (or however many people were standing around when they did it). He put up a website that could be viewed by potentially millions of people a day. It's the difference between me calling you an idiot in front of 3 people, or doing it in front of a crowd of millions.
On a slightly more legal angle(although IANAL), doesn't libel mean that the speech had to cause harm? What actual harm happened because of the web page being up? Did the school administrators get fired because this kid claimed they were drunks? It seems to me that while as immature and obnoxious as writing a nasty web page is, its hardly something you should get arrested and kicked out of the state for.
I believe your right, it has to be harmful. Of course we don't know exactly what all was put up on the website, so it may or may not have been able to cause harm. If it was something like "Teacher X has sex with children" they may be able to prove it, because that could definitely impact his job. Even some of the things he did say (specifically about teachers being "drunks") could put enough doubt in parents minds to cause problems. It's a tough call, because obviously his intent was to harm, and some things could possibly have some effact, but it seems extreme for a web page were he basically calls people names.
What frightens me most is the father basically saying what he did was okay. He stands up for the kid and says he didn't do anything really wrong, and even seems proud that he accomplished his goal of being run out of town.
You're right, that is price fixing. My point was they didn't say anything about the price of CDs. CD prices won't come down, and the FTC didn't say they should.
As much piracy? No. But there would still be plenty of it.
Maybe, but I doubt it would be any worse than what you get with vhs tapes or cassette tapes. Once the prices came down on these, people didn't bother to copy them. They were cheap enough to buy that it didn't make sense to bother with copying.
Except that you can only copy so many videos by hand. Everyone seems to like this comparison, but they have basically nothing in common. To copy a video, you need 2 VCRs, a blank tape for every copy you make and LOTS of time. Distibuting a copy of a video to a million people is basically impossible. Now, to get a copy of a song to a million people you need a computer with a CD-ROM (which is almost every one), an internet connection, and Napster). With MP3s you can distribute an infinite number of songs to an infinite number of people (yes, it's hyperbole, I know) with little effort. It cost people time and money to get a (sometimes much) lesser quality copy of a video, whereas it is completely free to get a vitually exact copy of a song.
The industry stole from us, and then complains about us stealing from them. They're being just as hypocritical.
And as we all know, if someone steals from you, you are morally correct to steal from them. They way to show they are hypocritical is to not make their mistakes while showing others what they are doing. You invalidate your own arguement in the same breath you invalidate theirs.
No, the FTC concluded that the record industry can't withhold advertising money from stores that offer their CD's at less than the recommended price. What this means is Best Buy or whoever can offer CDs at less than they pay for them (which is what was happening to attact people to the store and then hopefully sell them a big ticket item). CDs in general will not go down in price because of this.
And now it's time for all of the music industry to follow suit. They need to lower prices. Piracy is a result of outrageous prices! If CDs costed $4.95 a piece, would we see as much piracy? NO!!!
As much piracy? No. But there would still be plenty of it. Most people want something for nothing. That is why they use Napster, not as some grand protest.
And am I the only one who is sick and tired of music artists telling us bullshit like, "We don't have any control over the prices of CDs". I HATE THAT. Lars Ulrich sat there, and lied to our faces. You know it's bad when someone like Metallica cares so much about profits, that they are willing to lie, and try to get warm and fuzzy with their fans. Don't believe for a second. Artists have a lot more control than you think. They've just been locked into the "system" for so long, that they've lost sight of what's really important.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Artists have no control over how much they pay for a cd. They sign with a label, they make the music, the label advertises them and markets them and produces and sells the cds. The band can want to give away their CD for free, but it ain't gonna happen. The selling process is controled by the label.
If you ask me, I say keep running Napster, or Gnutella, as your taste preferes. And stop letting the criminal music industry tell you that you are a theif. Art should be free for everyone to enjoy!
So if you want to make a statement, don't buy RIAA CDs. Buy indie Cds, or go to MP3.com. That would make a statement. But when you try to make a statement about how the music industry is greedy and charge too much, and then go and show your own greed by stealing someone else's intellectual property, the only statement you make is about you own hypocrisy.
A big part of this is that places like L0pht make programs for the Windows exploits, which means any kiddie can use a simple program to find and exploit the problem. There are far less of these programs for *NIX exploits (either because the *NIX exploits would be harder to create a program for, or because more people hate MS and focus on them). Just because it's popular to bash MS doesn't make it a fact everything said about MS is true.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I wish more bands would do things like that. But i don't think we should force any band to do it. If you want to release MP3's, go right ahead. Give away all the music you want, do whatever you want with your music. The catch is you can't make other people do what you want with THEIR music. If TMBG want to give away songs, more power to them. But if Metallica doesn't, you shouldn't steal them. It's similar to the GPL. It's a great license, but just because it's a great license doesn't mean we should force everyone to use it. It's one choice of many, just like releasing MP3's is a choice you can make.
If you know the license is there, and you bypass it, that means it doesn't apply? So if I don't read the GPL I can do whatever I want to with the Linux Source, right? I never agreed to the license, so it must be true. Just because you bypass something, doesn't make it not exist. I can bypass a no trepassing sign and claim I didn't know about it, but it still exists, and still applies. Same goes for software licenses. Saying otherwise is just plain dumb.
And you aren't the least bit suspicious that that number is cooked up?
Just think for a second about what would be involved in coming up with an accurate number of unsigned bands being traded on Napster. I think he's either a) Ignorant (he isn't the brightest man I've even run across, after all) or b) lying.
Let's sya the number isn't accurate. Let's say it's an order of magnitude off, or even 2 or 3. That means while 1,400,000 million Metallica songs were downloaded, 1,000 unsigned artists were downloaded. That's 1400 songs by just Metallica to ever song by an unsigned artist. Now, let's say Metallica is 5% of all Napster traffic. Thats means there were...counting on fingers and toes... 28000 copyrighted songs to every song by an unsigned artist. Which makes songs by unsigned artists statistically insignificant.
Don't get me wrong, I like Napster, and I use Napster. But I hate to see people trying to rationalize what they're doing as being the "right" thing. At the very least be honest and don't try to bullshit everyone about it.
Which is exactly why the compromise that is before congress is such a goodthing. Napster doesn't track users, so finding a user and going after them is difficult if not impossible. If Napster required some form of identification (even something as mundane as an address or something similar to what ISPs have) then they COULD go after the users. But, since Napster is allowing people to use their service anonymously, they don't have anyone else to go after. Good laws only work when all the sides work together to make them work.
You're right, Napster isn't directly to blame, but they aren't helping either. If a certain plane has illegal drugs on it every time it flies into the US, and the crew is legitimately ignorant of where they came from, how long to you think this plane is going to be flying into the US? Or, a better example. If I have an open house with 1000 people (that I don't invite, I just put the word out that I will be having people over for a reason I don't define) every weekend and they end up trading drugs, guns, stolen credit cards, etc., how long do you think this will be going on? I don't know the people, I don't pay attention to what they trade, I don't make any money off of it, there are even a few people trading legal things, so what's the problem? I shouldn't be held responsible, even though it's at my house right? Even when people tell me what's going on I shouldn't be held responsible or be forced to make them stop, since I don't want to censor anyone, right? Wrong. You've responsible even though you don't pay attention to what's going on, and at the very least these little "gatherings" will be stopped.
So instead, everyone goes to Napster's house (or servers as the case may be) and does illegal things through them. I don't see much of a difference, especially when they are told what is going on.
First, internet purchases should be taxed. Everyone is up in arms about Wal-Mart, etc, but the real people who will lose are the small local businesses. You run a small store, you pay taxes, and fight the big corporations. Suddenly, not only are you losing to the corporations, you are losing to the tax-free internet business. You go out of business quickly, because the online merchants have a clear advantage. Also, consider how much money the governments will lose (I'm not saying we need more or less taxes, but unless taxes are lowered overall, we need the same amount of money). The brick and mortar business are paying for roads, police and fire departments, local city improvements, etc with their taxes. Yet an internet business in the same area uses all of these things, yet doesn't have to pay for any of it? That doesn't make any sense at all. If they use all of the local amenities, they should pay the same local taxes as everyone else.
The big question is how to set up the tax system. It seems charging the tax rate of the customer's local communities put a large burden on the company to keep track of every tax rate in the country. If they charge the tax rate of the city the company is in, we end up with the wealthiest cities charging internet companies almost no taxes to lure them there, which puts us in the same boat. About the only thing I can figure is to make a nationwide "internet sales tax" rate, which would then be charged on all internet purchases. This rate could be the average of all the sales tax rates nationwide, and would go to whoever normally gets the local sales tax of the customer. That way, it's fair to all involved. But we can't just say at least 50% of sales will be over the internet, and expect things to keep working normally if there's no tax on these purchases.
I think it depends on whether they were linking directly to the source itself, or a web page that contained the source. I believe it should be legal to link to page which contains the source, either as a link or as text on the page, because you have no control over what's on the page. You could have a link to a page with somethign legal, and the owner of the page changes the links on the page and links to DeCSS or puts up kiddie porn pictures, or whatever illegal thing you can think of. You have no control over what is on the page, and could be linking to something illegal without ever knowing it (because the page was changed after you made your link). If you link directly to a file (either a picture in the kiddie porn example, or the DeCSS source code in this one) you know exactly what you are linking to. To use an example, in the first case, someone is asking you where they can buy a stolen watch, and you tell them to go and see Vinnie down at the corner. In the second example, they go and see Vinnie, and Vinnie hands you the gun, and you hand it to the person. You're personally involved in the transaction, not just pointing them in the right direction.
(IIRC, the court order simply said that etoy couldn't use it, not that they couldn't own it.)
I have no idea why they kept it this long (that's a load of crap, once it was established that etoy was right and clear with etoys it should have been returned). I do undertstand why they froze it in the first place though. It is standing policy (among most places that are in charge of regulating things like this, not just NSI) that if there is a (serious)legal challenge, they freeze the challenged site until it is resolved. Basically, once the judge ruled in favor of restraining etoy (even temporarily) it was enough of a legal threat for the NSI to freeze the site. IMHO, this is good policy. If there is a dispute that has enough merit to make it into the courts, then the dispute should be settled in the court. They are basically covering their own butt by suspending it (and with as screwed up as NSI is, they need to cover their ass when they can).
I can't say I disagree with the people who are against the way this bill can obviously be used, but I wonder what affect it will have on the use of the GPL. In essense, the GPL and UCITA are the same thing (yes, they are used in completely different ways, but at their base they are rules/laws used to govern what you can and can't do with software you acquire). If it's ruled that you can't have rules like the UCITA, then that seems like it would greatly impact the GPL and it's enforcement. It seems either you can't place such limitations on what users can do with software (ie distributing source code with software or not reverse engineering), or users are free to do whatever they want with their software once they get it, regardless of any licenses on it.