House To Hold Hearing On Napster 623
ptbrown writes: "On Wednesday the House Small Business Committee will be holding a hearing on Internet music technologies. (That is, Napster.) Chuck D, of Public Enemy and Rapstation.com, will be testifying on behalf of the good-side of MP3. For the opposition, the Progressive Policy Institute has written a report that recommends extending the DMCA to explicitly outlaw technologies like Napster." Yeah, we should definitely ban peer-to-peer file sharing over the Internet, and NFS pisses me off, too. And Web pages: Ban Port 80! Does anyone out there understand what they're saying?
Re:winning the "duh" award (Score:2)
I assume you mean that the majority of the music you find on Napster is RIAA music and the minority of music is independent. This is absolutely true. The obvious reason is that more people own copies of RIAA material than independent artists' material. The RIAA is obviously the best at distributing music offline. You do realize, though, that the RIAA does not represent the majority of artists that are out there right? Now, independent artists make up the majority of artists that use the Internet to distribute their music.
If the choice is between trampling the RIAA's rights and trampling the rights of everyone else on the planet the wishes to distribute music, then I'm siding with the rest of the planet.
Napster is an extremely effective tool for distributing high-quality music online. Although it's still in its infancy it's already proven itself to be good for that. At one show this month one of the bands I record called me up on stage to introduce me. The first thing someone shouted out was "Hey, are you gonna put these guys on Napster?" I said, "Hell yeah...if Metallica and the major record labels don't shut them down first."
Really go and talk to and talk to as many independent musicians as you can. I bet you can't find a majority that say they don't want their music distributed on Napster. My experience so far is that the majority want it and those that don't want it or don't know what it is are the minority.
numb
Re:nfs (Score:2)
Re:U.S. Election Year (Score:2)
Excuse the cynicism, but yes they can, and a few thousand times more effective. It's called lobbying. How do you think we got the DMCA in the first place? Duh.
And another thing. Being an election year may not be that good either.. It really means that any popular issue (police brutality, medicare, whether or not ketchup is considered a fruit in school lunches, etc..) has the potential of being exploited to further a political platform.
I can already see the negative campaining... "The Clinton/Gore administration passed laws that limit your privacy..." paid for by the Bush campain. "Bush wants to take away artists' copyrights..." paid for by the Gore campain.. (Or maybe I have it backwards; it doesn't matter, it's all arbitrary who's side is for what anyway.)
Re:It *is* illegal after all (Score:2)
I wasn't rejecting any principles of causality or personal responsiblity. I simply stated that if lawmakers feels compelled to apply restrictions to how people use a service (ie the internet) because a number of people are openly flaunting the law, and stealing from others, then I would be pissed at the people breaking the law, not the government.
I suppose a few generations ago, your ancestors were complaining that the government was going to make stealing cars illegal because that might compel them to actually pay for one?
Dana
Nice Try, Sadly Lacking (Score:2)
- Clear notice on every web site telling users what personal information may be collected by whom and how it will be used.
- Prohibitions on selling or sharing personally identifiable profiles with other companies or third parties.
- Clear and simple procedures to opt out of data collection.
- Stringent guidelines on the collection of sensitive personal data.
- Notification on updates to privacy policies.
- Prohibitions on the use of data collected under more stringent privacy policies.
That's my take on it, anyways. At least they tried, let's hope they're open to reviewing that proposal.Personally, I think that should already be mandatory. Accountability is a very important thing in this medium, given the ease with which information can be traded. There are currently no safeguards in place that allow a user to do the equivalent of a paper-chase to see who has what information on them. Such a lack of standards is, quite frankly, shameful.
You know what? This would never work. What seems to be forgotten in this section is the fact that this kind of information is exactly what marketers want. As a result, there is no way that there would be any use in attempting to make something like this stick.
Why not reverse this? Let's see some sites that make it clear and simple to opt into data collection. It would be very pleasant to see a website that explained that they would like to use your provided information in (hopefully) a constructive way. I can't remember the last time I saw something like that.
This item is almost acceptable. But, in my opinion, why make particular items 'more private' than others? Who sets these standards? The idea almost makes sense, but it far too vague to be of any use.
When someone registers with a website, they should be able to expect to be treated the same for their entire time with that website, regardless of policy changes. They should have the opportunity to opt into the changes, but those changes should not be forced upon them.
This item is almost good too, but again, the user is required to proactively confirm their removal from a policy change. Bad.
Business Model and RANT. (Score:2)
First of all, anyone arguing that the Artist should have control over their work should be AGAINST the RIAA. As it stands now the RIAA can order a band NOT to distribute music that the band created. And they MUST comply or face legal action. This does NOT mean that it is ok for us to all download full CDs of their music. But it does mean that the RIAA needs to be adjusted or done away with.
Right now Artists make very little money from CD sales. They make 0 money from napster downloads. I suggest the following business model to make everyone happy.
A Napsterlike service which charges a fee of 20$ a month for unlimited downloads. The service keeps track of which bands get downloaded and how much and awards them accordingly with a percentage of the whole. Say the service retains 5% of all profit garnered from the business. The other 95% is divided amongst the contributing artists in proportion to the percentage of downloads they have recieved out of the whole. If Metallica got 28% of all downloads for the month they get 28% of all profit.
I specify profit because the system overhead will take up some of the income and that has to be adjusted for. But with 300,000 users paying 20$ a month That's a lot of cash, even divided among 1000+ bands.
There could even be incrimental accounts like 10$ a month for 100MB of downloads or something of the sort.
I realize that this is abusable by small bands that can redownload their own music 4 million times, but that can be solved technologically. The business model is still sound. And it leaves a place for the RIAA (promoting bands) and for CDs. It leaves room for a band to release 1 or 2 songs to the Napsterlike service as a promo for their CD, and many many things like that.
In fact... I probably shouldn't be posting this, I should be calling Napster and the RIAA and see how much I can get for the idea....
Kintanon
The DMCA (Score:4)
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Contact your Congressperson! (Score:2)
Fox
nfs (Score:4)
--
It's our own fault if this gets through (Score:5)
Re:Chuck D/Lars Ulrich debate (Score:2)
You mean you haven't already? I burnt them a year or two ago as soon as l3enc was done.
Re:Copyright: 23 years, no renewals (Score:2)
Oh great. That's just what I want is to have better access to "Freebird" and "Boogie Wonderland".
It's economically feasible; almost all profits from commercial content are extracted in the first few years, a decade at most
Yeah, tell that to the millionare that owns the rights to all the Beatles music (I don't think it's Michael Jackson anymore, is it?)
Re:I *hate* to insert reason into the argument... (Score:2)
And, I don't think it's unpopular here, on
It is the mass-rejection of the RIAA, record labels, radio stations, narrowly-focused promotion, low-artistic value, and high margins on CD sales that is the issue here. Read some of the other posts. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong. And don't read that as an endorsement of piracy. This is civil disobedience. Along with all the nobility that the term implies.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
Re:Oh yeah, baby. (Score:2)
Dream on. Ralph Nader has extreme anti-corporation bias (similar to one exhibited on Slashdot in the ravings of Jon Katz) and a darling boy of class-action litigation lawyers.
Just because Nader hates corporations and makes a not so bad living out of kicking them in whatever the body part happens to be handy, does not mean that he is pro-individual (aka "champion of the little guy"). If anything, he is pro-government. If he had his way, you'll need eleven permits and three certified safety experts watching just to start your lawnmover. Provided you can own a lawnmover, that is -- after all, these are very dangerous devices.
Kaa
Re:Be realistic. (Score:2)
So you're saying if I was to get a Phish song off of Napster that would be worse that getting it off of the Phishing pole, or sugarmegs, or hell, even recording it off the Phishcast? [umn.edu]
Napster is a *better* service.
Loads of indie bands (and signed bands for that matter) have MP3s available for download on their webpage, not to mention the legitimate webpages out there that distribute MP3s
Very true, and they should have some MP3s on their page. They could even call them *blessed* mp3s. Record live shows. It costs roughly $300 to record a live show and put it on the Net as MP3s. Even less to gain a worldwide promotion network (i.e. Napster)
Getting rid of Napster is not going to help the RIAA keep indie bands down.
Yet it helps tremendously to control access to a wide range of music. It removes the control they have worked so hard to create. Napster *replaces* the RIAA and their control mechanisms. The value they offer musicians is promotion. That's what Napster does, or at least that's what I use it for. Just because some other folks don't know a good thing when they see it doesn't mean that thing should be illegal. There are better ways to deal with technology than condemning it as evil and suing any company that tries to use it.
The way to solve this problem is not through draconian technical measures that will replace promotion as the most expensive part of music. The way to solve this problem is with sensible, enforcable, fair laws. As well as the idea, which I fully grasp and act upon, that you must support the music you like monetarily if you wish more of it to be created.
--
Re:down with napster! (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:Looking over the PPI proposal: (Score:2)
it does sound a bit like 'I know pronography when I see it'. but I think there is a difference: it is indeed impossible to write a law that encompasses all future technology. (should we ever find a way of instantaneous transportation, this would most probably not be covered by current traffic and other laws). But part of the job of a judge is to outline the interpretation of the law, and establish this interpretation through jurisprudence. So in some way, a judge does recognise an illegal act when he looks at it. but he may have to look long and hard.
//rdj
Re:U.S. Election Year (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:Other Uses for Napster (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:a license to surf (Score:2)
1. Because there are about 3.5 million members who are willing to give $25 per year each to the NRA to fight for them.
2. Because those 3.5 million NRA members are MUCH more likely to vote than the average American. Out of all Americans somewhere between 50 million and 60 million actually vote. If you're a politician who is running close to his opponent in the polls it's in your best interest NOT to piss them off.
And, yes I AM advocating the use of guns, ballots, dollars and every other legal means to affect positive change.
LK
Re:Some thoughts... (Score:2)
Re:Be realistic. (Score:2)
I argue that Napster DOES add a great deal of value to the promotion and distribution, not only for independent artists, but for the artists that are supposedly being harmed by the illegal copying.
True, a lot of the indie bands that allow free distribution aren't selling their music because, frankly, they can't, they suck. But that is not the reason they don't have big recording contracts with major labels. There are lots and lots of good unsigned bands out there. Who has time to listen to them all? Let's live by the RIAA's model and only listen to the 5 bands they are promoting this week. That's what you're saying.
I contend that if Napster pulled ALL illegal materials from their database, they would definately lose a large chunk of freeloaders. On the other hand, I think that a great indie scene would thrive there. Especially if these bands began to actively exploit it, instead of posting their stuff on their own Netscape-crashing web pages, and hoping people will stumble onto the URL's.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
Re:Did anyone READ the PPI report? (Score:2)
I agree that everyone deserves the same rights. And I did say, nor do I think, that anyone is unjustly privileged. They have those privileges because people allowed them to, and because people believe they do. That is not unjust, it is nature.
My point with this was that freedom is more important than greed. For everyone, not just a certain subset. I believe that artists and people in corporations have the same rights I do. As a matter of fact, I both work for an entertainment corporation and own part of a recording studio, so I would be cutting my own throat not to think that.
My point with anonyimity is that people DO have the same rights. So who they are when applying those rights is irrelevant. Applying rights differently based on who someone is, or is not, is the problem with requiring lack of anonymity.
Re:Did anyone READ the PPI report? (Score:2)
You may also state your ideas without stating your identity. Otherwise, the freedom to state one thing would obligate you to state something else. Freedom of speech is a right. It is not granted by anyone. Rights can never be granted, only taken away. Taking it away, and offering to give it back with conditions of identity, is putting preconditions on rights, which turns them into privileges. Privileges are not rights.
Now, you may state "In order to use this service, you must agree to give up the following rights:" But congress may not pass a law requiring it, because that would be a violation of free speech.
Slashdot should take these replies and package .. (Score:4)
The Face -= o_O
Please Read Before Posting Stories Cmdr Taco (Score:5)
For the opposition, the Progressive Policy Institute has written a report that recommends extending the DMCA to explicitly outlaw technologies like Napster.
From the PPI site [dlcppi.org]:
PPI proposes the following changes to the DMCA:
- Give judges the flexibility to grant injunctions against service providers whose services are substantially used for copyright infringement. It may be impossible to write a law that accounts for every conceivable technological innovations, however a judge will know an illegal act when she sees it.
From what's currently on the PPI site I cannot see how this is supposed to be outlawing technologies like Napster. Instead it seems to me like PPI has found the perfect median position in the Napster vs. RIAA debate. Let me explain how I came to this realization.1.) Napster wanted to claim that it is a common carrier under current law and thus should not be held responsible for the actions of it's users. What Napster has forgotten is that all common carriers (e.g. phone companies and ISPs) have personal information about their users so that if they are involved in illegal activities the users can be prosecuted. The PPI's first point is simply that if a company or service wants to claim innocence as a common carrier then it should be ready to cough up user info if the users participate in criminal endeavors through their service. After in the U.S. obscene phone callers and people who host illegal material on their ISP pages can be dealt with through their service providers, so why should Napster be different?
2.) What's wrong with a reasonable time frame for cease and desist? I see nothing wrong with a law that explicitly states how long service providers can give users to remove illegal material (especially since it would take 5 minutes in front of a computer to do this) as long as the time frame is suitable.
3.) Agreed. Make the law general enough so that it evolves with technology instead of creating a specific law to handle Napster, then another one to handle digital movies when bandwidth becomes ubiqitous and another to handle whatever else the future brings. This is very logical, after all the U.S. constitution is over 200 years old and has mainly survived due to it's general nature while countries with constitutions containing massive specificity and minutae seem to be in constant turmoil and have to deal with constantly changing laws and environments.
Basically, I can't see much wrong with PPI's recommendations and it certainly is a whole lot better for everyone than Napster's proposals (leave us alone, so our users can keep ripping artists off) or the RIAA's (explixitly ban anything that affects our bottom line) plus if implemented properly will also be able to deal with whatever other disruptive technologies that may appear in the future.
Read The Paper First (Score:5)
Of course, it might get you even more pissed off, since they propose:
Require service providers, as a condition to qualifying for the liability limitation under the DMCA, to collect personally identifiable and verifiable information from their users.
which as someone noted above, is far more sinister. What are they going to do - require my Social Insurace Number or credit card number to access file-sharing services?
You also have to question these people's grasp on reality when they base their arguments on statements such as:
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), a music industry trade group, estimates that piracy of physical music products, cassettes, and compact discs costs the industry nearly $5 billion in sales worldwide every year.
which we all know is crap.
This PPI group seems to have more suggestions that will just jam a few fingers in the dyke while water will continue to pour through. If they are successful, all they will do is further harm privacy on the internet along the way.
Re:Strange bedfellows (Score:3)
I don't disagree with the idea of what Metallica is doing (though I disagree that you can always tell what's in a file based on a file name) in an attempt to "protect their work", nor do I disagree with Napster for complying and removing users freely distributing copyrighted material (what this should be doing is making the government look long and hard at the outdated copyright law, not at 600k+ people who are branded criminals because of it) because regardless of the fact that the current law is incapable of dealing with today's technology sensibly, it is the law. But I disagree strongly with taking a tool away from everyone when Napster is perfectly willing to block users who violate the law. Because Napster is today's tape trading. Metallica probably figures it doesn't need new fans and so doesn't want people getting its music without paying for it. But Johnny's Whupass Garage Band and such need exposure. Napster can give that to them, and should be allowed to continue if for no other reason than that. If a band does not want its music traded freely on Napster, it should be able to opt-out and not have it there (difficult for Napster to enforce, I realize). But if a band does want its music traded on Napster, Napster should be there for the band to have that choice.
It *is* illegal after all (Score:3)
Sure, a few artists have said they don't mind if people transfer their music over Napster, but many haven't. If a band says it is okay, then fine, but if a group doesn't want their music on Napster, it shouldn't be.
If the US gov decides to try to ban peer-to-peer file transfers or force ISPs to store detailed info on what their customers use their bandwidth for, it will be Napster's (and it's user's) fault! They aren't the good guys.
Dana
Anonymity a Myth come true... (Score:2)
Re:Contact your Congressperson! (How To) (Score:5)
1. US Mail
2. Fax
3. Telephone calls
4. Email
NB: Most congressional offices don't put the priority on email communcation that this community does.
In your correspondance, refer to any personal contact you've had with your Member of Congress. Such notes usually get pushed to the top of the pile by staff.
You can click here [house.gov] to look up your Representative from a US zip code.
Re:Read the FINE article. (Score:2)
Yeah, he spewed his ignorant hyperbole AFTER reading the article!
Kintanon
Re:Representatives (Score:2)
I pronounce 'about' and 'router' too correctly to pass myself off as a Canuck.
--
Re:Did anyone READ the PPI report? (Score:3)
> infringement (i.e. Napster) should be required to get solid
> identifying information for users, should have to respond to
Yes, such a thing would apply to napster. It could also apply to, oh, I don't know, maybe AN ANONYMOUS NFS SHARE. This, the slightest moment's thought makes clear, was exactly CmdrTaco's point. According to your description ("providers whose services mean serious risk of copyright infringement should be required to get solid identifying information on users"), there could be no more ACs on Slashdot, and no more anonymous write access to public file systems.
-------
Re:Anonymity a Myth come true... (Score:2)
U.S. Election Year (Score:5)
Keeping the Internet free (as in speech) is very important. The death of the Internet as an open medium will start with the banning of Napster because some folks use it to do illegal things. If the law is worded poorly, then any type of peer to peer data sharing could become illegal. What's next? Requiring a special license to have a web site? Soon the large corporations will wrangle it so that linking will become illegal.
Look, individuals can vote, corporations can't. It's time we make that very clear to the politicians who have forgotten.
If you want a reaction from your elected representative, do the things above, and write a letter, with a pen on paper, longhand. Trust me, that will have more of an impact that something typed or printed off of a computer, because you took the time to sit down and write something original. If it was laser printed, how does your representative know that it isn't some form letter. (I also recommend unlined paper.)
Time for some political activism, folks!
If you want a true internet candidate, I'll be eligible to run for U.S. President in 2008. So, get up off your ass and vote!
Be realistic. (Score:5)
I am man enough to state that "I use Napster to pirate music. I am fully aware of the legal and moral implications of my actions, and I don't give a damn."
The level of hypocrisy here on slashdot is unbeleivable -- If I were to develop a program called "GPL'ster" that provide a way to distribute binaries without any source code or GPL mannifesto docs, I would get CRUCIFIED.
For the record, I do believe that extending the DCMA to cover *technologies* like Napster would be a bad thing, because these technologies are part of a system of checks and balances that the consumer requires in order to keep software and music publishers honest (or at least less dishonest than they'd like to be).
Piracy hurts US, not THEM! (Score:2)
Consider the current cost of CDs -- $15-$20 a pop. There are two groups of people: (a) those who are willing to pay that price and (b) those who aren't. Group (a) gives the recording industry their profits. Group (b) usually resorts to piracy.
If the recording industry came up with the theoretical "perfect" copy protection, and completely destroyed the pirate market, group (b) would lose their current supply of music, and would have to seek other options. They could join group (a) (not likely), or they could turn to artists who distribute cheaper music, or even free music.
Pirated music is the biggest competition that the cheap/free music makers face.
Software works the same way. MS Office is the de facto standard, but not because everyone is willing to pay $500+ for the software. It's the standard because just about anyone can get it. If you couldn't get it without paying $500, you'd probably be a LOT more willing to try something like StarOffice, even if it were an inferior product.
Re:Napster should be outlawed (Score:2)
To be honest napster should simply be a wake-up call to the recording industry. We live in a capitalist society (supposedly anyhow...) where the economy is supposed to be consumer driven. If you method of doing anything with a product or if the product falls behind the times then guess what...you lose. The recording industry would make alot more money if they would sells whole CDs and single downloadable tracks...there are manybands/albums i only like one song off of and don't wish to waste $15 for one song! However $1.50 billed to my credit or debit card...sure thing...set me up a user name and account so that if my HD crashes or whatever i dont have to pay again. That alone would generate a whole lot of $$$.
Again, you don't ban the tool, you ban the trade and the trade has been banned.
Re:PPI Report Also a Threat to Privacy (Score:2)
Re:Did anyone READ the PPI report? (Score:4)
Since the former is clearly implied by the latter, and much shorter, it is more effective for purposes of thumbnail summary.
(If you wish to question the assertion that the former is, in fact, implied by the latter, begin by explaining the practical, real-world difference between giving judges "broad powers to grant injunctions against" X and simply prohibiting X. For extra credit, explain why the established legal doctrine of "chilling effect" has no real validity.)
/.
A clue for you (was Re:I *hate* to insert reason) (Score:3)
The first sentence there is such obvious flamebait that I don't think there's much value to responding. So I'll move on to the rest of this quote.
First of all, the purpose of Napster is not to create an illegal market for copyrighted material. The purpose is to create an online music community where people can share music easily. Indeed, it is extremely sad that it is already so cluttered with crap that the RIAA holds copyrights on. This is a consequence of the RIAA selling billions of CD's over the years.
Perhaps you enjoy Metallica and/or Britney Speers (sp?) but there are many people who enjoy music that you've never heard. Music that you can't buy in your country, or anywhere except for a few select local music stores (these guys are getting shoved out of business too by the way--how convenient for the RIAA when distribution channels for independent artists go down the tube.) It's the people that make independent music and listen to independent music that are truly getting screwed out of this whole deal.
If Napster really were only useful for distributing copyrighted material I really wouldn't care if they were crushed. I don't know why you insist that it's intent is piracy. You can say it is as much as you want but it won't make it a reality.
You have seen Napster, right? They have chat rooms to discuss music (or do you believe that chat rooms exist soley for the purpose of distributing copyrighted material and kiddie porn?) It is a tool that can be used to build a great online community and help a lot of struggling artists. And you think Slashdot readers should cry for the super-rich RIAA when our lives are already over-saturated with their music? I for one would be thrilled if the RIAA could remove all their music from Napster. If they could though, I bet they wouldn't.
numb
Re:Anonymity a Myth come true... (Score:5)
The United States Supreme Court disagrees with you. The Court ruled in Talley v. California (1960) [epic.org], and reiterated in McIntyre v. Ohio (1995) [epic.org], that the First Amendment protects the right to anonymity. I think that the first ruling was well in advance of the "Internet generation".
Dateline: Menlo Park, 1879 (Score:3)
Thomas Edison invents electric light bulb... Candlemaker's Guild cries foul.
--
Re:Bono on MP3 (Score:2)
-B
Re:It *is* illegal after all (Score:2)
If the government starts imposing restrictions on how I use the Internet, I am going to blame Napster, not the law makers.
Search Engines, IRC and the like haven't been targeted yet because while they may be used to violate copyright laws, that isn't their primary purpose. They weren't designed to break the law. Napster, on the other hand, takes an attitude that is just bound to piss off prosecuters. "Oh, we would *never* encourage music piracy. It's our users. It's out of our hands."
My biggest fear now is that *because* of Napster, there are going to be restrictions imposed on how I can surf the net. Isn't it in Australia that all ISPs have to use censorware? I'd hate to see that happen in North America, all because of Napster. (And again, I would blame Napster, not the government, if it happened)
Dana
Re:PPI Report Also a Threat to Privacy (Score:3)
It is a stupid law. It stops the good people doing their thing, and the bad people will find another way around it. It restricts the freedom of the innocent, whilst doing nothing against the guilty.
Of course, music piracy is bad. But music gets played over the airwaves all the time and the radio stations don't get sued - the radio stations pay a small royalty each time a piece of music is played.
Each user of Napster could have a stache of Beenz. When they download some music, those Beenz get transferred to the relevant artist (not music publishing house). The artist can choose how many beenz they want for a download. Alternatively, the Agent (e.g., Napster) could pay the charge per tune, but put advertising into the content that is transferred to cover the cost. Unfortunately, advertising on the Internet doesn't work!
If the user likes the music, they can then order the real Album/Single via the Agent (e.g., Napster) and get a discount on the album for e.g., double the amount of beenz that they payed for the tracks they previously downloaded from that album.
Remember, piracy is piracy, but is it bad when it allows people to listen before they buy?
Re:Strange bedfellows - time to find out (Score:2)
Re:Be realistic. (Score:2)
Napster is an avenue for music "promotion". This is probably the single biggest worry that the RIAA has. Like it says somewhere in that link down below...The RIAA can keep independent music off the radio and MTV and pretty much any other mainstream "available to everyone" promotion vehicle, but they can't keep them off Napster. The only way to keep down the competition is destroy their chances at widespread promotion.
They are no more worried about digital "pirates" than they are about real ones with parrots and eye-patches. "Pirate" is a loaded word that is easy to remember and everyone "knows" is bad. The whole pirate angle is a PR one, and it seems to be working
--
Re:Congressional Committee to the Rescue!!! (Score:2)
Re:Napster receives $15m cash injection (Score:2)
Neither, currently there is an open source effort to create something superior to napster: gnutella. Unlike napster, gnutella does not require a central server and thus needs no big corporations providing such servers. And above all, it is very hard to monitor gnutella users. The current version of gnutella is already pretty usefull (I use it all the time). The government focussing on Napster is a good thing since that allows gnutella to develop further. Unlike napster, it will be very hard to stop gnutella or derivatives.
Collect identifiable information (Score:2)
--
Re:Dateline: Menlo Park, 1879 (Score:2)
No, no. Candlemaker's guild cries `Reverse Engineering must be outlawed to allow for innovation in the candle industry'. And hires a buch of lawyers to threaten Universities where students have been heard discussing the light bulb.
TWW
Re:I *hate* to insert IGNORANCE... (Score:2)
No, Napster is NOT just for pirating music.
I never said it wasn't.
Your ignorance isn't your fault. But what IS your fault is the line of thinking that is going to destroy this new way of doing things, as well as some of our freedoms.
I love it. Whenever you are wrong, it must only be that I don't understand your position completely.
If Napster wanted to be a legal service, i.e., one that only allowed trading of music with public trading copyrights, that would be one thing. But that is not what Napster is about, and all the rationalizations on your part doesn't change that reality.
If Napster, Inc. tomorrow made it their mission to proactively stop the trade of all copyrighted material, then you would be right. But they don't. And they won't. Because then nobody would want the service!! And we can't have that, because their Venture Capital funding would dry up.
--
Re:I *hate* to insert reason into the argument... (Score:2)
You are making the assumption that an MP3 and a physical CD are the same product, they aren't. This is also a serious flaw in all the RIAA's argument. Unless of course, you got hit by the LoveBug and it erased all your CD's, then your argument would hold.
So then you'll say, "Oh, but it's IP." And I'll say yup, it is, and the only way to fully control IP is with thought police.
The largest part of the cost and price of CD's is promotion. Check the RIAA's "Cost of a CD" [riaa.com] for a clue source. This is the "value" that the RIAA is trying to protect. Now whether or not you judge the value of the music you listen to by how much you like it, or how much you are told you like it, is an exercise best left for the reader, err, listener.
If you want an honest suggestion on how to resolve parts of this situation, check the link from my
--
Godammit... (Score:2)
Here's a sample scenario to throw dust in your eye and that of all the other Napster apologists. Let's say Napster expands it's service to include all file types and the same time that a very efficient file compressing algorithm is discovered that can compress files to a 20th of their regular size no matter what type. Now what happens if I start sharing stolen copies of MSFT Win2K, MSFT Windows ME (before it is released), Quake 3, Star Office, Transmeta's patented code morphing software source code etc. With Napster's current argument (and yours) all the affected companies are S.O.L. unless Napster feels like banning my account (which they don't have to by law) in which case I can get another in 2 minutes and start sharing stolen/pirated material once more. Clearly a solution is needed and PPI's is a rather good one.
- Judges should be able to decide whether to give an injunction after hearing both sides of the story instead of trying to write laws for specific instances of copyright violations because there is no way the laws will keep up with technology
Frankly I feel these are all good suggestions and are much better than the copyrights be damned attitude of both Napster and a majority of slashdot users. I plan to work for a software company in the future and I'll be damned if it is deemed OK for people to rip me off simply because it's convenient, thus I support artists in their stand against copyright violation after all it should be their choice how their music gets distributed.Some thoughts... (Score:3)
Seems to me that the proposed changes would HURT multi-nationals and international trade -far- more than it would hurt Gnutella or Napster, in reality. And it would also make it effectively a criminal act to not provide multi-point connections.
All in all, it seems to me that if Internet folk played their cards right, this could spell doom to corporate megaliths and -impose- greater freedoms than currently exist.
One thing you have to remember, it's NOT the words that count. It's who can twist them the more convincingly, first.
The truth of the matter (Score:2)
We will see what comes..
Slashdot lying about the report. (Score:2)
Well, if the report actually said that, you could be right. But the web site that was linked to in the article says nothing of the kind, and actually describes the report more than once as explicitly encouraging changes that will cut down on piracy without banning legitamate uses of the same technologies. That's the real WTF.
Did anyone actually follow the link before posting this story? The report appears to give recommendations that would change the way Napster does business but they go out of their way to say that they aren't attacking the programs themselves. If you read the article on the linked site, its kinda hard to miss. So why exactly did /. flat out lie about what their "opponents" are suggesting? Is it so hard to argue with a reasonable opponent that you have to strawman them?
I suggest following the link and reading for yourself what the group is suggesting. From the synopsis, it looks fairly reasonable to me. YMMV.
-Kahuna Burger
Re:Say WHAT? (Score:2)
I notice (after posting this myself) that Badgerman earlier had picked up on that and some other good points back here. [slashdot.org]
--
Making iDirt 1.82 a safer place, one bug at a time.
let us start at the beginning (Score:3)
I can understand why people are getting upset on the side of the people selling cd's, the artists, etc. because by users pirating (and that's exactly what is happening with programs such as napster) they are losing revenue.
now, everyone in
the music on a cd is still the intellectual property or copyrighted material of the artist and the recording company. it is illegal, in all senses of the word, to reproduce this material in a way and method intended for users who did not pay for the material.
yes, we should all stand up and say that the actions everyone is taking right now is wrong, but instead of flaming your local congressman, why not propose a solution?
Constitutional Right to Anonymity (Score:5)
Re:whoa whoa whoa (Score:2)
What loophole is that? Why can tape manufacturors and claim "we're just a medium" but Napster can't?
Why can I trade tapes between my friends, but I can't set up a factory to mass produce tapes of copyrighted material?
Yes, it's a question of scale, and it's a question of commercialism. Napster can be used to trade legal material, but it's unstated intention is to trade illegal material.
Put it this way -- how long would Napster last if they proactively blocked all copyrighted material from listing on their servers? How long would their V.C. money last?
The service would collapse overnight because nobody would use it. That's the test that proves that Napster is nothing more than a virtual "back alley".
--
Call the PPI, and voice your concerns! (Score:2)
My point is this: Read the highly moderated posts, and then call this person, and give him the best arguments we've come up with in a very level headed manor. He's a very easy person to talk to, so be nice to him =)
As a side note, at the end of the conversation, he asked where I heard of his proposal, and I told him "Slashdot.org". He then said, "Oh, isn't that the hacker website?". I responded with "Heh, yeah, but we aren't the evil kind of hackers. We care about open source software, and, above all else, freedom."
Re:I *hate* to insert reason into the argument... (Score:2)
Of course. That's exactly the thing they're talking about.
Just because Napster made the decision to only support searching for mp3s (which I quite frankly, dont understand) doesnt make it anything but file sharing.
While I may agree with you that Napster is currently mainly used to trade copyrighted work it'd be dangerous to support banning them. Because if you look at it you really can never be sure that "the internet" isnt mainly used to trade copyrighted material... and pr0n... and copyrighted pr0n...
So you start prosecuting services that index mp3 files. What would you recommend next? I personally have a problem with gif files and think that altavista should be sued for making it easier for people to share them...
Seriously though, I would contact my congressman, if I had one.
Re:Please Read Before Posting Stories Cmdr Taco (Score:4)
You seem to have the presumption that everyone accused of a crime under the DMCA is committing piracy. Remember the artist that got his site shut down by the RIAA because he was distributing his own content, and he wasn't even a RIAA covered artist?? What about the college student that got shut down for distributing De-CascacadingStyleSheets from a server in Britain, where the DMCA has no effect??
If there is any chance of innocence, everyone must be judged innocent. That's the way it goes, bub.
We need an actual notification process, and a longer time frame. The ISP's customer needs time to prepare response to the accusation. This can take days or weeks, and without your files a defense is pretty hard to prove. How do you know for sure that Spice_Girls.mp3 someone uploaded to your section of the FTP was pirate music?? You don't, the ISP has wiped it, and the RIAA has you by the balls. You have no proof the file wasn't, and it's the word of a big lawyerly conglom versus yours, Mr. I M Apirate..
Leave the law alone, we don't need any specialized laws? The DMCA is already gone overboard. It grants special police powers to a 'corporation'. Namely seizure; they can demand your files be destroyed legally with no proof, and no hope of a counterclaim.
RIAA royalty scams (Score:2)
If it's anything like the blank media tax, it's going to be a scam. Blank tapes and CDRs with the "audio" barcode on them attract a levy for "compensating artists". In truth, the levy goes only to the RIAA's Big Four record labels. Small labels never see a cent of it; they don't matter.
Aside from it being intrinsically unfair (why should the Big Four put a tax on the demo tape your garage band records?), it reinforces the oligopolistic paradigm that the only legitimate recording companies are BMG, Universal, Warner/EMI and Sony. Should these entities wield control over file swapping as well?
Re:Please Read Before Posting Stories Cmdr Taco (Score:2)
I'll tell you why. Think every single website that allows user-contiributed content - including this one. Think every FTP site that allows uploads.
That would all be gone with that provision. In order for slashdot (and slashdot's ISP) to claim that they are not responsible for content on the website would require that they have positive identification of every user. And not this 'name and email address' stuff - real positive identification, like a credit card or something.
It seems pretty obvious that these people haven't spend five minutes thinking about the rammifications of their proposal.
Re:I *hate* to insert reason into the argument... (Score:3)
Napster exists for only one reason: To create an illegal market for copyrighted material
Napster exists for only one reason, for people to share music. The RIAA hates Napster because it raises competition to an unheard of level. One they can't deal with and that will consistently eat into their profits (You mean there are artists that don't get played on the radio or MTV?!?!?). Competition is bad for the bottom line.
I've seen you speak up a lot lately, but have yet to hear a cogent argument. Go wink at yourself, I use Napster to find good music.
--
Re:It's our own fault if this gets through (Score:2)
Re:Wrong. (Score:2)
Some artists do in fact want to give their work away, for promotional reason or just cause they're great people. Not all file trading is illegal, nor will that ever be the case. In fact, the successful artists of the future will be those that embrace the new model.
So what you're saying is that artists should not have the right to choose whether they want to embrace this wonderful new model you're advocating. You have decided for them that it's for their own good that their material be freely traded against their wishes?
You know, I've been having some trouble making a few career decisions myself. Since you are so adept at deciding what's best for other people, maybe you could help me out as well.
--
Re:Read the FINE article. (Score:2)
Well, what is then?
Is it not generic because it restricts searches to files ending with ".mp3"? Would they be protected if they just put every kind of file in their indices and let you specify the extension? At which point do search engines as a whole become "generic" enough to be protected from prosecution?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Read the FINE article. (Score:2)
Actually, it's a music indexing service, much like a search engine is a web-page indexing service.
This makes a difference. Under the proposed law, someone could search Google for "microsoft warez", then turn around and sue Google, because under the new law, Google would not be allowed to add pages to their index, or allow people to search their index, without first having "identifying information" on file. In short, the proposal strikes right at the heart of the one thing that makes the web useful -- search engines.
House Small Business Committee?? (Score:5)
Seems to me that this issue is only really important to some of the biggest businesses on the planet...
Chuck D/Lars Ulrich debate (Score:4)
Now why the hell won't Metallica answer our questions?!?! Bastards. I think I'm gonna go burn my metallica CD now.
--Bob
Re:Please Read Before Posting Stories Cmdr Taco (Score:2)
Saying common carriers shouldn't store user info simply because people can make anonymous calls via payphones is an argument that does not bear serious scrutiny. After all payphones that are consistently used for illegal activity are tapped as well as put under surveillance in some situations, why should the Internet suddenly absolve people of responsibility for criminal activity?
MS looses in court. (Score:3)
DOJ vs. Microsoft - Part II
REDMOND - Microsoft today announced that pursuent to DOJ recommendations, they are removing the File and Print Sharing protocols from their Windows OS. This comes because of DMCA, a law that they lobbied to pass. Among the other list of programs affected are Novell Netware, Napster, Apache, FTP clients and servers, IE, Netscape and all NIC drivers.
kwsNI
PPI Report Also a Threat to Privacy (Score:4)
That means that ISPs will be liable for copyright infringement unless they collect identifying data on you. It will be their burden to make sure their users don't violate copyright laws, and their asses if they don't.
The threat to privacy is clear. If this were to become law, ISPs that try to protect your privacy would actually be doing so illegally.
Say WHAT? (Score:3)
From PPI's Napster proposal: [dlcppi.org]
"It may be impossible to write a law that accounts for every conceivable technological innovations, however a judge will know an illegal act when she sees it."
Um ... is this anything like "we can't define pornography but we'll know it when we see it."
This idea that judges will be able to just tell, upon seeing it, that something is illegal (in terms of the DMCA) frightens me. Government makes the laws, the police enforce them, the judicial system passes down judgement based on them. This sounds like an expansion of the judge's roll that allows the judge to decide what needs policing, in terms of the DMCA.
--
Making iDirt 1.82 a safer place, one bug at a time.
Re:Bono (hypocrite) on MP3 (Score:2)
Re:IRC (Score:3)
I mean, honestly, where would the modern internet be if we suddenly started allowing people to send data to each other?! Won't somebody think of the children!
Congressional Committee to the Rescue!!! (Score:4)
Now the whole issue will get so bogged down in bureaucratic gridlock that it will be years before the government passes a law attempting to restrict technology that, by that time, people will have moved well beyond.
Re:Did anyone READ the PPI report? (Score:2)
Of course, an amendment will not guarantee an end to online piracy. Cyberlibertarians are hard at work creating new software protocols for completely decentralized file swapping networks, such as Gnutella and Freenet, that connect computer users to each other directly and anonymously without going through a Napster-like searchable database. These protocols would render the DMCA moot because there is no company to sue and no central server to shut down. Because Gnutella and Freenet have no profit potential and no incentive to create user-friendly software, this new technology will probably be limited to a relatively small community of highly-skilled computer operators. If these decentralized software protocols do ever gain widespread popularity, Congress will have to revisit this issue. However, the mere threat of a future problem does not justify forestalling action to stop Napster-like services today.
---------
Interesting, here's hoping these systems don't stay only among "highly-skilled computer operators." Perhaps we need to consider advertising and more publicity for gnutella?
tax the packets (Score:2)
that way you'll properly be able to pay for Gore's Internet and the government can properly watch its citizens. this is for everyone's good.
if you start using illegal protocols (ones on the internic-banned list), you'll have to Pay The Man come april 15.
--
PPI on Gnutella (Score:2)
I would like to hear how PPI would propose to regulate decentralized protocols. I suppose TCP/IP would qualify as a decentralized anonymous protocol which should be regulated, according to the PPI.
Bono on MP3 (Score:3)
He went on to say something to the effect of "And who cares if I lose money? I'm overpaid as it is."
Napster receives $15m cash injection (Score:2)
BTW, 'PPI defines Third Way proposals in Napster debate', no, I don't like the sound of that one bit.
Internet service provider? (Score:3)
It's not an ISP.
ISP == Internet service provider. Napster does provide an Internet service (Napster Protocol servers and downloadable Napster clients). Who said that an ISP has to be an Internet uplink?
It's not a generic service that is used for anything the customer desires. It is designed explicitly as a music exchange service.
The Napster system can be used to exchange any type of file (latest Linux kernel, latest Mozilla milestone, the MS-Kerberos spec, w4r3z, pr0n, etc.) especially when standard (ftp/http) methods can be easily slashdotted. Just use the Wrapster [tripod.com] archiver after zipping the files.
Read the FINE article. (Score:3)
The probable INTENT behind the safe harbor provision is that ISPs have no practical means of monitoring all the traffic that their customers generate, since all the ISP provides is the infrastructure. Hence, most ISPs will be at worst innocent bystanders.
Napster is different.
It's not an ISP.
It's not a generic service that is used for anything the customer desires.
It is designed explicitly as a music exchange service. Therefore, logically it does NOT fall under that provision -- except that legally, we must adhere to the letter of the law, and it has not codified that exact intent. Therefore, they request that the law be changed, since under Napster's interpretation, they could advertise a "W4r3z N3tW0rK" searchable by publisher and title and claim safe-harbor.
Things that this may make illegal. (Score:3)
Anonymous NFS -- It's file sharing. 'Nuff said. Throw 'em all in jail.
Anonymous FTP -- More file sharing. Is the scheme of 'enter email address as password' good enough? Nope. Close all the anon FTP sites, they might be used for piracy.
Anonymous PVCS -- Oh, you want to distribute your source code freely so that everyone can look at and modify it? Sorry, you can be required to collect information on each and every would-be OSS developer that looks at your code. After all, they might try to slip a Metallica lyric into a comment line somewhere. Throw 'em all in jail.
Open news/mail servers -- Not a lot of these exist anymore because of security concerns, but there's a few still out there. Can't use them anymore unless they know who you are, sorry.
IRC -- Your handle on IRC can be easily spoofed, there's no central information server (files are DCC'ed between individuals). IRC will only survive if servers A.) Remove DCC capability, and B.) Require lengthy identification surveys when you connect to the system. This is where piracy used to be (and still is) carried out, remember...they'll go after those IRC kiddies if they get a chance. Throw 'em all in jail.
Anonymous Remailers -- anon.penet.fi is gone (and sorely missed), but there's still a few remailers out there that allow people to mail and post anonymously when they feel they have to. It's a vital service; if you don't believe that, then read alt.abuse.recovery sometime. Sorry, the government doesn't recognize that sometimes a person is too scared or shamed to speak publically. They've got to unmask, or we'll throw 'em all in jail.
The DMCA provision for common carrier applies to all ISPs and services on which traffic passes through the net. Forcing all carriers to have information on every message they handle is insane; it will destroy any hope of anonymity and privacy, and make illegal a lot of innocent software. Don't frame this as a Napster issue. Napster is a small part of the big picture to which this debate belongs. Although Napster may be suicidally reckless, the remedies proposed to discipline them may have horrifying effects on the rest of the internet unless we educate our legislature NOW.
Copyright: 23 years, no renewals (Score:4)
I therefore propose, as a political position, that the non-commercial distribution of any material older than 23 years be legalized.
Key points:
Anyone involved in Napster-related legislative activities should put this into the mix.
I *hate* to insert reason into the argument... (Score:3)
CmdrTaco sez, "Yeah, we should definitely ban peer-to-peer file sharing over the Internet, and NFS pisses me off, too. And Web pages: Ban Port 80! Does anyone out there understand what they're saying?"
Frankly, Rob, you don't understand what they're saying. How about cranking down the shrillness 5 notches and apply logical reasoning?
They are not talking about banning file sharing. If anything, it would be a narrow ban restricting companies from aiding criminals who move around copyrighted material. Right now there is a gray area in the law where a service provider can claim they are only providing a service, and it's the users who are breaking the law (Napster, of course, is appalled that anyone would use their service to break the law, *wink* *wink*).
I know it's unpopular here on Slashdot for musicians to actually get paid for their work, but a lot of people need to get a clue. Napster exists for only one reason: To create an illegal market for copyrighted material. All the rationalizations in the world ("Hey, I already own the material, man!") don't change the fact that Napster only exists by a loophole in the law.
P.S. Gnutella is not an argument that technologies like Napster should be allowed to aid criminals.
--
The *other* point that needs to be made (Score:3)
That's what technolust is all about. No matter what they do, we'll always be free because we're always one step ahead of them.
Did anyone READ the PPI report? (Score:5)
I don't agree with the PPI's position, but i at least *read* it. They aren't saying modify the DMCA to ban Napster and peer-to-peer file sharing. What they're saying, if Slashdot's editors and the foaming-at-the-mouth crowd would bother to read for content, is that service providers whose services mean serious risk of copyright infringement (i.e. Napster) should be required to get solid identifying information for users, should have to respond to challenges in a timely manner, and that judges should have broad powers to grant injunctions against them - and that THOSE things should be written into DMCA.
The problem with this approach, which PPI fails to understand (and Slashdot doesn't dig deep enough to understand) is that peer-to-peer data sharing doesn't require a company to centralize the information. Gnutella and Freenet technologies, as well as whatever comes next, allow such sharing with no central control. That sort of thing is pretty much impossible to regulate by law without stepping on the First Amendment in the US (depends on local laws in other countries), and is practically impossible to regulate *regardless* of laws, short of unplugging the 'net.
Napster will probably die. And as far as i'm concerned, they *should* die, because they really are attempting to make money on piracy. But the technology that spawned them will not and should not die, and the PPI (and probably Congress) can't understand this.
--
Asimov & Napster (Score:3)
I think you're a little off-base with that comparison. I think if you went to a site, and downloaded a chapter, or partial segment of "I, Robot", and then went out and bought it, along with all Asimov's other works, then you'd have a better analogy. Napster users rarely download whole albums (Unless they're taking money from burning fake CD's, in which case they're hardcore pirates, a minority that has plagued the industry since taping and CD duplication was possible. Losing Napster won't stop them).
Those Napster users I know who download copyrighted works only do it either for archival purposes, when the recording is of something they already own, or to try new music before they buy, because they can't really afford to purchase a CD they won't play more than once (remember, a CD in the UK is roughly double the price of the equivalent US product. Tell me how that's fair!).
I will defend artist rights to the death, being a musician myself, but what irks me is the probable fact that it isn't the artists who have come down on Napster. Most smaller-time musicians I know love the fact that their stuff can whizz around the globe unconstrained by a physical format. What I suspect is that Metallica/Dre's shtick is nothing to do with the smaller, struggling musicians and bands. They're basically being hired goons for RIAA. I highly doubt they actually knew about MP3, much less Napster, until their attorney (read: RIAA affiliate) clued them in on it. On top of this, they're generating more publicity than they've managed to over the last three years in the last month. RIAA wins, MetalliDre gets new publicity, and the attorney walks away with a fat pay cheque.
Anyway, that's largely irrelevant. What irks me is the fact that whether the piracy possibilities of Napster were considered when it was written or not, Napster is an invaluable tool for aspiring musicians to swap demos freely. To destroy Napster could destroy one of the most significant leaps forward for the little guy in music. You record a demo for a few hundred (insert relevant currency). You hawk it on Napster, and people can hear it. Then (if you're good, and reasonably clued in to the beast that is the record industry), you have proof to give to record companies that there is a market for what you're playing, and that is a ground to fund you to record more. That, I believe, is strong grounds for Napster to be considered a useful piece of software.
OK, sensible part over, it's conspiracy theory time. As I said earlier, very few download whole albums from Napster. The bread and butter of the RIAA's sales though, is pop pap like Britney, Billie, 5ive, N-Sync et al, who are not what are termed 'album-oriented' artists. The bulk of the millions they earn the suits comes from CD single sales. To download a Led Zeppelin, Hendrix, or (and I include them as a reference) a Metallica album, even with a broadband connection, would probably take upwards of an hour. The latest Britney single, however, can be down in a few minutes. They've lost a significant sale there, probably to those who they consider the 'spotty girlfriend-less nerds' they thought targeted with Britney's gyrations on MTV. They changed their sales strategy a few years back. Before, a record would move up the charts before moving back down. Now, with in-your-face marketing, records generally crash in at the top, only to be gone in a couple of weeks. This works great if CD singles are your only source for a Britney-fix, but Napster can circumvent singles sales. It's therefore a problem that they created with their manipulation and greed, as much as those who brought Napster to the fore.
Oh yeah, baby. (Score:3)
PPI proposes the following changes to the DMCA:
Require internet service providers that wish to qualify for safe harbor to collect personally identifiable and verifiable information from their users. Napster currently allows its users to sign on anonymously, making it impossible for rights holders to track down the infringers.
Establish a time frame for the "notice and take down" process for removal of infringing material. The law as currently written has no set time table, consequently service providers with a vested interest in the infringing activity of their subscribers, like Napster, have no incentive to act in a timely fashion.
Give judges the flexibility to grant injunctions against service providers whose services are substantially used for copyright infringement. It may be impossible to write a law that accounts for every conceivable technological innovations, however a judge will know an illegal act when she sees it.
Let this be a warning to all who think that Democrats (and PPI is centrist, "New" Democratic think tank) are better (or noticeably different) than Republicans or other politicians.
Major problems with these proposals, such as privacy implications, are left as the exercise for the reader.
And was it just me who found the argument "we don't know what we want to criminalize, so let the judge put into jail everybody he doesn't like" to be particularly pathetic?
Kaa
Re:It's our own fault if this gets through (Score:4)
Not only contact your elected representatives, but remind them that you vote, and that corporations and other special interests, while they may be able to donate large sums of cash to the campaign warchest do not vote. Reming them that they were elected to serve your interest, not the special interests!
The point that needs to be made (Score:5)
The most important point that needs to be made is that there is no way for the RIAA to control online distribution of music without taking away the freedom of independent artists to distribute music.
Think of this: Napster has been banned on many college campuses. College campuses are traditionally the place where independent music flourishes. Thus the RIAA has managed to shut down a distribution channel for the independent artists. I can't say that it was intentional, but it certainly will be a nice side-effect for the major labels. Of course, the RIAA says that "piracy" is the problem, costing them billions of dollars a year, yet at the same time they brag to their stockholders about record earnings this year.
I'll say it once more just to make sure: The RIAA can not completely control the distribution of music online without controlling the distribution of ALL music online.
Anything that allows the RIAA more control over online distribution takes away from the freedom of independent artists to distribute online.
It's time to start thinking about the original intent of copyright law and work from that. The intention of copyright law has been to foster the arts, not to guarantee revenue for entertainment cartels.
numb
Oh goody (Score:5)
I think we're okay.
Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".