Grokster Case Aftermath: Busy times Ahead for EFF 194
Tractorjector writes "Mad Penguin has published part two of their MGM vs Grokster interview series (the first part was featured on Slashdot on 2005-06-27). This time the focus is on EFF Director Shari Steele. A very compelling (and somewhat concerning) interview."
Re:Typo? (Score:5, Informative)
(1) that causes anxiety or uneasyness (this EFF article is concerning)
(2) to engage the attention of (this EFF article is still concerning)
(2) to be interesting (this EFF article keeps on being concerning)
On the other hand:
Disconcerting:
(1) Upsetting, embarassing (this EFF article isn't disconcerting, apart to Microsoft perhaps)
(2) Frustrating (this EFF article isn't disconcerting, even for Microsoft)
So, no, no typo there...
Not the only effects of the judgement... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/04/brit_sack
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,152
Re:Typo? (Score:4, Informative)
After a quick google search:
The Oxford English Dictionary has a limited amount of evidence for concerning as an adjective meaning 'causing concern; worrying; important; weighty'. Their first example is from 1649, and the most recent is from 1834; it's marked "archaic."
reduce the phrase to "a very concerning interview", and is just sounds wrong...
Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:5, Informative)
Copying music for your own personal use is explicitly legal. Apple is very clear that the goal is to give you control of your own playlist, not to aid piracy. Their packaging and advertising is full of statements like "iTunes is licensed for reproduction of non-copyrighted materials or materials the user is legally permitted to reproduce. The music tracks shown are for demonstration purposes only."
Re:EFF is great! (Score:3, Informative)
I don't understand what you need the EFF for in this case. You've always been free to give away your songs. The rule remains that as soon as you write something original, you have the copyright. While there are chargeable services around to help you establish said copyright, this is only to provide proof of copyright should it ever become a legal necessity to do so.
As for what the BBC did, those works aren't copyright! Copyright on old Beethoven's symphonies ended a long time ago. The BBC Symphony Orchestra's performance is copyrighted, but seeing as I'm a Brit paying the BBC's license fee, I think it's perfectly correct they should be publically available.
None of this addresses how an artist makes a living out by pursuing their art. You mention posting "little songs" - presumably you are not trying to make a full time living out of this? I respect the dedication of the pure artist (my login is testament to the fact that I've sold out to business get by, the obligatio part being that I had to give up partying and earn a living - ain't life a bitch?) and in particular the struggle it is to earn enough money to live on. For the EFF or anyone else to support businesses whose actual intent was to benefit from people breaking the law is ridiculous. So I don't have a problem with the recent ruling.
You want to give your songs away for free? Fine. You want to earn a living out of music? Great - and you deserve all the help and respect that can be given. You want to write some P2P software so that people can communicate, share free songs and Linux distros etc? Fantastic.
You want to benefit (get money/ friends/ contacts/ misguided respect/ whatever) from advertising a system with the intent and knowledge of infringing on other people's rights - well, you're basically being a selfish bastard at this point, aren't you? It's not as if Grokster has made any effort to support musicians, like providing a forum to sell music with a way to track what you've downloaded in order to pay the relevant artist. Anyone who's played in a band or watched someone try to set up an indie record label knows just how fucking hard it is to bring in the money to do so. If Grokster had some real decency, they'd have made a real effort to find out how to help all these kinds of people. Now as well as major labels always looking to keep the money for themselves, there's other bastards looking to make it impossible to get people to pay money in the first place.
If you don't want to or can't afford to buy music - don't. Go see a local artist. Download material deliberately released for free by the artist or even record label. The fact that this is legal isn't particularly relevent. There's more good and free music available via the internet than you could ever get hold of before. Rip CD's from your friends - not legal, but a nice little grey area that acts as an effective self throttle against using the power of the internet to dodge your obligations. Just show some respect to artists, and with any luck it would also contribute to the financial starvation of the commercial shit clogging up the charts and atmosphere...
Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:4, Informative)
I've heard repeatedly that this is not the case, as in there is no law that makes copying for personal use legal. It's only the Betamax ruling that makes it legal.
Help support the EFF [was:EFF is great!] (Score:2, Informative)
At the end of Black Hat [blackhat.com] and the beginning of DEFCON [defcon.org] this year is theSummit 2005 - bringing together DEFCON [defcon.org] & Black Hat [blackhat.com] speakers from past/present, as well as well known names in the computer security world. We all come together in a small, private venue for the evening summit to meet and discuss the important topics and socialize.
Note that there will be no more than 200 tickets sold (including featured guests), and all proceeds go to the Electronic Frontier Foundation [http://www.eff.org/ [eff.org] with the sponsor covering event overhead.
theSummit is our gathering of BlackHat / DefCon speakers and big thinkers in the Information Security realm. Anyone interested in supporting the EFF, are highly encouraged to attend; meet with fellow Information security professionals, and talk with big thinkers from the Information security world in a more private and informal setting. Too many times people want to ask questions, or have ideas that cannot make it to the big thinkers. This is either because of time conflicts or they are nervous to come up and talk. This event plans to pull out the stops, and allow the free form of conversation to flow.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation [http://www.eff.org/ [eff.org] is a nonprofit group of passionate people -- lawyers, technologists, volunteers, and visionaries -- working to protect our digital rights.
Where: Ice House Lounge, 650 S. Main Street, Las Vegas, Nevada
When: Thursday July 28, 2005, 9:00PM - 12:00AM
Tickets: $30 (pre-sale) $40 (at the door, if available) All Ages welcomed!
For more information, and to purchase tickets for the event:
http://www.dc702summit.org/home/ [dc702summit.org]
Event is sponsored by the Hackajar Foundation [hackajar.com], and by the members of DEFCON 702 [dc702.org].
We all hope to see you there!
(as posted in the Livejournal DEFCON community [http://www.livejournal.com/community/defcon_defc
Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:3, Informative)
That "Betamax ruling" was the US Supreme Court interpreting federal law to say "there's no rule against time-shifting, and it should be allowed."
And since Congress hasn't succeeding in baring the practice, it's legal. Sterling legal.
Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:3, Informative)
And even that is a dubious interpretation. The supreme court pretty much said:
(1) Timeshifting is legal under fair use
(2) The use of timeshifting is substantial
(3) Substantial non-infringing use is enough
The decision pretty clearly described the process of building a video library as infringing, I don't recall personal copying being discussed much at all. But extending the decision, private copying is probably legal because of timeshifting, the recipients are responsible for handling that copy in a non-infringing way.
Also note that back then, they were dealing with free/ad-based OTA signals. It is questionable if private copying would be legal if this means that the recipient is avoiding paying subscription/PPV fees. Under the redefinition of "commercial gain" to also include access to other copyrighted works, two buddies taping shows from each other's subscription channels might be considered commercial. That in itself does not make it illegal, but it is one of the four factors deciding if something is fair use or not. Obviously, commercial counts against it.
Kjella
Re:EFF is a Failure (Score:2, Informative)
Re:EFF is a Failure (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The whole thing is very clear (Score:3, Informative)
I've heard repeatedly that this is not the case, as in there is no law that makes copying for personal use legal. It's only the Betamax ruling that makes it legal.
Not true. The Betamax case was certainly the first time it was ruled on, but it has since been codified into law by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which added Chapter 10 to U.S. Title 17. Check out Section 1008, "Prohibition on certain infringement actions [cornell.edu]":
Basically, if your copy is for non-commercial, non-distributive, personal use, then it's not infringement.
Now I'd like to see that language extended to all forms of copyrightable media, including television shows, movies, books, magazines, newspapers, speeches, even prints/reproductions of artwork and sculpture. I should be able to do anything I want with things I own a copy of, as long as the use is non-commercial and non-distributive (i.e., I can't make money off it, and I can't give it to anyone else).