Head U.S. Lawyer Against MS To Defend Napster 196
Tomcow2000 was one of many who wrote "David Boies, the lead attorney for the prosecution in the DOJ's lawsuit against Microsoft has been hired to defend Napster in its various legal battles. Check out the full story on ZDNet." This is an extremely important for win for Napster. I also think that Napster should change their slogan to: "Napster: If We Survive the Lawsuits, we're set." *grin*
Re:Copyright (Score:1)
The one or two sentences mentioned by Boies in the article were dead on; he understands the issue well, which is a good thing.
--ac
Re:Survey says-- Napster good. (Score:1)
Then I downloaded some more. Realized I like Sheryl Crow,
Napster must be stopped NOW!
Perhaps William Gibson IS right (Score:1)
Yes, under present laws, distributing other peoples intellectual property is illegal. But over time, things change... whole industries rise and are destroyed in time.
In Canada, our fishstocks are dwindling, and there are still some hardcore fishermen looking for government handouts so that they can go back to fishing when the fish come back. Truth be told, the fish won't be back for a long long time, and no amount of "it's not fair" comments are going to change that.
I find it highly unlikely that the RIAA or even bands like Metallica can convince average Joe internet user that distributing IP over the net is a true MORAL wrongness. We all find some way to justify it, one way or another. We don't feel bad about it. It's like prohibition, and now, anyone can build their own still with no effort whatsoever in their basements. Ergo, by (at least this portion of) the society's standards, no immoral act is commited. If these people are in the majority, in a democratic society, a moral agreement amongst the majority of a society can lead to changes in the law.
Morality, right and wrong, are defined by an exsting culture. These values change over time. Hundreds of years ago, it was a right, moral thing to burn suspected witches. It was the will of God. You just did it, accepted it as part of life. Now, it's immoral to kill any human for any reason. When prohibition was in effect, was it IMMORAL to drink alcohol? Is it immoral today? We may in fact be entering an era that if you steal IP, but don't profit from it, it's not illegal. (For profit is another matter, but IMHO, of course).
There are frightening consequences that may go along with this. Certainly record sales might take a dive, but many have argued that this is irrelevant anyways in the long term. Innovation may be reduced, others say. Perhaps, but perhaps also there are other economic models for making profit from IP even if others have the right to distribute your ideas freely. Watch for new ideas on how to make profit with free IP to blossom when this becomes realistic.
We're all going to have to come to grips with the fact that if every American had access to Napster/Gnutella/equivelant, and a high speed 'net connection, they'd literally have to arrest everyone to stop it. And in a democratic society which perceives no moral wrongdoing, that's just not possible. I think IP is on the endangered species list....
Actually, that's not entirely true. Watch for this to be a test of the power of a democratic people versys the mega-corp. The time of it being an issue of "right and wrong" is over.
Metallica should have to work for their money (Score:1)
Why is it wrong to copy anything? Why should Metallica be allowed to do NOTHING and still receive money for past work? If I develop a new way of raking leaves (not a device...a method - a song, so to speak) or answering the telephone that works for lots of people, then I will be COPIED.
These moments of inspiration are what raise society to ever higher levels. Why are the "arts" protected from these same efficiencies? Why should EVERYONE be barred from using Metallica's art - unless they PAY Metallica to use it (Kid Rock).
The whole argument is about money. It is not about what is best for society (Napster).
If technology allows for something better (microwaves) we shouldn't be tied to the past by big companies (should we all still be using campfires for cooking because US Campfire Co. sues anyone for building on their technology or ideas?).
It's just wrong. If technology ALLOWS for ease of copying, then why should someone be able to charge for this service MORE than people would rationally be willing to pay? They would do this for additional value (lyrics, photos, etc.)
If Metallica wants to charge people "full price" for their music, then they must provide more value. This is good for society.
Ultimately, this is good for art and artists as well. They must create consistently good art.
We'll find alot of the crap going away in the upcoming years.
People WILL pay to see a band live. They WILL pay to see a movie in a theater. This has been proven. Once, however, you release your work to the general populace, it sucks to be you if you are counting on that additional money.
If you are providing NO additional service, then you deserve nothing. To prove the point, Napster is providing the network - which costs them money, and they are charging NOTHING. Let's see NOTHING vs. $16?
If it were nothing vs. $2-$4, I honestly think that there would be no argument here.
Re:Bandwidth, Free Speech, Theft, and Napster (Score:1)
Um, I got the distinct impression that he meant "stealing" in the moral sense, not so much as in the legal sense. Yes, some people consider stealing to be morally wrong, regardless of the legality of it.
--
Re:Bandwidth, Free Speech, Theft, and Napster (Score:4)
According to Courtney Love's recent speech [salon.com], it's usually not the artist's copyright; it's the record company's. So if the artist wants to share their music on Napster (as even Lars Ulrich says they should have the right to do), they don't legally have that right, because the RIAA is in control.
--
Re:Bandwidth, Free Speech, Theft, and Napster (Score:1)
Even should someone running such a hypothetical situation be made aware that their service is being used for drug meets, I can't see it reasonable to ask them to do anything more than exclude the known dealers. If agreeing not to look at the content (ie. respect the privacy of those participating) is part of the service, after all, expecting the service to be stopped because some people abuse it is unreasonable.
Re: Crackster? (Score:1)
After all, USENET may be "where you get porn" (and generally not public-domain porn either), but I also do read comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine on occasion. Shutting down USENET over IP issues? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's not gonna' happen.
Napster's music focus is kind of an issue for them. Still, I don't think they should be responsible for the illegal actions of their users, unless they provide features which specifically help with distribution of copyrighted music without the copyright owner's consent.
Alternate Napster slogans (Score:2)
"Napster: tired of the w4r3z scene? Steal music instead!"
"At Napster, we don't break the law. We make breaking the law easier."
"Napster: Our protocol is proprietary, but music isn't."
"FTP is better, but your friends at school will think you're cooler if you use Napster."
"Napster: redefining lameness for the next generation of children."
Re:Bandwidth, Free Speech, Theft, and Napster (Score:1)
Maybe it was worth it.. maybe not.. probably not since the only person that needed to read it was the person I was responding to. Still, you didn't explain why that makes me a fool. But I guess it's easy to toss baseless insults when you're posting as an AC.
Re:Bandwidth, Free Speech, Theft, and Napster (Score:2)
You should read her article. Here's a link:
http://www.salon.com/t ech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html [salon.com]
While artists aren't obligated to sign a contract with a record company, there's almost no other way to get your albums distributed. And since there's only a handful of record companies, they can easily make unreasonable demands of the artists, at least until the artist has gotten big and their contract runs out... then they might have some negotiating power. But by then they've already lost ownership of all the music they made up to that point. You can blame artists for signing contracts, but it's silly to think they do it because they don't read the contract or they don't understand the contract. They do, they just know that they don't really have a choice if they want to get distributed.
Re:Bandwidth, Free Speech, Theft, and Napster (Score:2)
Read the damn article that he linked to, you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
Re:Bandwidth, Free Speech, Theft, and Napster (Score:1)
It's like Photoshop. Adobe could claim that they've lost however many hundreds of millions of dollars from pirating of PS, but it's BS. 99% of the people who pirate it wouldn't ever have paid $700 for it. And since they're not stealing a physical object, Adobe isn't losing anything, really.
I mean, legally, it's still theft, but I actually don't think it's that bad from an ethical POV. I'd say as long as you know, for yourself, that you'd never have paid for the product, so that the company didn't lose any money, it isn't so bad.
I mean, really, why is theft wrong in the first place? If I steal your car, that's wrong because now you won't get to use it any more. If I steal a car from a dealer, that's wrong because now the dealer will lose money. But let's think hypothetically: what if you were the last person left alive on Earth. Would it be wrong to "steal" a car? Even if the car didn't belong to you, is it really wrong to take it?
An example more grounded in reality might be this: a few years back, I wanted desperately to get the game Civilization. I'd played it on a friend's computer, and loved it. However, when I went to CompUSA, they said they didn't have it. I went on the Internet, and eventually found out that Microprose wasn't producing any more copies, so I couldn't buy it anywhere(this was for Mac, maybe they still sold it for Windows). So I went on IRC, begged around, and someone sent me a copy. I played it for hours on end, thoroughly enjoying it. Yet, technically, that would be stealing. Was it ethically wrong? IMO, not at all.
Re:Just one question to ask... (Score:1)
>different bands?
You mean ones with *talent*?
Re:Real Numbers of purchases from Napster use (Score:1)
I agree about the other bands, though.
Re:Bandwidth, Free Speech, Theft, and Napster (Score:1)
this would mean that virtually every artist who's recorded music for one of the big 5 would permanently lose their copyright, even if this had not been part of the contract to begin with.
and you're DEFENDING the companies?
Re:MP3s AREN'T ILLEGAL! (Score:1)
So you can sell an authorized CD, you can't sell an mp3 you ripped from the CD. This seems like common sense, but the big moneyed copyright holders are actively working to infringe on this right. (and they've tried before too)
It's not enough to win this fight; we must remain forever vigilant.
Not an anti-trust specialist... (Score:1)
The deposition he took from Bill Gates was like taking candy from a baby. He admits it himself. He told Charlie Rose Gates was completely unprepared, no challenge at all as long as the lawyer cross-examining him was prepared with a working knowledge of the computer industry.
Westmoreland was one of the toughest cases ever: Snot-nosed kid lawyer hot-shot up against a icon of patriotism, wronged by unpopular media about a war which many in the jury were sure to have supported. He had to convince the jury he really respected the general and that he was just trying to clarify what Westmoreland was saying. Then he had to show him documents which seemed to contradict his testimony and let the general tear his own credibility to shreds.
Reading the transcripts of this testimony should be required in any cross-examination class. Jack Valenti will show up in court well prepared, bet on it. (I know, I know. He says "I don't know" a lot. That's what guys who listen to their lawyers say. Only incompetents like Bill Gates volunteer information which the examiner might have contradictory emails on.) This is the guy Napster needs - a courtroom specialist.
This probably means Napster thinks it's going to be in court.
Real Numbers of purchases from Napster use (Score:2)
And before anyone tries it, I don't care about "But I use it to preview music for my next CD purchase" arguments... all evidence I've seen is biased and anecdotal. What someone says and what they do are often two different worlds.
A difficult thing to poll, don't you think?
I use Napster a lot, but you know what? It's STILL not as useful as the binaries newsgroups. Why? Because the demographics of Napster are much more limited. Everybody has the same songs.
I do pull down music, and some I keep without buying. But it's important to understand I *hate* corporate, commercialized crap. Of the CD's I *do* buy, they are INFLUENCED by Napster and the Newsgroups. Here are some examples I bought based on Napster traffic:
King Missile (yes, they have more than one song), FrontLine assembly, some old Devo, Slade, Front 242, Atari Teenage Riot, and John Zorn (!!). Great stuff that would never pass the corporate filters on the FM...
Some artists don't mind being "not tipped", if they can overthrow their RIAA pimps and gain access to the audience at the same time. Perhaps lost sales will be recovered in new fans? See Courney's article at Salon [salon.com].
After reading her article, I have newfound respect for artists who buck the system. Most of them are treated as badly as immigrant housekeepers in Southern California, and can die just as poor even if they generate "hits".
Regarding Boies (Score:2)
HOWEVER, Napster is not a case to be won on courtroom theatrics or impressive displays of mental agility. The facts of the Napster case are well known - nothing new is going to come out as in the MS trial. I don't really see the point in hiring Boies, who is renowned for his ability to tarnish witnesses, when much of the courtroom discussion will be about theoretical intellectual property doctrine. Anyone else see what I'm saying?
--
Re:Bandwidth, Free Speech, Theft, and Napster (Score:4)
--
Why is Napster different from a radar detector? (Score:2)
-Graham
Why does everyone think this is a new issue? (Score:3)
The point is this. Laws do not exist as an institution unto themselves. Laws exist as a codification of what behaviors a society considers (un)acceptable and what punishments or remedial actions a society considers appropriate.
It should be clear by now that the majority of adults do not consider copying a recorded work of music to be "wrong." This is reflected in the way the Napster scene doesn't feel like the warez scene. Dilbert's mom would refuse to be part of a warez channel on ethical grounds, but she's on Napster every day of the week.
In the face of persistent and universal disregard and opposition by the populace, laws that contravene the social understanding cannot stand. Napster isn't the problem - the problem is the millions of people who trade music with each other and fail to regard the act as sinful. Get rid of Napster or anything similar and these people will trade by some other means, through e-mail if necessary. The only thing you can do that has a chance to stop this is to make an excruciating example of a few people, hoping to scare the rest - but even this is likely to backfire if you face sufficient popular opposition.
Personally, the only thing that concerns me is to make sure the artists themselves are still compensated adequately. But thankfully, recording industry margins are so high that it won't take much to maintain current artist incomes...
-Graham
Re:Copyright (Score:1)
Maybe there would be -- but I bet that you'd lose all except the most "economically viable" musicians.
Re:Nothing to do with 'Art' (was Re:Copyright) (Score:1)
Hate to burst your bubble, but that doesn't really follow. The problem is that the "cassette sales" may well not be a viable business proposition in a vacuum. However, given the existence of a CD sales operation, where you have already paid the marketting $$, the marginal cost of adding cassettes could be below the marginal revenue obtained from cassette sales.
A CD in the quantities that record companies produce probably costs WELL less than a buck in packaging. The artist I've heard gets around a buck. The rest of $14 goes to distributors, retailers, and marketing folk?
for f*ck's sake, do some research before whining about how CDs "cost too much". These companies are public and detailed financial info is widely available.
Clue 1 -- Markup is compounded exponentially -- one middleman marks up (X) %, the next middleman marks up another (X) %, etc etc. Sales taxes and/or import duties can also add another (Y)% to the price. The result is that the retail price could be much higher than the cost at which distributors attain the CD for.
Clue 2 -- It takes a lot of work to distribute those CDs. The artist just makes the album and then that's it, the job's done. The artist doesn't need to perform their job on a per-CD basis, the record distributors do. Sure, there's a lot of money "going to the rest of those people", because "the rest of those people" vastly outnumber the artist.
In conclusion, you have not shown that anything's overpriced. All you've shown us is that you want something for nothing, which is hardly surprising given the prevailing mentality here.
Re:Metallica and more (was:Nothing to do with 'Art (Score:1)
Another raw communist who wants something for nothing. Why should all music be played live ? It's not always practical or feasible. For example, I might write some orchestral piece and record it on a decent synthesizer because I simply don't have the resources to hire a whole orchestra. Or I might write some music that uses so much sampling that it really is essentially studio music. I don't see why you desire to effectively destroy such music, and I don't see why producing creative work is not valuable in itself.
And that's a pretty decent living too. Remeber what a consert ticket usually costs? And the number of people at a consert with a good band playing.
SOunds like you're trying really hard to come up with a good reason why you should get something for nothing. Nice try.
Re:Bandwidth, Free Speech, Theft, and Napster (Score:1)
Yeah it is. The fact that you paid for your computer does not absolve you of your obligation to pay for other things you use. One might as well argue that riding the train without paying is not "freeloading" because you paid for your computer. A better example still would be theft of cable services. You paid for the TV, right ? And it was an expensive TV ?
Re:Bandwidth, Free Speech, Theft, and Napster (Score:1)
This "civil disobedience" argument is a crock, and it's a crock because civil disobedience is about public protest, it is not about expediently redistributing resources ( whether they be tangible or other ) in ones own direction. Most of the people who are doing this are not expressing "civil disobedience", they are not public about their actions. They are simply making a quick grab at something that they are arguably not entitled to.
Re:Metallica and more (was:Nothing to do with 'Art (Score:1)
There is not such a clear distinction nowadays between instrumentalists and composers. Usually, the same person composes and performs the music. Often, live performance is nor practical ( for example, the same guy records half the tracks on the album )
Both can make good money if they are good at it.
Yes, thanks to copyrights.
I have no personal ambition to destroy, in my opinion, bad music. I mearly don't listen to it. Rather, it's destroying itself right now. Call it survial of the fittest if you want.
You can't have it both ways. Do you want everything for free, or do you want the artists to be paid ? Or do you just want other people to pay the artists so that you can freeload ?
I do think you realize that the value of something is defined by what other people are prepared to pay for it. What is the value of an mp3 song, you tell me?
You are confusing the value of a copy of a song with the value of the song itself. There is no such thing as an "MP3" song. MP3 is a medium of distribution, the song is just a song. The value of the song is the amount that the public is prepared to pay to get the song written. In other words, how much the public are prepared to hear the song. All that copyright does is enable a distributed payment system. The distributed payment system works quite well for the most part. It discourages freeloading, and each listener pays an equal share.
Perhapes I should state the obvious: I don't see the mp3 revolution as a way of getting things for free.
Well, thanks for stating it. No, it was not obvious. For a lot of people, the "MP3 revolution" really is about getting something for nothing. Hence the "raw communist" reference -- this term describes the forced redistribution of resources that takes place in the early phase of a communist revolution. Communsits don't really like "raw communism" either, rather it's seen as a necessary evil while capitalists would see it as an unnecessary evil.
And that's what scaring the major record companies. No, what's scaring the major record companies is the Rodney-King-rioters that are using this as an opportunity to freeload. I'd be scared too if I the same mob had their hands in my pockets.
Re:Nothing to do with 'Art' (was Re:Copyright) (Score:4)
I wasn't aware of that - shows you how long it's been since I've been in a library. Just a thought: it's a nobrainer to extend this to computer software. Is this happening? Probably not, because Microsoft would have a bird, wouldn't they. But Linus and RMS wouldn't. Libraries could start doing this right now, today, if they haven't already. Wouldn't it be great to be able to pick up the latest distros from your local library? Not to say I wouldn't buy the boxed set too, just to get the stuffed penguin, the printed manual and the CDs for backup without the hassle of copying and labeling. In fact, I'd be *more* likely to buy the boxed set after checking out the goods.
Wish I had moderator points right now to mark you up.
Your comment on fame as a commodity is +1 insightful too. I'd like to add to this the observation that what the RIAA really has is a monopoly on fame. What the internet is doing is dismantling that monopoly, and this is what really terrifies the RIAA. That's just too bad. I hate monopolies.
--
Re:"Money good! Napster bad!" (Score:1)
Nothing to do with 'Art' (was Re:Copyright) (Score:5)
First off, the music pubslishers and artists screams heard today must be very similar to those of book publishers and authors decades ago when public libraries first started appearing. "What? Let people read our books for free? Thats stealing!!!" Oh, and speaking of which, next time you're near a library, stop in and ask for the audio/video department. Look at all the music and movies they offer for anyone on the street to listen to for free. It's stealing too, isn't it? Shame on those librarians!
Secondly, everyone (on both sides of the piracy/freedom argument) needs to chill take a step back to look at exactly what the record companies are producing and what people are buying/downloading. Fame. Most people (especially teens) have an incredible need to belong to a group, whether it's a gang, slashdot, a newsgroup, golf group, a D&D club, etc.. Music just happens to be the most flexible, effecient, and (relatively) inexpensive way to *passively* belong to a group. All it takes is the proper clothes and a handful of braincells to index a few bands, albums, and members. Instant group access.
Now, the record companies aren't stupid. They know all this since they spend millions and millions on marketing research, cultural analysis, and trend watching. They know very well that most pop culture consumers want to be a part of a group of people that listen to the same music. Ans *this* is the need they fill as their business obligations to their stockholders.
The popularity life-force of a band is born when they sign their record contract. The record label instantly goes to work promoting them in the demographic they were signed to fill (You don't *really* believe they were signed because the were talented, did you?) A record is produced, promos are sent out to radio stations, record co. sales people start pestering retail store buyers to stock a bunch, mtv gets a video, magazines are paid to run articles, etc... Eventually the band's populatity reaches a critical mass, at which point the fans begin doing the promotion for the label. T-shirts are bought, web sites are put up, etc..
This is what the record company produces, this is what they're charging $16 per CD for, and this is what people are downloading on napster, gnutella, irc, etc.. The record label pumps a lot of time and effort into shoving a band so far down our throat that we feel like outcasts if we don't buy them.. Of course with napster and gnutella, you now have a way to feel like a part of the crowd for free.. hell, these file sharing tools even offer the ultimate way to make you feel like you're part of a herd: as people download songs from your collection, you can just lean back and (even more passively than even the most sedate couch potato) watch the groups you belong to grow bigger and bigger.
I'll leave you with a thought: Would Metallica's songs be downloaded so much if the record companies hadn't been spamming us with Lars and co. for the last 10-15 years? If the band were still playing in sleezy clubs in Cali, would people even download them if they heard them once? Maybe for a very few people who actually like the way they sound. For most people however, they'd only download a song from that unknown band Metallica if a whole buunch of others were also.
Re:Bandwidth, Free Speech, Theft, and Napster (Score:1)
Let me tell you why you're wrong:
Freeing information is not stealing. Kevin Mitnick copying source code from big companies is not stealing. Copying music and software from an official copy and giving it away is not stealing.
Why not, you ask? Because by doing any of the above, you have not deprived anyone of anything.
Stealing means taking something from someone else -- depriving them of their property. The reason it is wrong is that the original owner has a right to their property (notice that the law generally doesn't care whether you keep the property, destroy it, or sell it for drug money -- it only cares how much you have deprived the original owner). One after-effect of theft in meat-space is that someone gets something for nothing. But the reverse is not true: getting something for nothing does not mean that someone else has to be deprived of their property. In the digital realm, copies can be made almost infinitely without ever depriving anyone of anything (limited only by media, bandwidth, machine time, etc.).
But wait, you say, what about copyright, patents, and intellectual property? Not relevant. Read the Constitution some time. All intellectual property (just speaking for the U.S. here, don't know about other govts) is a hack to encourage innovation. You have no right, per se, to keep your information from others, but the government has granted you that privilege to encourage you to do research, create art, etc.
So please people, let's stop talking about theft, piracy, and all the rest. Setting information free harms no one, it just (in some cases) slightly decreases the value of an artifical monopoly granted by the Constitution. It doesn't violate anyone's natural rights. It doesn't deprive them of property. It is not theft.
-Esme
Re:Survey says-- Napster good. (Score:1)
Re:Copyright (Score:1)
IP laws have to be dismantled? Why? Sorry. I invent something, I want control of it. If I choose to diseminate it I will. And I can do so, by explicitly allowing it. Removing IP protection forces my hand to do what you want.
Re:Copyright (Score:2)
Just like the post-Rodney King rampagers/looters?
Re:Copyright (Score:2)
Re:Copyright (Score:2)
Okay, this was ambiguous on my part... I presumed 'write' would be taken to be synonymous with 'create'.
Frankly I don't see how your wanting anything is an argument for what ought to be legal. I want to be Prime Minister of Canada, so I ought to be Prime Minister of Canada. Doesn't make much sense, does it? Any more than your wanting IP to be rescinded?
By dissemination, I meant more in terms of distribution, rather than trade-secret legislation... i.e., a licence like GPL/BSD/etc/et al which allows copying etc... i.e. in agreement with your Anti IP stance. Also note that I live in Australia, with slightly different laws to the US (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse).
In summary (because although I think our points of view are opposed, we can probably come to some agreement!), I think something needs to be done about IP, particularly patenting (though I'm still sick of /. posting ad nauseaum stories on it!), but I'm pretty sure IP rescindment is not the answer. :)
That wasn't signal 11 (Score:1)
Thank you
Re:Survey says-- Napster good. (Score:2)
Either way, it's good to see Boise on board. It's shaping up to be a pretty big battle.
--
Re:Copyright (Score:1)
Re:DOJ did not sue Napster! (Score:1)
Like that's some kind of "win"... (as stated in the lead in.)
Re:This guy loves controversy (Score:1)
Umm. He's an attorney. Napster has money. Napster needs an attorney. QED.
Re:Survey says-- Napster good. (Score:1)
Re:Survey says-- Napster good. (Score:1)
Re:Copyright (Score:1)
-jpowers
It's even worse than that... (Score:1)
The record companies try now and again, but charge too much. The Napsters charge too little. A Napster-like service with and optional tipping system and links to merchandising (T-shirts, Posters) with a chunk of the profits going back to the band would be just about right.
Of course, initially, only indie bands would sign up. But if the licensing was perpetual (The bands gets 80% of all the online revenue in return for licensing those rights to the service for the length of the copyrights (is it up to 10000 years yet?) on all future work, then the record labels would have to leave those rights out of their contracts (if they don't, it's collusion, a nasty charge in court). A few of the indie bands would hit, and you'd have a viable service.
Call it "Tipster" or some such
-jpowers
Friend in the biz' (Score:2)
It should be interesting to see what comes out of the woodwork next. Perhaps the re-ascension of psychadelic rock? That would certainly make some bands I know of happy, but it'll need a champion....
Re:Bandwidth, Free Speech, Theft, and Napster (Score:2)
Dreamweaver
This is HUGE! (Score:2)
This is the single best way to expose the emptiness of the RIAA arguments on the merits there is. Few lawyers have as instant credibility walking into a courtroom as Mr. Boies.
His patient, incisive capacity to expose a bad or mediocre argument, has a way of keeping opponents honest -- they quickly realize that a single misstep can destroy the opponent's credibility irreparably.
While the cost of this kind of representation will be enormous, it is money well spent. I know of no one with a greater capacity for making hard cases simple. (And simple cases hard!)
He is one of my personal heroes, and I would work with him on this (or any) case for free.
Telephones (Score:1)
Re:Oh, Really... (Score:1)
Also, Boise is not a government attorney. The DOJ hired him to present the case. He also took a hell of a cut in pay to represent the government. According to the law, he was classified as a GS-13 (I think) and was only paid $25 an hour.
Re:Nothing to do with 'Art' (was Re:Copyright) (Score:2)
I hate to sound like I am nitpicking about one little phrase in an otherwise excellent response, but I can't let this one go.
Yes, there is overhead in producing and marketing, but that doesn't explain why CDs cost $16 or more while cassettes of the same material only cost around $10.
That extra $6 or so is simple price gouging. In the mid eighties when CDs first hit the scene, they were more expensive than cassettes because plants producing CD blanks were horribly rare. This was expected (at the time) to be a temporary situation since many new plants were being built. The record companies said that CD prices would eventually fall greatly.
That never happened. People got used to paying far more for a CD versus cassette and the record companies knew it and decided to "let it ride" because the market was clearly bearing the cost.
A CD in the quantities that record companies produce probably costs WELL less than a buck in packaging. The artist I've heard gets around a buck. The rest of $14 goes to distributors, retailers, and marketing folk? If an artist can get rich off of selling millions of CDs, imagine how much money is going to the rest of these people.
Sure, a CD is "worth more" to us than a cassette, and the record companies know that. But there's really no other real reason for CDs to cost more than cassettes, which cost MORE to manufacture now.
Re:Nothing to do with 'Art' (was Re:Copyright) (Score:2)
So you're saying CD costs are subsidising cassette costs? That's nuts. It could just as well be the other way around or better yet, prorate the sunk costs amongst both formats.
If cassette pricing is based on marginal costs, then CDs *are* subsidising them by absorbing all of the fixed costs.
As for your final comment, what makes you think I expect music for free? The issue is that there is an identical product which varies by packaging only, yet one format costs twice as much as the other. All I am asking is "why?"
Re:Alternate Napster slogans (Score:1)
Quick change and it's legal? (Score:1)
Seems simple enough. Probably wouldn't really affect the overall number of shared mp3s either.
Daniel
daniel@splink.net
tainted Political side note (Score:1)
Break Up the RIAA (Score:1)
A follow up. (Score:2)
In the 19th century. It was legal to own slaves. It was MORAL to own slaves. The people (their definition) of the time considered it a perfectly reasonable thing for honest decent people to partake in.
Some people disagreed with this. Some people tried to help free the slaves. This was against the law. The people who were caught were punished. The society as a whole (or at least those in power) considered this the morally just thing to do.
Then the public opinion and then the leadership changed. It was legal to own slaves, but morally wrong. Eventually attitudes changed and the vast majority of Americans think that slavery is wrong, and this is now reflected in their laws.
Now there's no chance in hell am I comparing the struggle of freedom of an enslaved race to the "information wants to be free" call to arms. Rather I'm trying to point out that the morality of a society can change based on the opinions of the majority of the people.
One hundred years from now, our ancestors may be wondering why we clung so adamntly to our outdated notions of a completely unenforcable intellectual property. It is too late to argue that the change is right or wrong.
At best, we can steer what direction we want this to proceed with the minimum of damage. The best case scenario is for Napster and it's ilk to slowly destroy the recording industry. The worst case scenario is for it to be destroyed overnight with technology even more powerful than Napster that the RIAA has no hope of controlling... I don't think there is a reasonable scenario that leads to the record industry surviving in it's present form without implementing China's version of the Internet.
But it does (Score:1)
And yes, I do realize that I can turn off the mp3 directory sharing, but the mere fact that it does share mp3s by default builds a legal argument against it.
And no, designing it outside the US would not have changed the legality of Napster within US borders one whit. You're confusing encryption technology for file distribution technology. And even your encryption info is out-of-date, as the US government has significantly laxed its export laws.
"Borrowing" vs. Stealing (Score:2)
There is an inherent difference between lending your friend your copy and making a different and separate copy of someone else's music over Napster.
You would have a stronger case if Napster did not copy, but copied and then deleted files. Then you could correctly label it "borrowing".
You would also have a stronger case if Napster, as someone pointed out a few months ago, did not share all MP3s on your hard drive by default. One of Napster's arguments is that it is simply acting as a mediator between music lovers. If that's so, then why does it not ask me at startup which files I wish to share and which not to?
Your friend asked to borrow your copy of the CD. Did you ask the artists if you had the right to make a separate copy of his/her music? Didn't think so.
Re:Uh... (Score:1)
ur lame.
why you should love Napster (Score:2)
The reason is that Napster has hit the public, and these lawsuits have hit the news. It has tapped at the door of consciousness for probably hundreds of thousands of ordinary people who generally wouldn't give a second thought to issues like intellectual property and who have never before really felt themselves to be on the wrong side of massively sucessful corporations. It's created conflict, and it's made people start to think about the way things are and possibly about the way they ought to be.
Napster expands the horizons of the debate! All right!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Interesting relationship (Score:2)
---
Ever notice how at trade shows Microsoft is always the one giving away stress balls...
Re:Metallica and more (was:Nothing to do with 'Art (Score:1)
that's all fine and dandy, but maybe there are musicians that can't do that. For example, maybe the band hired a huge symphony orchestra as backup and can't afford to take ~100 members on tour. Maybe the musicians have terrible stage fright or other psychological problems playing in front of thousands of people and make their living thru recordings only. Would you want to drive them out of business even though they might be really great musicians?
Gov as a protection racket (Score:1)
And this is an example of the protectors being rewarded by the protectees.
The guy who prosecuted IBM 30 years ago became IBM's chief counsel, I believe.
lew
It's happening (Score:1)
Of course, they don't have quake or anything, but they have a lot of good (and stupid) educational titles and even some non-violent games like Myst or AEGIS cruiser (off the top of my head).
nuclear cia fbi spy password code encrypt president bomb
This is an extremely important for win for Napster (Score:1)
-----------------
Re:Courtney Love's opinions, for what it's worth. (Score:1)
--
Napster's Responsibility (Score:2)
Imagine...an application that takes the hassle out of searching for MP3s. No more broken links, no more slow downloads, and no more busy, disorganized FTP sites. With Napster, you can locate and download your favorite music in MP3 format from one convenient, easy-to-use interface.
So Napster wants to be responsible for helping its users to distribute MP3, but then doesn't want to be responsible for helping its user to distribute MP3? How does that logic work? How will Boise or his team defend Napster when they show some real questionable logic that is difficult to defend legally?
Random thoughts about napster (Score:1)
- Music has been around for as long as people have, and intellectual property law is a very recent 'advance'. Before IP law there were still plenty of musicians. Some of the best music ever written was created before any IP law existed. Musicians don't need a financial incentive to create music.
- There are still plenty of ways for musicians to get paid. CDs will still sell, people will still pay to see live performances.
- In my opinion copyright law should protect the creator of something in a way that prevents someone else from 1) claiming it to be theirs and/or 2) making a profit from distributing it. It should not give the creator the right to otherwise control its distribution or use. (Hmm, kinda sounds like open source...)
- Napster is a revolution. Napster is not about making money. It is not about ripping off artists or record companies. It is about changing the recording industry and changing the way we get music.
- Napster will die. Whether or not Napster wins this case, they will eventually go away. They have zero revenue. ZERO. They've managed to raise some money to finance operations and lawyers, but this will eventually run out and they will have to shut down. Maybe when that happens they will open it up so that people can run their own Napster servers, decentralizing it. (Kinda sounds like Gnutella...)
Boies defended IBM in its antitrust trial (Score:1)
Napster vs. Napster? (Score:2)
Courtney Love's opinions, for what it's worth. (Score:1)
Today in the National Post [nationalpost.com] there was an interesting interview with Courtney Love on the economics of the music industry, particularly with reference to Napster's and Gnutella's impact.
Does Napster really harm music [industry]? (Score:2)
Even with that in mind, for reasons that are apparently beyond rational explanation, some people just have to have the CD. The major demographic i'm exposed to most now - screaming teenage girls - are particularly insistent. If they were the only consumers in the market, the music industry could probably still pull a profit - just look at MTV's TRL. They're as surely obsessive as the guy who washes his hands eighty times an hour. From what I can summize, those who are too cheap to buy a $20 music cd when a $1 CDR is almost as good, are few and far between.
And, much to the music industry's benefit, Napster operates as a try before you buy service. How do people decide to buy music? They hear it on the radio, or listen to a friend's copy, and can now download it, possibly turning them on to something which they may not previously have bought. The lineup on MTV and most radio stations is about as homogenus as algae plants (biology humor); it's exasperating at times, and I don't know what i'll do if they engineer another hit boy band.
Re:Why David Boies? (Score:2)
Not so.
He has successfully litigated a number of high profile First Amendment cases, the most famous of which probably is Gen. William Westmoreland's libel suit against CBS.
Besides, you gotta love a guy who can afford whatever he wants, but who wears off-the-rack Sears suits, sometimes wears sneaks to court, is dyslexic and never passes up an opportunity to play Craps.
A Very Interesting Development (Score:5)
For a very long time, he was a partner in Cravath, Swaine & Moore, the bluest of blue-blood NYC firms. He left on a matter of principle when he didn't have to, and one of his stated reasons was so that he could take on cases he found personally challenging, which he could not handle in that firm because of conflicts or other issues.
He has the pick of whatever he wants, and he does not pick cases he is likely to lose. That's no guarantee of sucess here, but you can be sure he did his homework before signing on.
Interesting indeed.
Uh... (Score:2)
From the trademark site on the USPTO, "A trademark includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. In short, a trademark is a brand name."
Whereas, Copyright (from the Library of Congress):
"Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
- To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
- To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
- To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
- To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
- To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
- In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."
Sorry, but no.
Copyright (Score:5)
In fact, I don't feel there's anything wrong with downloading unlicensed music; I just don't want such music replacing buying. For some people I know, that has happened, especially those with cable modems.
Copyrighted music and its downloading is a touchy issue, but I feel that it simply is "fair use" to download music to sample. However, it is both wrong and illegal to keep it on your Hard Disk (or a CD-RW, or a Zip disk) and not buy it. Sampling is okay, but piracy isn't.
Thoughts, anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
typo (Score:2)
Use the Preview Button!
This guy loves controversy (Score:5)
I think Napster would be hard pressed to find a better man to defend them. Boise's record is incredible, and he has beat the odds on several occations. Regaurdless of your opinon of Napster, you cannot argue with their ability to attract good people.
Just one question to ask... (Score:3)
-={(.Y.)}=-
Re:Bandwidth, Free Speech, Theft, and Napster (Score:2)
Protesting what? The fact that CD's cost $15+? On the social scale of important things to protest, that ranks right around there with "The garbage man should collect on Tuesdays instead of Wednesdays".
We're not talking about being denied the right to vote, or racial discrimination here people. We're talking about the purchase/theft of a luxury item. You don't like the price of CD's? Don't buy them! Listen to the radio!
You would answer that no, I don't have the right to protest if by doing so I harm the creator of the music. My response would be that I haven't harmed the creator of the music. I have complimented him or her. I enjoyed their music. That doesn't mean I necessarily must pay for it.
Um, yes it does. By releasing music on a CD through a record company, an artist is saying, "Here are some songs I wrote and performed. They are the property of myself and my record company. If you wish to have a copy of this music, you must pay X amount of dollars for this tape/CD/record/MP3/etc." If you circumvent this in some way, well then you've broken copyright laws.
I see your point about not blindly following laws just because they are laws. It's this form of "moral lawlessness" that started America to begin with, and helped draw attention to the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movements. I do think, however, that your stretching it a bit to justify the theft of piece of entertainment media by calling it "protesting".
Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!
Re:Bandwidth, Free Speech, Theft, and Napster (Score:2)
Ideally, you want to reward someone for creating a unique and useful piece of information, whether that be a song, software, book, etc. In our society, reward=monetary gain. It doesn't necessarily HAVE to be money, but remove money from the equation, and you remove a major incentive more most people to create the information.
Is the goal a worthy one?
If so, is the granting of patents and copyrights the only way to achieve that goal?
If not, what other means could we use to achieve it?
Protecting intellectual property is a worthy goal, IMHO, insomuch as it keeps those who create said information motivated to create more of it. As to whether patents and copyrights are the only way to achieve this goal, right now I think yes.
What other method would work? You could release music "shareware-style" (Here it is for free, if you like it pay me), but I don't think much money is going to be made doing that. You could release a part of the music (1 minute of a song, 2 songs off a CD), and offer the rest after they pay, but again, what happens when full copies start floating around in Warez sites? You could copy protect the music, have built-in encryption after 30 days, they have to pay to unlock, but copy protections are easy enough to crack, a lesson the software industry has already learned.
It seems to me that you are envisioning a future where all information (books, music, software, etc) is free, both in a philisophical and monetary sense. This idea works with software, where software creators can release their wares to the public, then make money on such things as training and support, since software is usually quite complicated. With music, however, there is no support: you get the song, you listen to it, you have a copy, the artist is now out of the loop. This would be fine if the artist is willing to give away his creation, or his work is subsidized in some other way. For those that want to make money, however, free music will drive them out of the music business.
Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!
Bandwidth, Free Speech, Theft, and Napster (Score:5)
I'm beginning to get tired of Napster. Some of the universities are shutting it down not only because of the piracy liability, but because of the bandwidth that N MP3's can consume. At one place, as reported in Network Magazine, Napster traffic saturated a 34 Mbps connection.
And then there are free speech advocates. "Information wants to be free," they chant, over and over, conveniently ignoring the fact that freeing information can be stealing. If I want to share my information, I should be allowed to do that, and it should be my choice. Isn't that the idea behind online privacy complaints? If I choose tomerely share, and someone flings it far and wide, without returning anything to me, that is wrong.
And before anyone tries it, I don't care about "But I use it to preview music for my next CD purchase" arguments... all evidence I've seen is biased and anecdotal. What someone says and what they do are often two different worlds. If someone could give me real numbers from a survey of Napster users, I might reconsider. As for me, I can't afford CDs, so the RIAA is right: I would be a pirate. But stealing it in protest isn't ethical; a high-profile mass boycott would have an impact, just as the Montgomery bus boycott.
It all comes down to control. The artist should be in control because it's their copyright. The masses shouldn't be in control, and neither should the RIAA. Linus Torvalds was right when he said, "Go, Metallica. Die, RIAA."
-- LoonXTall
Re:Copyright (Score:2)
I agree with you that there is nothing inherently wrong with Napster, but for a different reason.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with Napster either, except ONE easily fixable thing.
Napster comes automatically set up to share the files in the directory you download to. So you could claim (and I bet the lawyers will) that this indicates an intent to encourage copyright infringement, or at least negligence.
(Those internal memos from Napster seem to indicate deliberate encouragement.)
They should probably have set it only to share files like that if the USER set it to do that, and then popped up a warning worded similarly to the FBI warning you see on videotapes you rent, basically telling you not to infringe copyrights. Sure, that'd be a "nudge nudge wink wink click here to infringe copyrights," but it would probably let Napster off the hook.
They should also not be running the actual server that facilitates the infringements; that's just begging for trouble. Perhaps they ought to sell server software, and caveat emptor.
Re:Bandwidth, Free Speech, Theft, and Napster (Score:3)
I'm definitely willing to go to jail to break intellectual property laws.
You may get your wish.
Defendant Sentenced for First Criminal
Copyright Conviction Under the
"No Electronic Theft" (NET) Act for Unlawful
Distribution of Software on the Internet
EUGENE, OREGON -- The Justice Department, the United States Attorney for the District of Oregon, Kristine Olson, and the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI, Portland, Oregon Division, David W. Szady, announced that Jeffrey Gerard Levy was sentenced today by United States District Judge Michael R. Hogan for his involvement in criminal infringement of copyrights, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2319(c)(1) and 17 U.S.C. 506(a)(2). Judge Hogan sentenced Levy to a two year period of probation with conditions. The probationary sentence was imposed because a sentence for criminal infringement of a copyright under the United States Sentencing Guidelines is based largely upon the retail value of pirated software which was distributed. Although the retail value of pirated software posted on Levy's web site was conservatively estimated at approximately $70,000, a determination of the value of software distributed was unable to be made. Levy agreed that the quantity of distributed software exceeded $5,000, but a determination beyond that was unable to be made.
Full story here [usdoj.gov]
Re:Napster vs. Napster? (Score:4)
Oh, Really... (Score:5)
They should have designed it outside of the US then no one would be suing anyone! They'd be scotch-free! =P
"Money good! Napster bad!" (Score:2)
Re:Bandwidth, Free Speech, Theft, and Napster (Score:2)
And then I told the cop to count the number of beer cases in the warehouse and he found there weren't any missing... strange.
I think that downloading copyrighted music against the copyright owner's will is immoral.
And I think it's morally wrong for people to sell recorded copies of songs that are derivative. Anyone who tries to be really original like Stockhausen couldn't sell CD's anyway. The more "creative" you are, the less people understand you and the less commercial potential you have as a musical act. So offering to market someone's intellectual property is no formula for ensuring that it will be creative. It is a formula for greed and mediocrity.
Besides all that I think there's far too much cultural noise. We could use a long break from the constant barrage of "this week's Coca-Cola(tm) Countdown". Copyright laws were made in a time before ghetto blasters and discman and car stereos and Nomad MP3 players. It made sense then to promote the development of culture (particularly in America, since they had no culture of their own) by enacting special laws. We don't have to prime the pump any more, fellas. The job is done. Culture is alive and well -- we don't need to coddle it anymore. Having intellectual property laws in the year 2000 makes as much sense as putting growth hormone on a garden that's overgrown to the point of choking itself. We've created a system that's threatening to eat us alive, and we still keep feeding it blood.
And moreover, it doesn't matter if the music industry were to stop growing or shrink. It wouldn't matter if tomorrow there were no rock stars, no celebrities, no late night chat shows, no video games. You know what? People would learn to do fun things all by themselves. Nobody really needs the entertainment industry except the entertainment industry.
Re:Bandwidth, Free Speech, Theft, and Napster (Score:2)
Re:Copyright (Score:2)
I disagree with your assumption that diversity will suffer in the absence of IP laws. Without statutory protection, fewer pre-recorded offerings would be pressed and distributed, but that doesn't imply a lack of diversity. Quite the contrary, intellectual property laws reward people who produce music that palatable to the largest possible market. That means mediocrity and *not* diversity: more Britney Spears, more Spice Girls, more Jennifer Lopez, more Backstreet Boys, more 98 Degrees, etc, etc. Commercialism is what's killing diversity in the music industry. Intellectual property laws are the basis of culture-commerce. Music is not like pork bellies or crude oil. You can't just dig it out of the ground by brute force or strength of will. Creative impulses cannot turned on and off. All the money and intellectual property laws in the world will not help me become Shakespeare.
Can I even really take credit for the music I write. Wouldn't someone else have eventually thought of a similar idea? Is what I produce so uniqe that it deserves the status of property? What kind of property lines can we draw around individual works using the notion of uniqueness? The reason why the big corporations like intellectual property law so much (or at least their legal departments do) is that it allows them to manipulate the system to create an endless supply of property. Disney can churn out an animated version of Grimm's Fairy Tales without paying a dime in royalties, and suddenly they have a whole new continent to pillage. If we try to eliminate this cultural recycling by tightening up the requirements for copyright (e.g. precisely define what we mean by 'original' or 'creative'), very little of what is under copyright protection today would survive such scrutiny. This indeterminacy of the notion of 'creativity' is at the heart of what makes intellectual property evil. The law *cannot* be more precise about how it defines 'creativity' because of the nature of creativity itself. It's like trying to describe someone's personality -- you can say all you want about what a person is like, but that won't help you identify them at the airport. If the law isn't precise, then the land grab that's going on is just a free-for-all. Unfortunately, that's exactly what the current situation has become.
Creativity is not the kind of resource that we can manipulate by tweaking some economic parameters. Sure, you'll get output, but you also get distortions like the Disney example I mentioned. And probably the same proportion of the output is 'genius' as would be the case if there were no IP laws. Intellectual property laws make the a bigger pie, so to speak. If you grant that we cannot control creativity with economic levers, then why have intellectual property laws at all? Where does inspiration come from? Do I extract it from my soul the way a dentist extracts a tooth? I have no control over how ideas come into my head. I don't force myself to think of them. If someone were to offer me a million dollars to write a great musical, I wouldn't have a clue where to start. I couldn't even learn how to do such a thing. You cannot legislate creativity into existence. By offering cash for intellectual output, you get exactly what you deserve -- commercial crap tailored to please everyone and offend no one. I would rather have NO music than be forced to listen to another Back Street Boys CD. I'm not being elitist, either. No moreso than intellectual property laws themselves. Intellectual property laws give the most money to the people who sell the most stuff. To me that's a kind of elitism. What about the inaccessible genius of someone like Stockhausen (20th C. avant-garde composer who was one of the first to use electronic instruments)? A fat lot of good intellectual property laws do him! No one wants to *buy* his music. If we got rid of IP laws, the people who are in music just for the money will quit, which will be a good thing for the industry.
I am perfectly willing to let you listen to whomever you please. I just don't think the state should be encouraging any more artistic flatulence than we already have.
Napster's not the answer anyway (Score:3)
The best solution, of course, is to stop buying recorded music and either support live music or learn to play a musical instrument. Music isn't a commodity. Songs are for people to sing, not machines. I know that I will be drawn and quartered for expressing luddite views in this forum, but that's ok -- I needed to lose a little weight.
Re:Bandwidth, Free Speech, Theft, and Napster (Score:4)
I'm starting to understand why people around Slashdot get very cranky. I think you must be the 200th person who has answered an argument about the legality of x with the answer that x is illegal. Does that sound like an argument? No, you're just pounding the pulpit, stamping your feet, and holding your breath until you turn blue. You'll NEVER have a meaningful discussion about law if all you do is assume that all laws are good laws.
Now that I got that off my chest, suppose I were to suggest that the law that currently makes trafficking information a crime is a bad law. It ought to be legal for me to do insider trading, transmit music wherever I want, copy and redistribute ideas freely etc etc. Let's argue about whether or not society would be better off without copyright, patents, or trademarks. That's the level at which you can enter a debate with someone who disagrees with the law of the land.
If I want to share my information, I should be allowed to do that, and it should be my choice.
I think it's very important to distinguish between personal information and public information. What you do at home is your business. I have no right to pry into your life and nor should the state. I think everyone agrees on that. It is a different matter if you do something publicly. If you stand on a street corner telling jokes, the jokes that you tell are not private in the same sense as your medical records are. When I say "information wants to be free" (I think that phrase is stupid, and I can't speak for people who really use it) I would mean non-personal information. I think that corporate secrets are fair game because the information concerned is not of a personal nature.
If you choose to share something about your personal life with someone, it's morally wrong for them to spread that information around, but it shouldn't be a crime, or even grounds for civil action.
And before anyone tries it, I don't care about "But I use it to preview music for my next CD purchase" arguments... all evidence I've seen is biased and anecdotal.
You're right, this is probably 80% bullshit. People are downloading music because they would rather not pay for it if they don't have to. You say that legally they DO have to pay, and I agree that's true. I just think that the laws are simply wrong. If I download music from the internet, it's not stealing, it's making a political statement. It's civil disobedience. It's a peaceful form of protest. Don't I have the right to protest?
You would answer that no, I don't have the right to protest if by doing so I harm the creator of the music. My response would be that I haven't harmed the creator of the music. I have complimented him or her. I enjoyed their music. That doesn't mean I necessarily must pay for it.
Oops -- gotta quit now before netscape crashes.
Re:This guy loves controversy (Score:2)
I agree that Boies is a competant and succesful anti-trust laywer ... his IBM defense was solid. But at the same token, an analysis of the recent hi-tech anit-trust cases including the IBM case (as well as AT&T and Xerox) shows that basically the government (regardless of prosecuter's ability) cannot win unless the firm in question has already lost.
Remember that the AT&T break-up was a consent decree (one the govt knew it could not unilaterally force) ... a decree that AT&T had voluntarily adhered. Furthermore, the IBM and Xerox cases show that even with solid evidence, the government with current constitutional laws face a very uphill battle ... the major obstacle being that it is very difficult to quantify 'damages' from anti-competitive activities in a hi-tech, knowledge based industry. As people argued during the MS case, how dou you measure the cost of MS 'stifling innovation' ? (Easier to do so in traditional industries where the price mark-up is easier to calculate)
Basically, MS is in the situation it is now because it was incompetant and greedy at the same time. Their expert witnesses were inadequately prepped and their anti-competitive actions were too aggresive ... it is one thing to try to corner a market ... another to do so blatantly and openly (its panic attack against Netscape).
So what Napster needs to get from the MS court case isn't so much Boies but a lesson in caution.
Open source community and Napster (Score:3)
I really don't see what the government can have against Napster. THEY don't actually distribute MP3s, they just connect users, much like ICQ. What if people start distributing MP3s through ICQ en masse, will Mirabilis be sued? The most I could really see happening is a strange type of accessory to the fact. In summary, I don't see that the Napster people actually did anything illegal, it's the users connected to their servers passing files illegally between each other.
I hope Napster wins this case because I think they're easily right on all sorts of technicalities. If Napster doesn't win, it could be really bad for other projects. But I'm also getting really sick of Napster's attitude to the whole thing.
Napster runs it's business and makes money from a system that was obviously only ever going to work by encouraging piracy and spreading other poeple's work illegally without their permission. Once Napster wins (assuming it does), people a few years from now will be looking back at it seeing the weak but technically correct whinging excuse of "it wasn't our fault - it's the 99.9% of users who are breaking the law."
Doesn't anyone else think that the open source community is disadvantaging its own reputation when so many of us openly support what Napster does? (Yes I'm aware that not everyone does, and I'm one of the people who doesn't like it.)
From everything I understood until this came along, the open source attitude was that if something's not free, then make a new one that is free. The Napster attitude is that if it's not free, we'll just take it anyway without anyone's permission and argue that it should be free because it's so easy to get away with it.
Imagine the SAMBA team breaking into Microsoft HQ and stealing the Windows source code. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court. (No I'm not sugguesting any sane person would want to steal Windows source code.)
"Liberating information" in this way just doesn't strike me as anything to do with the open source concept. All it's ever going to do is turn the ignorant non-differentiating world against people who use completely legal methods such as reverse engineering to accomplish what we're doing so well.
Already three quarters of the developed world probably don't know the difference between Napster piracy and decss reverse engineering case. The decss case strikes me as something much more critical to open source in the future.
Napster on the other hand is just a system that's trying to change the law by encouraging other people to break it. It abuses legal technicalities that might eventually be closed, blocking off other people who could have used them with much more honest intent.
DOJ did not sue Napster! (Score:2)
I just want to be the first to point out that the DOJ has not brought suit against Napster, but the MPAA.
(suggested moderation, +5 Informative)
uhm... (Score:2)
Maybe people should get with the times are stop using Cds and realize that people will no longer pay the absurd fees that can go upwards of 50$ (imports, etc.) for a single song on an album that has nothing on it but dooty. Look at the Chris DeBurgh album. He did the song Lady In Red. I bought the album thinking that I MIGHT have a good chance of getting through the whole album wihout turning it off. Chris DeBurgh, if you are reading this, I want my money back you one hit wonder. I think that if you charge per song that will be more of an incentive to put out higher callibre songs. Is Napster going to sell out like Metallica did or Dimension Music? (whom i knew personally at the time) Of course...but only because they will have to.
Napster was an underground program gone big. And when it went big, so did the problems. But I am glad that they have a nice defence team on their side. Because they are going to need it