RIAA Claims Initial Legal Win vs. Napster 215
A number of people have written in with the initial news blurb that the RIAA [?] has won the initial battle against Napster. The US District Court in San Fransico has ruled that Napster is not just a "mere conduit" for files, but that it is actually liable for material transfered by the program. This comes on the heels of MP3.com's recent loss to the RIAA as well. Ouch.
Guess it's not too surprising... (Score:3)
I've got to question the defense's legal tactics of presenting no other witnesses or information besides a tape recording loop of Shawn Fanning screaming, "You can't stop the technology!" over and over.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Bad Precedent (Score:1)
that sucks. (Score:3)
Napster told people where to find files. they didn't distribute any files, and responsible users wouldn't have broken any laws. Those people who did choose to break laws did so by their own actions, and are the ones soley responsible.
You can find mp3 files on any search engine or IRC client.... what's the difference besides efficiency?
very bad for everyone if this story is true. I don't care about mp3 files at all personally, but this kind of precedent is a very bad one for freedom of information in general.
________
1995: Microsoft - "Resistance is futile"
Mental Judge (Score:4)
Liability and responsibility... (Score:1)
Given that they already conceded that point -- does this latest bit mean that Napster is liable for the behavior of users that it has not yet noticed, even if it were not negligent?
That is, is the law demanding 100% prevention here? Or is some level of enforcement effort "enough"? If the former... unless they maintained a database of, say, MD5 sums of MP3s they had explicit permission to transfer, and they somehow prevented sharing of other files, then this might be impossible.
What type of ruling is this? (Score:4)
This seems to be little more than a RIAA blurb press release to trumpet the news from Friday.... this is generically known as "spin." Other articles I read said that there were matters of fact to be determined by a jury... that means this case is going to progress.
(IANAL - I am now a lawyer - passed the bar exam on Saturday!)
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
Who's next? (Score:1)
--
Well, this sucks (Score:1)
If people fall back to using FTP as a means of transferring MP3s, are the authors of all the FTP clients and servers ever written going to be held liable for that?
this is bad but ... (Score:1)
Slashdot Poll Suggestion (Score:2)
So what do you people think about this recent streak of losses against the "Big Bad Corporations"?
Disclaimer: I am the Poll Mastah. I express my opinions in terms of poll suggestions.
not a win (Score:1)
Intial? (Score:1)
web1913: Inial Intail Initial
wn: initial intimal
Very Dangerous Precedent (Score:1)
The stupid thing about this, is unless they are going to go so far as to criminalize FTP, IRC and NNTP, this ruling is totally worthless. Fine if Napster loses, then another version will appear in its place. Welcome to fighting the hydra that is the Internet
---
Failure to summary dismiss != Losing (Score:1)
All the ruling seems to be is that the case should go to trial. It seems to me that there is a long way to go.
The pot and the kettle (Score:4)
``Napster is about facilitating piracy, and trying to build a business on the backs of artists and copyright owners,'' Rosen of the RIAA said.
If only we could make that illegal, then we might actually have reasonably priced music where the artist actually made money from sales of recordings.
That said, this isn't really a full judgement. Napster was requesting a summary judgement. IANAL but I believe that means that we still have several months of court battles ahead to see what's up with Napster.
Just forget about Napster (Score:3)
But there is something beautiful around the corner - gnutella and its open source clones. Yes, I know none of them work as well as napster, but it's just a matter of time and figuring out how to cache headers efficiently. Once the development is de-centralized and GPL-ed and file distribution is also de-centralized - what can "they" do?!
Sue everyone? They might, but it is much, much harder than suing just one company, especially taking into account that the end-users don't reap any direct financial benefits, unlike Napster.
While on the subject - what are the best open-source gnutella clones?
Makes sense (Score:1)
This makes perfect sense to me. %95 of Napsters files are illegal and all of the searches go through their servers and are run by their servers. Their business is supported by illegal MP3 trading. What can they expect? Unlike you average ISP their business is supported by illegal MP3 trading, not as they may claim supporting artists who want to bypass the record companies. (Something the RIAA wants to stop too, both sides are not blameless.)
In short I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Napster's getting what it deserved. And as expected velnerable technology, Napster's centralized servers, is in big trouble. Just like security through obscurity...
You shouldn't worry about this sort of action. You can get by it with Gnutella [wego.com] and FreeNet [sourceforge.net]
Re:Bad Precedent (Score:1)
this is getting nuts.
It's not a mere conduit... neither is altavista :) (Score:2)
Okay, if I am an ISP, and people can automatically publish a website, everyone has a directory to store stuff in that is web accessable, I'm a conduit. I can't prevent people from putting stuff up. I can take it down if notified but prior restraints on speach in this case would be a nightmare.
If I run an IRC server, I'm a conduit, speach flows freely, files flow freely, and there is little that I can do.
However, Napster is more than a funky IRC server. They provide a search engine to find a song based on the title and artist. They automatically makes available on your machine and music in the directory that you download do. How is this a "mere" conduit.
I mean, if I provide a forum to publish files and tell people that I'll take down illegal ones, I'm argueably a conduit.
However, Napster does not GIVE people the opportunity to share files, it defaults to doing so. I've been ripping my CDs recently. Some are badly damaged, and I replace the missing songs with downloads from Napster. Am I doing anything illegal, no. In fact, I can arguably download music I don't own legally. Copyright refers to distribution, not use. I can borrow my friend's CD. If make a SINGLE copy of it for personal use, I am under fair use. If my friend makes me a copy of his CD and hands it to me, it is illegal, as he is distributing copyrighted works.
Now, Napster's default to share MP3s and make them searchable puts it into a grey area. The fact is, I, like most people, have a single directory of MP3s (subdirectories, but a single directory). Some of the songs are copies of music I bought a copy of, some are songs that I have not bought a copy of, and some are songs that are freely downloadable.
However, Napster makes NO effort to prevent me from sharing illegal to share files. So far, they are still, IMO, okay. Napster AUTOMATICALLY shares out all the songs in my directory that I download to. If I am downloading replacements for damaged tracks, it is legal for me to download them. HOWEVER, Napster will AUTOMATICALLY share those same tracks out. That to me makes Napster a publisher.
They are providing software that shares out my copyrighted songs. I DIDN'T choose to share them out, Napster did. Therefore, Napster is breaking the law.
Alex
I see... (Score:2)
Time for the next revolution (Score:1)
What we need is a true file distribution system. Not limited to mp3's. All media types, all sorts of documentation, from plain text to Flash presentations.
More personalized too. Kind of a combination between ICQ, Napster and apt-get. At first you'd simply share files with friends and slowly you get to know more people...
The problem with Napster is that is was too obviously created to share (copyrighted) mp3's. File distribution is not illegal, nor is the mp3 format itself, but it is plain obvious what the purpose of Napster is. And judges don't like that.
Perhaps we should do some integration ourselves..
apt-get install britney spears
Napster Only has one use (Score:1)
It is actually possible to transfer data between two points and to stop each end knowing what is going where but protect against it being spied upon or changed while in transit. However this tends to involve very hairy discrete mathematics and codeing a good implementation is beyond the vast majority of people.
Lets face it whatever we do industry are going to turn round and say you might be infringing our copyright so we are going to sue you. This is a fight that I do not think that we can win.
-dp
ebay? (Score:1)
Clarification of the MP3.com ruling? (Score:1)
Why could mp3.com not re-brand itself as an internet radio station that plays music (music _requests_ to be more precise
What is the big legal difference between a radio station and an MP3 broadcaster? I believe that radio stations are _encouraged_ to broadcast music (free advertising), and that streaming internet radio stations have been stood up in court. Presumably there are streaming players that will play an MP3 as you download it?
Re:Liability and responsibility... (Score:1)
Well, nowadays, they pretty much demand it. Just look at what they've done to the gun and tobacco industry. Once this is over with, they can start firing up the lawsuits over SUVs.
Just as a side note, anyone else played around with the new Windows Media Player 7 beta? I noticed a section in the options which lets the users set their permissions on their music directory, allowing them to give read-only or more access to that directory, for giving other people and applications access to them. Sounds like Microsoft will be coming out with their own take on Napster and multimedia trading, although I'm sure they'll put in some of the rights management hooks, too. It definitely doesn't hurt that the new media player is cool as all get out, either.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Futility (Score:1)
In a way I almost feel sad for the RIAA.. They can shut down Napster, they can crush MP3.com, but this genie is never going back into the bottle. Things have changed.. It will be more and more difficult for the existing structure of music distribution to survive. Why would I pay for a company to print thousands of CD's, Physically ship them around the world, and store them on racks, when I can now listen to music directly from an artist on the other side of the world?
Short of shutting down the transfer of data, how can they avoid the inevitable? Who will they sue to shut down email?
-
Re:Bad Precedent (Score:4)
Hell I am going to uuencode all my mp3's and post them to slashdot forums, slashdot will be sued in days... I mean, I don't have any mp3's, but if I did...
(Are they still watching me?)
Seriously, though, I think the RIAA should sue Iomega for creating the zip disk and Al Gore for creating the Internet, both which are used to trade
The Information Age can wait dammit, the Musical Revoluation (which oddly enough is also the name of a boardway musical) must come first.
Personal resposibility? (Score:1)
I once used Microsoft Media Player on my Microsoft Windows 98 machine to play some Metallica and Dr. Dre MP3s that I downloaded from a server running Microsoft Internet Information Server in my Microsoft Internet Explorer browser.
And what about the Cisco routers that didn't stop the illegal traffic as it passed through them?
When is the (US) legal system going to put the responsibility back on the individual?
Interesting scenario.... (Score:2)
Future possiblilty, no money in the actualy sale of music. All revenues come from concerts and merchandising.
Try this for a scary scenario:
----------------------------------
Assumption: sombody will figure out how to make BIG money off of the music industry, don't ever doubt it. We have all seen the mass appeal of they annoying boy/girl-manufactured bands. The cash behind these can easily be seen as an marketing investment rather then a "production investment". The old model held that Artists' music was the "product" of their "labor" wether paid or not. When it was demonstrated that an artist had a good "product" that sold (I am assuming that an artist with real talent + marketing will usually outlast one that it just promoted by marketing only, e.g. spice girls, n'synch, BSboyz, etc...), money was made off that product (albeit most of the money going to the recording company). If a artist did not like dealing with the recording company, he or she could get out of the contract somehow and change companies or start their own based on the populatiry of their "product".
So imagine this, with the near impossibility of making money off of the music itself, the "product" has been stripped away from the artist, and there goes the artists leverage.
So what happens next? The recording industry has funds that no private artist (and few corporations that might be interrested in this industry) can match. They decide on a "new business model" as follows:
Put together a "project" (i.e. artist or group)that has mass appeal with a trademarked image, free kickass videos and movies, tons of pricey promotional items, trademarked image, with some snappy upbeat generic pop. Indundate the mass populus with it, upurchase tons of radio and TV airtime, and let it take off. By all means give the music away free, videos too (can't watch a video on a Diamond Rio eh?). Charge up the ying yang for concerts that are like 3 ring circuses + Disney extravangas! In effect make that group a brand name!
Basically its the same old business model, out market your competetors (other non-record industry affiliated artists, and believe me this is fair), get the image and trademark down, and copyright the hard goods, and let the bucks roll in.
Kinda scary huh?
inevitability (Score:1)
We'll ignore the fact that the MP3 revolution may well have boosted sales of CDs since its inception and that nobody at Napster or MP3.com was benefiting from anything other than unrelated advertising and that MP3 gives people a chance to sample a much wider range of music than before etc etc (this has been said many many times already...)
What I reckon will happen now is that, while many will be discouraged from going to the trouble of finding anonymous MP3 servers without the guiding hand of Napster to cling onto, the true music lovers may well welcome this, since for a start it will clear out an awful lot of the substandard scratchy, tinny, scrambled shite put up on Napster by people with 33.6Ks claiming to be on T3s. I do like the idea of listening to any tune I can think of for free before I buy the CD, but I was never a fan of Napster.
MP3 will never quite be stomped out and let's just hope that the RIAA (which surely leads the way for most national music authorities) draws the line at this point, so that the few of us that remain can continue to help the sales of our favourite obscure artist.
On a related issue... (Score:1)
Not all the facts are there (Score:1)
Re:Very Dangerous Precedent (Score:1)
mircosoft responsible for iloveyou-worm ;-) (Score:1)
just think of somebody sueing mircosoft for spreading our so-appreciated iloveyou-worm over their outlook -> i format my linux box and install windoze just to join the suit
cu, mephinet
Re:What type of ruling is this? (Score:5)
Re:To arms, men! To arms! (Score:1)
It's been a while since I read the article, I would expect that it's less than 3 now. :)
A Distinction (I hope) (Score:1)
Of course, if this judge wants to be on solid legal ground, he has to make a distinction stating just why Napster is responsible for the actions of its users and, say, Microsoft is not.
Trying to state what distinction is myself would require be to both be a lawyer and know a lot more than I do about the inner workings of Napster software. So I can only speculate.
It could be that since Napster promises to regulate the actions of its users in terms of whether they violate copyrights, when it fails to do so (which happens 1000 times a second or so), that could constitute negligence.
This could also have a lot to do with the mp3.com ruling: since they don't have a license / contract / whatever to distribute music, even if both parties own the cd, napster isn't allowed to let them exchange mp3's from it. So now, even the 'archival purposes' loophole goes out the window for Napster, and any time anything copyrighted goes up, Napster is violating the law. If that's the case, and the RIAA could be on pretty solid legal ground here, it might be the end of the road for Napster.
Of course, the judge might have made the ruling because he just doesn't understand the first thing about how napster works.
RIAA expands lawsuit to include Microsoft Corp (Score:5)
The RIAA claims that Microsofts "Network Neighborhood", when combined with the search functionality of the suspiciously named "Find..." command, can be used to search for and copy copyrighted materials.
Microsoft rebutted saying that the "Network Neighborhood" is an innovative tool used to aid the flow of information between computers. They went on to say that this technology, which can be used legitimately, is already in jeapordy if the Justice Department breaks the company apart. "Without a central leadership, invention will cease in the Windows Operating system. A second lawsuit would make it difficult for Microsoft to compete against other insurgent companies and would stifle the global economy," said a Microsoft representative.
The RIAA rejects this argument as handwaving. They feel there is no economic guarantee for any company. Individual artists, on the other hand, deserve the fullest protection under the law in order to make a profit for their protecting trade group.
Napster, meanwhile, welcomes the opportunity to work with the software giant, Microsoft in its epic battle against the recording industry giant. A spokewoman for Napster said that their position in the lawsuit is comparable to the pebble David used to slay Goliath. She neglected to mention which company was Goliath.
U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Patel in San Frasisco mentioned that because of the magnitude of the case, millions and perhaps billions of U.S. government money might have to be spent in lawyers' fees during the case. "This case promises to create a larger commotion than Kennith Starr or Judge Ito every accomplished," she commented.
There's already an open file distribution system (Score:1)
As anyone in the security biz knows, it's called a computer running RedHat Linux. Someone have files you want, and they're running RedHat? Not a problem. :)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just forget about Napster (Score:2)
Take a look at Freenet =) (Score:1)
.technomancer
*Ugh* (Score:1)
Re:Mental Judge (Score:5)
Here's the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 in fullhttp:/ /thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:SN00227:|TO M:/bss/d104query.html| [loc.gov]
Here's the summary of the Digital Millenium Act of 1998 http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/le gislation/dmca.pdf [loc.gov]
Here is the Digital Millenium Act of 1998 in full http:/ /thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR02281:|TO M:/bss/d105query.html| [loc.gov]
Read up!!!!
Rich
Gone too far (Score:1)
Let's sue the small aircraft makers. Those things are only used to traffic drugs anyway.
Why don't we sue those responsible for the TCP/IP protocol too? Without it, illegal data would be much harder to transfer. Hell, it is only used to transfer data anyway - they should be responsible if it is illegal.
Man, I am so fed up with all of this shit from the RIAA and now Metallica. I had originally only 100% legal MP3 files. But, even those are being attacked, I can't even get (legally) music that I rightfully own permissions to.
I have no more sympathy for the RIAA and Metallica can kiss my ass. I may still listen to the music, but I'll never buy another Metallica CD.
The music industry needs to wake up and quit raping the consumers. Until that happens, I will happily download any/all music I can.
Signed,
Music lover who's tired of being shit upon. (figuratively)
RIAA needs to be sued for price-fixing/racketering (Score:5)
Now they are trying their best to stifle any attempts to connect artists with the buying public via any methods other than the old traditional method of going through a traditional label (which are members of RIAA).
(And don't give me the tired old excuse that CDs are "worth more" that cassettes due to their higher quality. If that logic held, then that new P3 that you bought to play online 3D first-person shooters should have cost you several million dollars (compared to an original Tandy TRS-80 4K computer with cassette tape drive, circa 1978...))
Re:It's not a mere conduit... neither is altavista (Score:1)
Doh! (Score:1)
I read an interview with what's-her-name, the president of RIAA. She openly admits that there will be change, and that they cannot contain the online community from sharing copyrighted music.
Of course, I'd like to see music opensourced. There are lots of good, free music available already. I've got friends who play in bands - good, unknown bands. However, there's not much hope for musicians devoting their lives to giving away music for free. There's practice, practice, concert, studio time, practice, practice, concert, studio time to take care of. Some of us code for free. All of us would rather code for pay. Some musicians might consider playing for free. All musicians would like to make some dollars from their endless hours invested into their bands. These are people who get into trouble with their loved ones over spending too much time humping their instruments.
Of course, most musicians today get raped by their labels. Stealing their work will not only liberate them from their chains, but with nowhere to go. We need to look into business models that will pay the artists for every download. While distributing files by gnutella and napster has its purpose, I still use it mostly for research and for getting those gems I cannot get elsewhere.
Ideally, we should stop downloading copyrighted material altogether. If we only downloaded free music, we would be able to establish an alternative. If a CD is really good, I'll buy it.
Re:that sucks. (Score:2)
The location of music files is information. That's all napster provided. What people did with that information was up to them.
If Napster had a giant server with thousands of mp3 files on it that people could download (like mp3.com) then their guilt would be well-deserved, and without a doubt. But, they did not ever possess or distribute any music files.
It's not exactly "upstanding" but it certainly shouldn't be illegal.
There was recently a website that published the location of all the speed traps in the county. People of course could use that information to break the law, and speed in other areas, but that information in itself is not, and should not be illegal.
The only ones responsible for breaking the laws are the people who do it. But the people who break the laws are not getting any responsibility here, and that is wrong.
________
1995: Microsoft - "Resistance is futile"
Not fair use (Score:2)
Not quite. He can make a copy for personal use, you cannot. And if he gives away a CD that he has made a copy of for persona use, then he is obligated to destroy the copy(s) that he made.
I suppose that it would be somewhat legal to make a copy for personal use (perfectly legit), then loan the CD for an indefinite time to someone else. That should be within the letter, but certainly not the spirit of the law.
Re:that sucks. (Score:4)
A recording of music is information, which can be digitally encoded in MP3 (or .wav, or whatever). Copies of the recording can be bought and sold; recordings are a commodity. The conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader.
Re:Mental Judge (Score:1)
Also when ISP's find out that someone is doing something illegal they usualy shut that person down and do at least minimal policing of their own network, napster does none of this.
More coverage on Wired (Score:1)
But while the win was significant for the RIAA, the real fight is still to come. "This was really a tune up for the main event," said [copyright attorney/talking head Whitney] Broussard. "The main event is going to be when Napster rolls out the Betamax defense, which will be very interesting."
So relax, people. <cliche'>It's only the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end.</cliche'>
Stopping the RIAA (Score:4)
Here are some ideas:
1) Check out as many cd's as possible from local libraries. Reduce them to mp3 format and place them on your own server. If you do not have access to a server for the necessary amount of time, burn copies of CDs and distribute them to your friends.
2) If you must buy CDs, do so only from used music stores or thrift shops that do not carry new CDs and are not paying the corporate music machine. This cuts the revenue stream to the RIAA corporations.
3) Enjoy free music from the mp3.com independant bands, rather than RIAA supported corporate music.
4) Consider researching/finding a radio plugin card that works under your OS of choice. Set it up such that a simple tap of a key starts/stops recording. With a decent radio station (that doesn't voice over the start and finish of songs) this could be an excellent source of free music for distribution via CD or server.
5) Above all, ridicule 'tallica and dre whenever and however possible -- independence and freedom were great things when these musicians were hungry, but know that they've had a taste of corporate greed, there's no way back.
The only way to stop the machine once the legal system starts supporting it is direct noncompliance. Insure that on a daily basis, you act to reduce the RIAA member's revenue streams wherever possible.
Should reasonable alternatives raise their head (limp bizkit) don't shy from buying their stuff! these are the musicians with guts.
Re:Bad Precedent (Score:4)
What's it going to take for people to realize that Napster is actively sapping revenue's from artists? They're taking what artists sell and giving it away for free. That's what Microsoft did to netscape and that was wrong. And Napster is far from altruistic... They're a company. They're making money off the artists involved. How else would they come up with $2 million to fund Limp Bizkits tour? Why shouldn't the artists have a crack at some of that money?
Here's an Idea (Score:2)
Law and culture diverging (Score:3)
Maybe we'll have to switch to Gnutella for a while. Maybe Freenet. Maybe some stuff will be hard to find for a while. But we will continue to share electronic data.
A little too early to be mourning Napster (Score:2)
While Napster's chances in the case are probably not good, Judge Patel is probably the most liberal federal judge in California (she was the one who briefly overturned the death penalty in California a couple of years ago). So if there is any judge who would rule in Napster's favor, it is probably her. She also has a college-aged son, so she may be more sympathetic toward mp3s than other judges would be.
Re:Bad Precedent (Score:2)
(A) noone is actually taking anything from them. Their artificial rite to profit from the work is being infringed, but deep down, noone really believes in "intellectual property rights" the way that the RIAA/MPAA wants us too. Think about it. If you carry this a bit further, you will have college students signing contracts not to infringe on the IP of their professors by doing differential equations without paying a fee to them. Dummies guides which only license the knowledge inside. It's all plausible to do with law if you really buy into the IP stuff.
(B) These people would have more of a moral leg to stand on if they didn't learn most of what they know from everyone else. If they grew up inside of a plastic box and were never taught english or given musical lessons, they'd have more of a right to call what they do their property. As it is, when they learned the musical theory of thousands of people before them, how to play from their instructors, and the language they sing in from the people around them, they are not in a very good position to take the moral highground and claim that their songs are really theirs in some fundamental way. Let's take a random example: Britney Spears "Baby one more time." The use of the term baby as an endearment isn't hers, it was around a lot longer than that. The phrase, "one more time" is also a normal english gramatical construction far predating her existence, let alone her song. So while there is something original in putting the whole thing together the way that she did, it certainly isn't hers alone. Why should the contributions of everyone else, which does make up the majority of the song if you analyze it, be public domain for her but not the other way around?
IP was created simply to encourage people to innovate, not because anyone thought that it really is the moral way things are. If you think about, the RIAA uses a hell of a lot of stuff that other people came up with, repackages it, and calls it their own. Musicians add something that wasn't their before, but not that much most of the time.
It makes sense to provide a way for people to profit off of their purely intellectual work to encourage them to do so, but to think of this as a given right when they themselves have recieved so much from the public is just ridiculous. If they can prove that they 'created' their work entirely, then IP would make sense. As it is, most people could only really convieve of it as a legal convenience if they thought about it.
(C) Most of the time the music isn't worth it. I know a lot of people who would be more sympathetic to the RIAA if the RIAA wasn't all about fleecing everyone that they can. From what I understand they fleece the artists, and they sure as hell fleece the public. The tape vs. CD issue that many people like to bring up is one example.
Oh, and please don't drag out that tired old argument about "if you don't like it, go somewhere else." That works in a capitalistic system, not the hybrid system we have with regard to IP. I'll operate under strict capitalism if they do too. No IP laws and I'll go elsewhere if I'm not happy with what they're providing. As soon as they get special legal protections, they're out of the realm of go elsehwere if you don't like what they're selling.
So, in conclusion, I don't think that anyone thinks that napster has the moral highground. I think that it's just a matter of everyone realizing that the RIAA doesn't really have it either.
Re:Bad Precedent (Score:2)
This isn't facetious - I've never used Napster, and I don't understand their business model. Do they sell banner ad space in their client program? I saw that Lars also said that Napster was making money off Metallica, but he seems to be a moron when it comes to the internet, so I didn't really take him seriously.
I had just assumed this is one of those IPO scams where a bunch of sheep buy the overinflated stock at the IPO even though the company can't possibly turn a profit - ever.
Re:Slashdot Poll Suggestion (Score:2)
FM -> MP3 (Score:2)
moderate above UP! Listen, it won't be long before $50 buys a credit card sized drive holds 4 *years* of *.mp3 recordings.. Gnapster and freenet plus exploding bandwidth will make a milennia of *.mp3 available for sharing.. deal with it!
http://www.techweb.com/wire/stor y/TWB19990824S0011 [techweb.com]
http://wired.com/news/print/0,1294
anyway, i'm dying to record direct from radio.. does anyone know of a TiVO like device for grabbing broadcast radio signals and converting 'em to *.mp3?
(btw - yes, artists are getting royally screwed between corporations and "pirates".. it is a very bad thing
Metallica's official position according to chat (Score:2)
ridicule 'tallica
Metallica have always encouraged piracy of their live albums and concerts. They just don't want you sharing studio productions.
Re:Bad Precedent (Score:2)
Likewise, in your argument about scientific professors, i think that issue is moot, in that the scientific community, at least the academic one, is much less "for profit" than anything else. They share information freely because they can garner insights from one another and reformulate their opinions as a result. In the same breath though, it is them (the scientists) that have decided to distribute their work freely to one another. They didn't do their work with the expectation of getting paid for it, get paid for it for a while, and then get turned around and told that they should have to expectation of getting paid, because if they really liked to research they'ed donate their time and do it for free.
B & C - The attack on Napster in no way prevent you from going out and starting your own band. You can even hear a lick you like and rework it some to create your own song... This isn't about trying to squelch creativity, it's about making sure the people that have dedicated themselves to this "creativity" get paid for their efforts. If their efforts aren't rewarded, that could stand to quell them from creating further, and could evn prevent other people from following their paths.
The IP existed to encourage people to innovate doesn't really hold much sway in this argument. I don't think anyone is trying to patent recordings or anything. I just don't think that artists are trying to protect their work as inventions but rather as products. it's a world of difference... a patent protects a process, no one's trying to patent the concept of music. A copyright protects a finished piece of work. They're just saying that the recordings are owned by the artists and it's up to them to decide how they want to distribute it and how they want to get paid for it... Since there isn't really any system in place for them to get paid by selling their tracks on the internet, they're still huddled with the record companies so as to be sure they receive something from their efforts. Which brings us to Napster and what it's doing is tightening the bond with the artists and labels, since now the labels can say "see, at least we pay you a little bit anyhow".
As far as the bad music goes... go look for better music, then... don't complain that about the fact that you're dumb enough to buy the shitty CD's that the promote. It's kind of like seatbelt laws... Think for yourself and explore the music world... Contrary to posters sentiments around here, it is not infact illegal to listen to the radio, tape what you hear on the radio, go to a friends house and hear a cd, go to a club and see a band, or anything else... It's not a tired argument. It's the truth.
Wrapster and 2.4 (Score:3)
The problem is that Napster only has one use, transfering MP3 files. ... A more general system such as gnutella does not have these kind of problems.
But with the Wrapster [tripod.com] archiver, an MP3 file need not contain an MPEG audio layer 3 stream to be sent using the Napster software. Wrapster is your typical tar(1)-like archiver, but it makes archives (*.wrapster.mp3) that Napster can shoot over the Internet. To put it another way: <whore>you can use Wrapster and Napster to distribute the latest version of a certain OS kernel [linux.org] so that the official servers [kernel.org] don't get slashdotted when 2.4 is released</whore>, especially if you napigate [napigator.com] to an opennap [sourceforge.net] server.
Re:Stopping the RIAA (Score:2)
Right on! here are a couple suggestions to start:
Luxurious Fur [mp3.com]
Sutur [mp3.com]
(Incidentally, Sutur got the Limp Bizkit Seal of Approval on MTV. Check Sutur's homepage [homepage.com] for the video.) Mp3 bands are just as good, if not better than all that corporate rock. Most stuff on the radio is censored and watered-down, anyway.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
GNUTELLA...it -can- stop up my T3. (Score:2)
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
And Justice For All: Open Source The World? (Score:2)
And in other news... (Score:2)
Gez. Fuck it! Let's sue the whole damned country. (*whisper*) Oh, Metallica is already doing that...
[And people say Communism and Socialism are Evil (tm).]
Re:Mental Judge (Score:3)
They can present these issues of fact and still claim the ISP exemption at trial. This isn't a "win" for the RIAA as it has been portrayed. It is the absence of a loss.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Is there even a government anymore? (Score:4)
Napster was never intended for illegal acts. They do absolutely everything they can legally and fairly do to prevent piracy; granted this isn't much (a copyright warning in the splash screen is all you can do), but they do everything they can. Simply because something can be used illegally is not grounds to criminalize it. Take acetylene torches. I can use such a torch to help me build or service machinery; this is totally legal. I can also use it to kill someone or burn a building to the ground; this is clearly illegal. Furthermore, this tool lets me carry out these illegal acts in a far more efficient manner then, say, a match or a cigarette lighter. The manufacturers of the torch do everything they can reasonably do to prevent illegal use (which, again, amounts to essentially just a warning label). But they can't control their users. Does this mean acetylene torches should be made illegal? Of course not. Why, then, with Napster, a program made with purely benign intentions even if it does have the potential for abuse?
Now, there is one critical flaw with Napster: it only shares MP3's. If it shared all types of files, RIAA's ludicrous argument would have been much weaker. But it is still nothing but a conduit. Rather like the Internet. I can still get MP3's in myriad other ways; should the Net be made illegal because of this? Again, no. That would be stupid. And so is this.
Re:Mental Judge (Score:5)
The transmission must be initiated by a person other than the provider.
With Napster, this IS the case - The user initiates the transfer via their local client program
The transmission, routing, provision of connections, or copying must be carried out by an automatic technical process without selection of material by the service provider.
With Napster, this IS the case - The user searches and manually selects what material they want to download.
The service provider must not determine the recipients of the material.
With Napster, this IS the case - The user searches and manually selects what material they want to download.
Any intermediate copies must not ordinarily be accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and must not be retained for longer than reasonably necessary.
With Napster, this IS the case - The intermediate copies are NOT contained on Napster's Network or Servers, they are directly transferred via the internet from the source PC to the target PC.
The material must be transmitted with no modification to its content.
With Napster, this IS the case - The intermediate copies are NOT modified by Napster's Network or Servers, they are directly transferred via the internet from the source PC to the target PC.
So basically, I don't see what you're argument is... Perhaps you should be familiar with the Napster service before spouting your horn.
Re:RIAA needs to be sued for price-fixing/racketer (Score:2)
While what RIAA members do is certainly unfair and despicable, is it really against the law?
What you'll need to show is that RIAA members keep non-members from being able to enter the market, sort of the way that Microsoft suppressed competing operating systems and applications. Microsoft could have charged $5000 per copy of Windows (or whatever the market would bear) but that wouldn't have necessarily gotten them in trouble if they hadn't been ruled a monopoly.
And I have to say that I think RIAA is definately not a monopoly, especially these days when musicians really do have a viable alternative to using the RIAA member record companies: The Internet, and also a ton of indy labels.
If you really want to get CD prices down, lobby the musicians. Convince them that they will make more money if they don't sign their souls over to the industry. Of course, you'll also have to put your money ehere your mouth is, when the time comes.
---
Re:Just forget about Napster (Score:3)
Not to the RIAA. [livedaily.com]
or try this one, if that didn't convice you. [opensecrets.org]
--
So Simple (Score:2)
1. Having an MP3 of a song from a CD you own is not illegal.
2. Downloading an MP3 of a song from a CD you own is not illegal.
It is just that simple. End of story. Anyone using napster to 'steal' the music they download by not having or buying the CD if they keep the music is in the wrong but that is on each individual and Napster should not give even an inch because they have not broken ANY laws.
I wonder how the judge was bribed to rule against napster so quickly?? It just seems that there should be alot more taken into consideration before making a ruling like that. Assuming that the story is true.
--- Hey!? Where did freedom go?
THERE IS NO MUSIC LICENSE (Score:2)
You must be thinking of computer software. I hear this over and over again and it's becoming something of a pet peeve. There is no licensing involved and no license law when you buy a music CD! None!
Re:FM -> MP3 (Score:3)
I pay musicians with the time, effort, and bandwidth it takes to promote their music, just like the record companies. But I don't and won't SELL it. That's for them to do. If we can establish the idea that it is o.k. to share, but that selling is the stealing, we'll be fine. By creating a social contract where you agree to only buy from the copyright holder we can stop any real pirates dead, and let those of us that want to share be happy. That's what being GNUML is all about.
oh, and about Paylars. I think it's a joke. Regardless, I've already learned that whining children should NOT get what they want as a general rule. Judge me accordingly.
--
Re:that sucks. (Score:2)
I've heard a lot of pro-IP-law folks here stating that copyrights exist to give people an incentive to work and create things, invent things, do works of art, etc.
As a former artist, I think that's a load of bull. I quit my former field to work in computers because I was greedy. I wanted money. I wanted to support myself, and my family, I wanted to be rich. I got my wish. But I still have a creative urge, and I still sometimes do art in my spare time.
I create FAR less art than I would have if I was a professional artist trying to make ends meet, and that is in favor of the pro-IP-law argument.
But the fact is, the vast majority of that potential art would have been complete CRAP. Good art is made for the love of art. Not for survival purposes. This comes into effect when some rock stars become muti-gazillionaires. They're not working to survive, they're making their music because they love the art. But others (like Metallica) are apparently in it just to make a buck. Their art tends to suck (Backstreet Boyz, etc. - Metallica being the painful, probably misguided exception here).
The fact is, if the art was distributed free to fans, with the exception of concerts, live performances, bands would have no revenue, musicians could not survive, and would have to flip burgers for a living. In the case of a band like XTC where the lead singer was psychologically unable to perform in front of an audience, it would have been a needless loss of some great art to society, but for these others, (er- Backstreet Boyz, need I come up with the millions of other examples?) society, humanity, would be far better off if these guys were flipping burgers, or more likey, surfing at daddy's beach-house.
But if economic survival was not an issue, for the artists, for anyone, then the truly great artists would be at their leisure to create great art, to do what their heart desires, to do so in a manner which is unaffected by economic concerns (lets edit this track down to 3:47, so it's playable on the radio), and they would be free to allow the material to be distributed for free, instead of forcing this artificial supply-shortage scenario that the record labels want.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
Re:Bad Precedent (Score:2)
Re:Stopping the RIAA (Score:2)
The musicians who make obscene amounts of money are the select few who have the blessing of the music behemoth known as the RIAA. You can make money from making music, but there is a difference between making enough to get by, and selling your soul to the corporate machine.
I certainly believe artists are entitled to make money from their work. I don't think that Napster is completely free from wrongdoing. However, I still believe that the RIAA has systematically raped musicians and consumers, and that this must be stopped.
There is a saying that goes something like "The people get the government that they deserve." The same holds true for the music industry.
Re:RIAA expands lawsuit to include Microsoft Corp (Score:2)
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
FTP not the same. (Score:3)
Napster is popular.
Napster is a company.
Napster's popularity could transalte into $$$ for napster.
Napster drives it's popularity from it's ability to assist users in sharing mp3.
Napster knows damn well that it is popular because it helps people find pirated music. Without the pirated music, napster would be nothing. YOU KNOW THIS IS TRUE.
Now, I don't debate that mp3 is legal, that there is lots of good, freely available legal music as well.. just that Napster drives it's popularity from helping people do something illegal.
If FTP was just like naspter, why isn't it being sued? Hey.. why isn't gnutella being sued? Simple. Napster is a company that is profiting from piracy. Period.
Re:FM -&gt; MP3 (Score:2)
you mean "the artist" known as Lars? 8).. you're right, paylars is a baaaad example.. but there's somehow we gotta renegotiate to find compromise between the two sides currently screwing artists..
The problem with pay direct to "copyright owners" is the wealth of interminable copyrights owned by minnie mouse and all who hold and share her..
If you're above accepting credit for promoting art you love, then a solution may be harder to find, IMO..
Four letters: (Score:2)
Re:Bad Precedent (Score:2)
If Napster was providing a service like "Beam-It" it could at least try to incorporate some form of digital signature scheme, where people would first have to "prove" that they have the right to listen to a certain CD. Or maybe Napster could just take a deep breath, step forward and say "yes, music is being traded freely thanks to our servers. You can shut us down, if you'd like, but the trading will probably continute. Or maybe we can try to figure out a way to do this that pays everone involved." Doesn't sound to me like Napster's trying to do any of that... They're just wiggling they tounge at the recording industry.
I take offense when an industry that has dragged its feet protecting its own product wants to determine how file formats are found rather than going after the actual infringers.
No one around here seems to be able to figure out who should be responsible for Napster and it's users actions. When someone sues napster, people flip and say it should be the users responsibility. When it's rumored that someones going after the users, everyone cries about how a band is suing their fans. Besides that, it's also been often stated that since it's so easy to make a new identiy on napster, going after the users would be pointless, since there are so many sources of throwaway email addresses. That means in my eyes that Napster should be held accountable since they've created the servers and the software people are using in such a fashion that it encourages piracy and makes it difficult to go after the actual infringers...
As far as the artists that like napster goes... Since the amount of artists that like napster is without doubt much smaller than the ones that don't like it, why don't they make it an "opt in" sort of deal? Artists could even upload the songs at the bitrates that they wanted to be made avaiable to their fans. Napster could even store the music on their servers, or let users continue to shoulder the burden for them of having enough bandwidth to distrute the MP3's...
But if an artist doesn't mind their music being distributed for free on the internet, why wouldn't they just set up their own web site which did that... Complete with links to places for people to buy their CD's, t-shirts, and get news about them... Some of them do, actually... Which again, alleviates any need for Napster...
There are so many faults as to the way that Napster operates, it's honestly getting suprising that so many people here continue to jump to their defense.
Don't forget about distribution! (Score:2)
And I have to say that I think RIAA is definately not amonopoly, especially these days when musicians really do have a viablealternative to using the RIAA member record companies: The Internet, and also a ton of indy labels.
Don't forget about distribution!
There are a handful of major record labels and a handful of distrbutors and they pretty much work in exclusive partnerships. Often the label owns the distributor oughtright. I've never heard of an indie label working with a major distributor. Major retail outlets are rarely willing to deal with anyone but the major distributors (caroline, is the only 'indie' distributor of significant size).
So, you can't access the retailers w/out the distributor and you can't access the distributor without the record company. If it were one record company and one distributor it would clearly be a case of abuse of monopoly power. But because it is a small group of comanies, algededly acting in collusion, it's a bit harder to procecute.
The movies are kinda similar, indie films often collect dust after filming and editing because they can't get a distribution deal.
You have choices, but not if you want to sell a million albums. Granted, you'd make more money selling in the ten's/hundred's of thousands with a small label, but you can't do millions w/o paying the major labels their 95-98%. I hope that as more people work outside of the established system, equitable, open channels will develop. If the indie market gets strong enough it would limit the ablility of the MPAA to play format-switch. I'd hate spending my old age stuck w/ nothing but the britney-bot-5000 because I can't get a player for any of my lp's, cd's or mp3's.
Re:GNUTELLA...it -can- stop up my T3. (Score:2)
The speed problem with programs like Gnutella is that it tries to search everything. This is just plain stupid. The privacy issue with Gnutella and Napster is that anyone (NetPD) can get the IP addresses of everyone with some song. This is stupid too.
The solution is a "reputation system" where only nodes where you have established a reputation allow you to do searches to find more nodes. Here is how the system should work: Jane's Gnutella would establish an account with Bill's Gnutella node when it connects to Bill's node forthe first time. After some time passes and Jane and Bill have traded many mp3s then Bill trusts Jane enough to let here do searches through his node (this process is automated). This allows Jane to find new Gnutella nodes.
Anyway, the point is that an mostly automated "references" systems could allow people to search realitivly freely, but not allow anyone to learn too much too fast. The real kicker is that the network will probable grow faster then a node can gain reputation. This prevents NetPD from sssing too much of the network.. and it prevents you from seeing too much of the network.
The only remaining issue is how well will mp3s be dispurced through the network anbd how much wil the network fragment into intrest groups.
BTW> Gnutella needs to piggy back it's protocol on a conection which looks like SSH, SSL telnet, or SSL HTTP to prevent collage routers from detecting the protocol.
Re:Don't forget about distribution! (Score:2)
Well, I think the "major retail outlets" are indirectly RIAA's resource. I mean, they're all owned by the major media companys anyway, aren't they? Nobody walks into one of those with the expectation of finding a realistic representation of available music. So think in terms of competing with those too.
One idea: Distribute on demand, through the mail. That's how I get about 99% of my CDs.
Or distribute over the Internet. Maybe something like MP3 or Vorbis, or maybe even uncompressed if you think you've got the bandwidth. Your distributor is your ISP. It's not too hard to get a foot in that door.
You might not get millions of sales, but that's a million-to-one shot for a real artist anyway. Those level of numbers are only achievable through artificial means (mass media hard push), using the RIAA members' marketing channels. You need media giants anyway to get that level, and maybe the 90% cut they take is actually justified, since your music would be only a small part of the overall corporate product.
Nah, once you throw the internet into the mix, distributions is easy, and nobody can stop it. RIAA is impotent.
Caveat: big media companies owning ISPs and concert venues... now that is scary, and I think lawsuits would be a lot more justified in those cases.
---
Re:Just forget about Napster (Score:2)
Nope, it doesn't convince me. The law only makes is possible for record companies to sign their artists on a work for hire basis. It's up to the individual artist to agree to those provisions. I don't see anything wrong with that. No one could force them to sign such a contract. Here's a quote:
Billboard reported that the change in the law was requested by the Recording Industry Association of America, a record industry group that defends the interests of the major record labels. RIAA president Hilary Rosen claimed that the amendment merely makes a recording "eligible" for work-for-hire status, and the artist and label must still sign a contract that either explicitly makes the recording a work-for-hire or leaves rights with the artist.
or try this one, if that didn't convince you. [opensecrets.org]
Again, this doesn't mean anything. PAC contributions are an unfortunate consequence of our existing government, but the RIAA would be remiss to not make them. Also, $5,000 dollars is chump change to a representative, and would not cause someone to embrace a policy that they don't believe in. However, if you start paying people $2 million (Napster to Limp Bisket), you might start making believers out of just about anyone.
RTFO: That isn't what the Court decided! (Score:3)
The US District Court in San Fransico has ruled that Napster is not just a "mere conduit" for files, but that it is actually liable for material transfered by the program.
the truth is rather more interesting. The actual opinion [uscourts.gov] makes clear that the ruling made no determination of liability at all.
This opinion merely denied the defendant's motion for Summary Judgment -- it granted no decision in favor of the plaintiffs, who must still prove up and prevail in their case of infringement. Summary Judgment is a means by which a party can short-cut a trial on an issue for which there is no genuine question of material fact. By deciding that the question of liability must go to trial (over the DMCA issue), the judge most certainly did not make a finding of liability. In fact, S.J. motions are rarely granted.
More important, it is significant to note that the issue here was not liability itself, but rather whether the defendant fell under a safe harbor (get out of jail free card) set forth in a bill intended to protect ISPs. The fact that the safe harbor doesn't apply still means that the plaintiff must prove his case, get past the common law "Netcom" standard, and then the Supreme Court "Sony Betamax" case.
Without having reviewed the opinion carefully, this much is certain -- the opinion did not make any finding that the defendant's are liable. Only that the game remains afoot.
Re:But Limp Bizkit sucks (Score:2)
as far as #1 being theft, i'm not so sure. i know the law is against the idea, but radios and libraries give away music all the time, and that is legal.
in my opinion, and i know it's probably against the law, as long as i don't profit from giving away music, even someone else's, or claim the product to be my own, it's legal.
that is my moral position. just as someone drives down the street blasting music out of their convertible, just as radio stations blast music to millions of listeners (and get charged a small fee while earning their revenue via advertising), just as libraries loan out CDs for no cost, i firmly have the belief i can distribute copywrited material from my personal server for other's personal use -- as long as there is no profit motive.
Websites serve copywrited material all the time. it travels through all kinds of devices and eventually resides on my machine. i do not claim to "own" it, by my machine may cache it (think squid) for others.
when my neihbors have a block party, they roll out the Altecs and crank up the Yamaha. i've never had to pay for that music.
well, in this case, i think a rousing chorus of "F*CK THE MAN" is in order. these are our machines, our servers, and bandwidth we paid for. as long as i don't claim to "own" the copyright, or profit from the distribution, or sell the CDs, i honestly thing the man can go f*ck himself.
why does a library, someone driving a car down the street, or (to a certain extent) a radio station have more "rights" than an computer-owning individual? they don't, they shouldn't and the b*llshit stops now.
i have already stopped buying new CDs of any kind. i plan on *carefully* buying CDs again at some point in the future, when i can verify that the RIAA does not have their hooks in it.
one reason i'm so hot on all this (and this is off-topic, i know) is the ongoing debate on legalizing drugs, particularly marijuana. seriously, i am convinced that there is a lot of money in enforcing these laws against non-violent/non-criminal users -- and to deny a mentally (or terminally) ill person marijuana is absolutely ludicrous. this is just another form of the same class of stupidity. it's control of your personal life for a profit motive.
the horrendous cost of all the police, lawyers, prisons, lost productivity due to the criminalization of drugs, not to mention the black market violence that it supports -- really, i'm starting to think orgs like "netPD" could make the net go the same way.
this has to stop! somehow, people need to consider how to stop this from steamrolling into (what could be) another drug war. some judge, or maybe the ACLU, has to step in soon and demand that personal, not-for-profit intermachine communication is STRICTLY PROTECTED FREE SPEECH under the constitution. that means NO EAVESDROPPING without a court order, and NO CRIME unless there is money changing hands or a false claim of ownership.
phew!
Re:Just forget about Napster (Score:2)
Hey, didja visit their website...hmmm. it changes,...more material. Anyway, check some of my old posts on this. Their old site (it has changed over the last week) had a link to a quick description of "Works for Hire" it was the first link of press releases. A quick search on their new side didn't turn it up, but I'm sure it's around.
PAC contributions are an unfortunate consequence of our existing government, but the RIAA would be remiss to not make them.
Yes, and if you think $5,000 is the actual donation, you're still smoking $3 crack.
Hey, I found this on thier new site.
As with most new technologies, the Internet doesn't just draw outside the lines of the conventional music industry - it offers the opportunity for truly revolutionary changes. But even in this new digital world, artists and record companies still have - and deserve - the right to protect their music. Many of the same laws apply in cyberspace such as copyright, and several new measures were enacted in the last few years to address issues that could not previously have been identified. This section reviews the legal issues surrounding the downloading and webcasting of music.
"WE deserve the right to innovate." Where have I heard that argument before..."Many of the same laws apply in cyberspace (here's a quick example, for ya') such as copyright." This page looks like it should be run by the FCC or Congress not the RIAA, who's running music anyway? (BTW, I want to applaud Kennard [fcc.gov] for his struggle. That guys taking a lot of shit everytime he want to share the airwaves or do anything much at all. Read up on LPFM for the details of the most recent struggle.)
Anyway, I'm still working on my rebuttal, keep an Eye on the Free Media Headling for details.
However, if you start paying people $2 million (Napster to Limp Bisket), you might start making believers out of just about anyone.
This makes me think you are a troll, or not reading your own posts.
--
Opinion May Be a Blessing in Disguise! (Score:3)
If you review the opinion, you will find that Judge Patel, in order to twist the safe harbor statute out of bounds, was forced to arrive at the following conclusion:
In other words, Judge P found that the safe harbor didn't apply only because Napster did not itself reproduce, distribute or make derivative works! In other words, Napster did not ITSELF DIRECTLY infringe any copyrights, although it very likely provided the means by which others may do so. (the ones whose systems do provide connections).
Unfortunately for the plaintiffs in this case, however, the Supreme Court has already determined the conditions under which a party may be derivatively liable for a direct infirngement by another. In Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) [eff.org], the Supreme Court clearly stated that there can be no infringement because
In other words, since Napster is "merely [] capable of substantial noninfringing uses," there cannot be indirect infringement. This, taken with Judge Patel's finding that there was no direct infringement (or she must revisit her determination that the safe harbor did not apply), leads to an ugly Hobson's choice for the Plaintiff's. There is no question that they must lose, just an ambiguity as to how they must lose.
That being said, I am hardly a scholar of the facts of this case, and these conclusions may not be applicable at the end of the day. Nothing I have written here should be taken as legal advice. Still, I think there is quite a glimmer of light in the particular findings Judge Patel issued in her Opinion.
theft & stuff (Score:2)
Radio stations can transmit music because they pay for each and every song they transmit . License fees go to ASCAP and BMI, who in turn apportion some quantity of them to the record labels and, presumably, the artists. They do this in order to get people to listen to them, so that companies will be inclined to pay them money to advertise. This advertising money offsets the cost of licensing the songs and, if they're lucky, gives them a profit.
There's no licensing process involved for Napster. There's nobody to pay a license fee, nor is there any easy way to keep track of what songs get transmitted to whom without it being an invasion of privacy.
On the other hand, My MP3.com could very well make license arrangements (and according to a news blurb I saw recently, has licensed with BMI) to continue using their music in their CD streaming program.
Anyway...it all comes down to this. If you want to download MP3s via Napster & Gnutella, go for it. Heck, if you want to make them available, do that too. But bear in mind that, even though it's unlikely they'll go after you for breaking the law, they would be perfectly within their rights if they wanted to do so...and whether you think the law is right or not, you'd still have to answer to it.
--
What the RIAA doesn't want (Score:2)
And is the status quo all that bad? What would those artists do with all that extra money? Look what they do with the cut they're getting now. Most of them go backrupt within a couple of years of their last big hit, blowing it all on God knows what, or killing themselves. Most of those artists should be on prozac anyway. I think the RIAA should set up a mandatory proazac clause in their standard contract. Yeah...
The "NWO" Is Crumbling... (Score:2)
No one seems to be mention a few basic common sense observations of this whole thing.
1) The latest "New World Order" (NWO was originally coined 50 plus years ago) is collapsing at a geometric rate, at least in terms of control over information and "intellectual property".
2) The legal system (like the political system) is pathalogically controlled by big business.
3) Control over information when it has already passed into the realm of electrons is rather futile. "Hey Bob, here's a new protocol that will solve this problem." "Frank, let's see if we can tunnel this in that." "Hey Jim, fuck them, we'll reinvent the system from scratch." BUT, this doesn't mean the existing empire won't execute a few heretics before Rome burns.
4) Until, "Soviet-style" tactics are capable of being enforced everywhere simultaneously (which ofcourse, they never will), human beings are going to generally do what they feel is morally and ethically sanctioned. (Pass the pliers, I think I've got a tooth-ache)
5) Most people feel that music is more "art" than "commodity" and therefore sharing art with ones fellow human beings is morally acceptable, even more so when it is easily accomplished, technically speaking. (Rip the Mona Lisa in two and send me a piece when you get a chance) Some people even believe that software is more "art" than "commodity", god forbid!
6) Since when does Meta11ica deserve this much free publicity, they've been crap since I was in highschool (a long time ago). Ratbastard$. Hypocrite$.
7) Given that the powerful corporations that have money and influence will continue to try to put a plug in all the holes in this stuck pig, we better brace ourselves for more and more 1984-style attempts at conforming the behaviour of the average technologically adept human being into a moral and ethical mold set out by organizations like the RI@@ and MP@@.
Their viewpoints as echoed by the emerging legal arguments seem to me to be more like:
You'd all be buying this crappy music if we could outlaw Radio, Internet, Tapes, CDRWs, cover bands and humming, you know you would. So stop stealing from us. You're killing pre-copulation babies!8) Prepare for the Int3l white paper(s) to come true and for attempts at $Corporate$America$-sanctioned IP rights-controlling CPU and hardware to become the standard (adopted through the backdoor ofcourse).
9) I guess the average commercial software houses out there (read N@pster) haven't figured out what the Internet is all about. Single point of failures are exactly that.
And the most important point of all. All those people out there who are up in arms about this MP3/D3CSS/N@pster issue but who are not contributing actively to the Free Software Movement [fsf.org] are helping seal their own fates. We all need to fight together to keep software and hardware doing what we want it to do, whether or not $Corporate$America$ feels that it is "right".
Those bastards developing are probably the same corporate bastard$ that are going to restrict your freedoms first, not last.
And you can never be quite sure if those Open$ource [opensource.org] friends of yours might be interested in selling out provided the technological solution to our (their) own demise is elegance, efficient and well coded.
Okay, so maybe that was more than a few simple observations. You get what you pay for...
PS. It's much more effective if the sheep have internalized the fox's belief system and feel that the external coercion is in fact their own belief system. In the best case, they'll slaughter themselves. In the worst case, they'll probably just bitch about it on Slashdot.
Re:What the RIAA doesn't want (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:Opinion May Be a Blessing in Disguise! (Score:2)
This would seem to be the weakest argument of the Napster case; if the RIAA can show Napster is not widely used legitimately, do they win the case? There are legal Napster users out there (like myself, although I don't use Napster a lot), but I can't imagine there are too many of us.
--LP
Re:Opinion May Be a Blessing in Disguise! (Score:2)
". . . . Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
Therefore, under Sony, RIAA must show that Napster is incapable of substantial noninfringing use.
if the RIAA can show Napster is not widely used legitimately, do they win the case? There are legal Napster users out there (like myself, although I don't use Napster a lot), but I can't imagine there are too many of us.
No, for the reasons stated above. Ask yourself how many consumers really used VCRs for "time-shifting," by programming it to record a show when they are not present. That was the "mere capacity" for substantial noninfringing use identified by the Supreme Court in Sony.
And there are zillions of legitimate "free" music files out there. That alone might be evidence of capacity for (indeed, actual) substantial noninfringing use. Further, why wouldn't playing your records from home at your desk at work be fair use, akin to the "time shifting" blessed by the Supreme Court in Sony?
Thus, RIAA will have to show that there are no legitimate uses, or that the uses are themselves insubstantial or incidental to the product -- not just that there are an insubstantial number of legitimate users.
Re:FM -&amp;gt; MP3 (Score:2)
Read some of my comments, or the upcoming Rebuttal part duex for answers to some of these questions.
?No kidding - especially when they're all crying for free beer.
No kidding, Who do you mean by "they"?
If a band becomes popular from a purely free music background, that may actually cause large waves.
Which brings us to my next point (and what I was doing last night)
BIG HOLLOW endorses Free Music! [bighollow.com] Surprising nobody.
hehe
Or if you've ever heard of a band called Phish, as an example. There are a number of others, but you won't hear about them on CNN or the Radio...yet...
--