Napster Ruling Stayed 286
StoryMan was the first of a flood of readers to note: "Napster ruling has been stayed. Doesn't have to close by midnight! Woohoo!" As of 10:15 GMT, CNN is displaying a note that says "The injunction barring Napster from trading music online has been stayed. Details to come." Watch this space for updates.Update: 07/28 10:26 PM by H :Thanks to Sgt. Owen for the first real link about the stay. Update: 07/28 10:58 PM by t : And to michael hirschorn, who points to this story at inside.com.
Re:Is there a third side to be on? (Score:1)
Yes, there has always been a third side. But the third side isn't in the courts/news.
---
Re:Why? (Score:2)
>in its filename, that would make it so much more
>difficult to trade Metallica's works that most
>people would no longer bother.
I have a friend who is in a Ska band. One of their songs is entitled "Metallica Sucks Donkey Dick" (no, that's not a joke, they really DO have a song by that name. Oh, and it predates even the existence of napster. They wrote it because they are of the opinion that metallica sold out when they released the black album, and that it, end everything since, has... well... sucked donkey dick).
They have said, *publicly* at their shows, that they "don't give a flying fuck" if people make and distribute MP3s of their music.
So if Napster conspires with metallica/RIAA to block any files with *metallica*.mp3 in their name, how does my friends music, which the band HAS given permission to distribute, get through?
Sounds like restraint of trade and abuse of monopoly power on the part of RIAA to me.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
RIAA's Press Release (Score:1)
"In fact, since the district court issued its order, the illegal downloading of copyrighted music openly encouraged by Napster has probably exceeded all previous records." Who does she think caused that to happen...
RIAA web site was taken down (Score:2)
Another article [cnn.com] on CNN states that the RIAA server was crushed by a huge amount of hits July 27th @ 11AM. They say it wasn't a DoS attack, just that there servers couldn't handle the sudden popularity.... they must be running NT.....
napster isn't all there is (Score:1)
mynapster.com [mynapster.com]
these are the biggest altertanives based on opennap servers
Re:So, yay or nay for Napster alternatives? (Score:2)
After loading up 'gnotella' (now recommended instead of gnutella_v.56), freenet, blocks, and pheed (?) clients, I hate to admit it but all are not terribly 'newbie friendly'.
I'd argue the simplicity of napster is the key to its '20-million users'. That is a whole lot more than
The end is nigh of course, eventually... but this brings up the question whether the success of public file sharing could falter simply because other big name desktop clients (ICQ, AIM, YM, MSM, etc.) rush out a new version with (oh-my-god) public file sharing -- perhaps with some 'small' restrictions, thus creating a few semi-controlled continents of file sharing.
Simply because they have the ez2use interface could FS be severely limited (think exponential network growth factors) for the generations of the future?
Only the U.S. justice system can tell us for sure, eh?
Re:Is there a third side to be on? (Score:4)
We believe one answer to this is our website at www.fairtunes.com [fairtunes.com] which enables you to send money directly to ANY artist thereby bypassing the record industry.
Support your favorite artist not the middle man.
Matt
The RIAA is fighting their own war (Score:2)
Their PR machine is running, as they are now attacking students [soundbyting.com] and on their web-site you'll be explained what the costs of a CD are.
Back again to technique: any page on their web-site is *.cfm does anyone know any security holes in Cold Fusion? perhaps?
About the money... (Score:3)
There will never be a way to figure out what it would cost.
Anyone can provide their service. If I was willing to shell out for the servers I could be doing exactly what they're doing within a few days. Many have already done so. People only use them because they're in the habit of using them, any interruption will mean that people will find another provider and never come back.
Of course, you have to balance that against the fact that they have no income. Like ICQ, they don't get any revenue at all from people getting or using their client or connecting to their server, and if they ever try to collect, people can just move to someone else willing to do it for free.
If you ask me, Napster is just following standard IPO scam procedure: give stuff away (preferably leveraging someone else's content), become famous, vaguely imply that you'll make some money somehow in the distant future, go public, and keep afloat on money of dumb investors, all while drawing hefty salaries.
Yay for Napster! They're the Good Guys, right?
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
Is a few artists better than all the rest... or? (Score:2)
The way the music industry looks today seems to me is that it is very industrialised, i.e. a few standardized products are manufactured in positively huge numbers. Once a product (i.e. a song, album) has reached some critical mass, it becomes very profitable to put in huge marketing resources to make it a mega hit. It grows like a tree that shades and quenches the brush and undergrowth. We will buy not because it is fantastic but because it is reasonably good and they're shoving it down our throats.
This effect makes for a very Big Brotherish attitude from the RIAA companies, who play this game. They are shaped by the old mass media technology.
But what will come instead? Will people stop buying new music and be content with what is already there? This is after all how we do when we eat. You don't see people queueing for the next new, hot dish. I think that people do not listen to new music necessarily because it is better than the old, but because it provides for a feeling of communication (communication originally means too make something to have in common, as in "communicable diseases"). We listen to new music because we know others do. To the same music, at the same time. We are with the times, or want to be at least.
If people stop buying new music it could be because it has been turned into a commodity, like food.
On the other hand, the new paradigm could lead to a music industry where more music is reasonably big at the same time. And it wouldn't be an industry anymore, since an industry is targeted towards mass production. In the new paradigm it would instead be a ... thingy?
Re:Now (Score:2)
Anybody with half a brain can type "napster" into a search engine and find Napigator etc.
The problem is that Napster users are increasingly the great unwashed masses, who *CAN'T* figure out how to use a search engine.
The beauty of Napster is that the client just figures it out; it asks their server for a reference, and goes there.
The average dumbass on the street can't go use Napigator.
Telling him to use Gnapster as his client doesn't help. Telling him to use Napigator to find servers doesn't help.
Napster isn't about the client, it's about the service.
--
People STILL don't get it. (Score:3)
Hank Barry, CEO of Napster
Mr. Barry is stating that because:
A) Like a typical Corporate Monkey, he's saying that to improve his company's image.
OR
B) He is truly ignorant.
I have a firm belief in option A. Let's face it, everyone *knows* what goes on inside of Napster. Sure, everyone would like to believe that they're "Just sampling the music to see if they like it." and if they do, they'll "buy the CD."
See, there are conflicting arguments at work here. The two primary arguments are "We're sampling the music! If we like it, we'll buy it!" and "Music should be Free! I refuse to pay outrageous prices for CDs." Okay, so you refuse to pay high prices for CDs, and Music should be free....but you'll buy it if you like it?
Look folks, deep down inside, we ALL know what Napster is for. No, don't knee-jerk and say I'm supporting the RIAA - I'm not. I think the RIAA is just as guilty, if not MORESO than Napster. They're dicking the Artists AND the public, and keeping the bulk of the cash for themselves. But stealing from BOTH isn't going to solve things.
Lots of people will say "Well, why not shut down IRC. It also facilitates the transfer of illegal material." Um, was IRC *designed* to do this? Are the creators of IRC *profiting* from that? Guess what, folks....Napster is both. Napster is walking in your house, stealing your stereo, and giving it away on the street - and the people buying it are screaming "Equipment should be Free!" and "We're just borrowing it to try it. If we like it, we'll buy one."
But we all know in reality, They're going to keep the stereo.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
A fair to pay artist online with the RIAA. (Score:5)
--
What do people think about voluntarily paying your artist online for music you've downloaded?
We believe this is one answer to the MP3 situation and have started a website at www.fairtunes.com [fairtunes.com] that allows you to do exactly that. It is the Stephen King model implemented for music. We allow you to securely send any amount of money using your credit to ANY artist.
But do we live in a society that can adjust to a voluntary system when we've lived so long in a system that has always set the price for us? Can we handle the freedom that Napster gives us? Can we be trusted to use Napster responsibly? Young kids might always pirate music, and we accept that, but is voluntary payment an option for everyone else?
Matt.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
stop the copying of copyrighted music over its
servers without shutting down entirely?*
Gee, that wasn't hard, was it?
Whew (Score:4)
Re:How did we survive? (Score:2)
Plus, "the formula" was still being worked on. Yeah, the original model was The Beatles, but they were actually talented. It didn't take the industry long to figure out they could milk the formula without talented performers. . . (disco)
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
here are the stories. (Score:2)
Re:Now (Score:2)
Listen carefully this time:
THE RIAA IS TRYING TO SHUT DOWN THE NAPSTER SERVICE. IF THEY DO SO, WHICH THEY VERY NEARLY DID TODAY AND COULD SUCCEED IN DOING REAL SOON NOW, GNAPSTER WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CONNECT TO IT EITHER.
Exactly how did you construe my comments that Gnapster wouldn't work on Windows to mean that there was no client available for Linux?
There are several clients available for Linux. I've used two of them.
That is completely irrelevant to the 99% of Napster users who aren't using Linux.
Before you hit "reply", go back and read this post again.
--
Re:Go ahead and celebrate (Score:2)
great article at excite (ap) (Score:2)
here's [excite.com] a right on article. not only did they (ron harris, associated press writer) explain the news, but they also spent the last half on the fact that freenet [sourceforge.net] was available, worked as well, and was "inpenetrable" to court orders (well ... close enough).
point is, they managed to give some good press to freenet [sourceforge.net] while still covering the story.
Napster as "community" (Score:3)
Re:That's more like it (Score:2)
And if we're lucky, they'll hold on to their business model long enough for independent artists to create/join independent internet-based "labels" with a better business model that will permanently sideline the RIAA.
That's why RIAA in general is against new tech that could make mass distribution and promotion cheap/easy enough for the little guy.
IMHO, it's only a matter of time before that happens anyway. I just hope it's sooner rather than later.
Re:A fair to pay artist online with the RIAA. (Score:2)
EXCEPT:
(From the FairTunes FAQ)
How do I know the money will get to the artist?
We have really struggled with this question. We have looked into various forms of online auditing (such as CPA Webtrust) but the costs are currently way out of our price range. We are continuing to investigate other forms of trust and business practice certification and verification. If you know of any (affordable) solutions please contact us. In the meantime we hope that you will trust that the money will arrive safetly at its intended destination. Also, consider that it's much more profitable for Fairtunes to pass your money on to the artist and get their attention, than it would be to simply pocket the couple dollars. That is, your money is more valuable to us in the artist's hands, than in ours.
"You're just gonna have to trust us" doesn't cut it in the internet world. Until some type of verification system is in place, I wouldn't trust this for a second. Not because I think FairTunes is untrustworthy, but simply because of the nature of the Internet. (Remember PayPai?)
When there's a way to confirm that your cash is headed for the artist, however, I guarantee this service will get LOTS of use.
There's a catch, though....This service is fine and dandy for established artists, but what of the struggling musician that isn't well known? The whole appeal of a record deal with a big-name label is they take care of Promotion, they handle the Studio Recordings, and they deal with distribution - AND, they cover all the associated costs. An artist that is just starting out can't afford to do all of that out of pocket.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Re:Is there a third side to be on? (Score:3)
Napster is wrong and so is the RIAA/MPAA. These transactions should be between the creator and consumer. The creator gets to choose how much is charged for their goods and the consumer gets freedom of choice.
The distributor is just a middleman easily replaced by whatever mechanism so long as the creator has chosen that mechanism. What has happened is the consumer has said, we want our music via digital download. Now it is up to the creator's to decide how to implement that. Or more realistically, it is time for those of us with a better way to present it to the artists. Not to the distributors whom we'd be competing.
Some Appropriate Links (Score:2)
Re:Is there a third side to be on? (Score:2)
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
Re:A fair to pay artist online with the RIAA. (Score:2)
Anyways the musician gets money upfront for signing, but then has to use that money themselves for recording, and many associated cost, all the record industry gives them is money to look like stars, that is if you happen to be a band that they want to make stars outta.
Re:That's more like it (Score:2)
And if we're lucky, they'll hold on to their business model long enough for independent artists to create/join independent internet-based "labels" with a better business model that will permanently sideline the RIAA.
--
Re:napster, blah (Score:2)
There are plenty of other ways to get good music. The only problem I had/have with loosing Napser is the precedent that it sets.
Re:A fair to pay artist online with the RIAA. (Score:3)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Actually, the MPEG headers have a field, called, you guessed it, "copyright". Of course it seems that each mp3 encoder randomly decides weather to set it to 1 or 0, so its of no use, but if people actually used the field as it was meant to be used, napster could filter pretty easially.
Film at 11... (Score:4)
"Napster, a company that facilitates downloading of copyrighted material (sometimes with the approval of the copyright holder, mostly not) has won a reprieve from their inevitable closure.
Napster have always guarded the protocol they use, and have changed the protocol to prevent others from interoperating with them on more than one occasion. For some unknown reason, the erstwhile 'news for nerds' site slashdot [slashdot.org] has posted three stories about this today. Interestingly, they have been posting stories about 2600 [2600.com] (which is currently not responding) court case at a rate of less than one a day. Your intrepid reporter infers that
Thank you, Casey. And, right after this break: How much would you sell your birthright for? We have 300 million people right here who don't need paying. But first, listen to these important messages..."
Re:Great. (Score:2)
Re:Is napster really what you think it is? (Score:2)
Napster is NOT a free, open source utility made for the common good by a couple of enthousiastic coders in their spare time. It's a commercial company, who use other people's work for getting multi million dollar advertisement contracys, without the owner's consent.
So, yay or nay for Napster alternatives? (Score:3)
Any Napster users know firsthand?
Followed immediately by another appeal (Score:5)
did so! did not! did so! did not! did so! did not! did so! did not!
Hey you kids, stop your squabling, or you will both be sent to bed without any gnutella for desert.
the AC
Action failed: copyright reg was prerequisite! (Score:5)
I especially liked this little technicality:
Copyright registration is not a prerequisite to a valid copyright, but it is a prerequisite to a suit based on copyright. [Kodadek v. MTV]
Apparently the plaintiffs had merely identified some 200 songs for which they allegedly claimed copyright without providing proof of copyright registration, and to add to their incompetence, they then tried to extend the claim to millions of songs which they didn't even bother to name, let alone declare under copyright. Apparently this is a legal no-no.
And lawyers get paid for all this fun. Sigh
Re:Pay Per Napster (Score:2)
RIAA = Borg? (Score:2)
"The RIAA Collective"
I KNEW IT!
The link for the story (Score:3)
What this really means is (Score:2)
Time to start running Gnutella!
Re:So, yay or nay for Napster alternatives? (Score:2)
I'm not arguing you here, but I have to question that number. Since many of the alternative napster clients don't save usernames and passwords (I've no clue about the "official" client...) I, for one, always make up a new u/p pair. Granted, it's getting MUCH harder, but I do it pretty much every time. So I have to wonder how many of those "20-million users" are names like "qwerty" and "1q2w3e".
That's more like it (Score:3)
The RIAA has chosen it's path (Score:2)
Re:merely waiting (Score:2)
-Napster users in a downloading frenzy to get everything they can before the deadline. Now that the death sentence has been stayed, there's no reason to believe this frenzied level of activity won't continue for a few more weeks.
-Enormous publicity for Gnutella, Freenet, and other file-sharing alternatives, which were little than pre-beta geek curiosities until now.
-An unprecedented public forum to expose the exploitative and monopolistic business practices of the record companies. (really, how many news stories did you see about the RIAA settling with the FTC on their antitrust suit for price-fixing?).
Yes, truly a Victory against Piracy!
Great. (Score:2)
If the RIAA wins, there will be no digital music trading. PERIOD. They'll send their watchdogs out like a swarm of locusts searching for crops to eat. So people will go to Gnapster and Freenet. And with that will go the musicians profits, and the labels' as well. If there are no labels, there is no production scheme for modern music that ISNT Digital. And as we all well know we can't trust people to pay for things if they can take them for free.
If Napster wins this suit, then commence the online trading revolution on a more permanent and prevalent basis. Enter the dragon. No longer will artists be able to make a living doing what they are doing.
Sure the current touring bands and the ultrapop bubble gum acts will survive, coasting on a wave of teen sensationalism and washed up nostalgia, but the new artists will make their living scraping by as the starving artists of the 1600s. And yet, we crave that media, that sweet song that soothes our savage soul. No longer will it be possible for a band to take a year off from life and record a thought productive and creative album. Am I bitter? YES. You betcha.
And here's why. I love music. In nearly every form (industrial and country excepted) I enjoy it. And the industry will suffer. We'll get some nice stars, but those people who KNOW that their talent will never be seen will give up. Those bands who might make it now won't make it in the future. It's a sad day for the industry. We've caused the unemployment of thousands of promoters. We've caused the unemployment of thousands of recording studios who won't have clients.
So now you say, "Napster sells more records" Nope. Napsters COSTS records. Why pay when you can have it for free? I like the idea myself sometimes, especially when I see a CD priced at $15. So some altruistic souls go buy more, but I doubt that's what most of the users do.
Here's my deal. I think this whole thing sucks. I hate Napster, I hate the RIAA. I love the artists. Hell, I love the promotions folks more. They work in an industry we all love, but also love to hate. So Let's work on this. Let's get Congress to regulate a digital media transfer source. Let's let our government do their job, represent the interests OF the people FOR the people. So write your congressman, I just wrote mine. It's all doable.
But it sucks in the meantime
Oh well... (Score:2)
BTW, on a side note, has anyone noticed how in all the publicized trials, they refer to it as "napster stealing their music" (such as lars on Capital Hill). Why do they keep blaming Napster for their users behavoir? But oh well, hopefully the federal courts will realize that the RIAA has no case against Napster, only their users, and service will continue as normal soon....
How these Injunction Things Work (Score:2)
It may be that the appeals court also thinks Napster will lose, but that the damages are sufficiently unbalanced that they're overturning the TRO. And it makes a lot of difference whether the appeals court thinks Napster's odds are 49:51 or 1:99 or 75:25.
Judge Patel, of course, was the excellent judge in the Dan Bernstein Crypto Export case. [eff.org]
Re:Ummmm..What does Linus say? (Score:2)
The Internet has allowed the market to speak directly to each other and the people that run it. Both the businesses and the lawmakers. I can't even imagine the filth that is running over the RIAA's mail servers right now.
That being said. I think a service like Napster should be allowed to exist, with certain limitations. But those limitations should all be on how much money they can make as a service. Perhaps they should only be allowed to be a non-profit organization, and in steps Gnutella and OpenNAP.
Regardless, we are stepping into a new media environment (all the music ever created and recorded available) and it scares a shitload of people, mostly those that had control over the last one.
If this issue is important to you, I think it is important that you ask your lawmakers how they feel about it. Internet copyright, IP, and the media industry in this country. Votin' time is coming up soon. Abuse the power that millions of people have died for and make your opinion reality.
--
RIAA boycott still on? (Score:3)
http://www.RIAAboycott.org/ [riaaboycott.org] has no new info...
CNNs lack of journalistic ethics contrast to MSNBC (Score:2)
I've never been a fan of MSNBC, but they at least mention that there is a question of the appropriateness of the injunction, and the fact that tens of thousands of fans are threatening boycott of the RIAA.
The CNN article, on the other hand, only mentions that the injunction was stayed, and then spends the rest of the article in effect decrying napster and spouting the RIAA party line. Journalism so yellow my urine looks pale in comparison.
If I were a journalist at CNN (and some of the other news sources that so distort the story and hide the "other side" from their readership/viewership altogethre), I would be deeply ashamed.
As it is, I am going to engage in my fair use right, as affirmed by the court of appeals today, to use napster to space shift some more music I own on old vinyl to my hard drive for more convinient listening.
Eat your heart out, RIAA.
Suggested reading: (Score:2)
Hope this helps,
Rainbowfyre
Good Guys/Bad Guys (Score:2)
I have to disagree with you. Whatever their faults, Fanning and Napster are clearly in the right on this issue, and their attackers ARE clearly attacking things that I hold dear and that I believe to be the very basis of good as it exists (arguments about platonic ideals shoved to the side.)
Napster is a file sharing service. Any file sharing service can be used to break copyright laws - but it is the users who do this that are in violation of the law, not the service. Providing the service is reasonably responsive in shutting down abusers when notified, of course. This is long standing and well thought out case law, deriving from actions taken in the past attempting to hold ISPs liable because they were unwittingly being used by trafficers in kiddie porn.
Defending the ISPs is not defending kiddie porn - it's defending service providers. Napster is just another service provider, everything I've seen indicates that Napster has been responsive and responsible in locking out users from the system when they are made aware of violations, and if they can be shut down because some of their users are infringing copyright, then expect to see ISPs start shutting down left and right as well. It's precisely the same principle.
And just for your information, I have never even used napster. From the comments I have read it appears I am in a very small minority here in that, but it's true. I don't have the bandwidth to dick around with .mp3s, and I've never even considered using napster. I'm very very concerned about bad precedent though, and holding a service provider responsible for violations commited by it's users is very bad precedent.
napster, blah (Score:2)
Now (Score:2)
Napster media coverage out of control? (Score:3)
I happened to turn on "Politically Incorrect" (a light, quasi-comedy based political talk show hosted by a comedian with 4 guests for the benefit of those outside the US viewing area) and the first topic discussed was, you guessed it, Napster.
The host actually had something insightful to say about the music industry's assertion that Napster was killing their sales. (Paraphrased) "When I was younger, everyone I knew taped songs off the radio, and swapped albums and tapes to be copied."
One guest replied, (paraphrased) "Yes, but the ratio of then was like 3 or 4 to 1, who copied. With Napster, I believe that it's like 1 person buys a CD and 20 million copy it." What??? Are we to believe that Titney Spears and Outta'Sync, with that ratio, would have sold 30 Gazillion copies each if Napster didn't exist? The above statement by the clueless guest is what an un-elightened, un-informed public probably really believes.
However, the host had a CLASSIC line, "Record executives are just people who don't have the people skills to be pimps."
Lawyers Inc. (Score:2)
LOL!
So true. Napster has to be one of the dumbest ideas I've seen get this much funding. People think VCs are the smartest eggs in the box. Please. They just have enough dough to stay ahead of the odds.
-cwk.
Re:What would be better??? (Score:2)
---
Boycott is here (Score:2)
http://www.RIAAboycott.org/ [riaaboycott.org]
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Really, I wouldn't expect them to. A thriving, legal, Napster is the worst possible outcome for them. They are just out to shut them down so they can bring their own (pay-for, of course) version online without fear of competition.
--
another link (Score:2)
Re:The boycott should still go on... (Score:2)
Now, I think we have a major education problem in front of us. How many of the alleged 20 million Napster users know (I mean, really understand) these philosophical reasons? I spent a few hours on napster's chat rooms yesterday trying to do a little explaining on these same reasons and it was very difficult to get my point understood (there's of course the highly likely possibility that I wasn't very good at explaining myself). What I saw instead was a lot of people doing what you just mentioned: flaming, acting like little children whose parents have just confiscated this wonderful toy, people were talking like well it was good while it lasted, so what are the alternatives to Napster?. And it's of course very nice that people are finding out about Gnutella or Freenet, but there's a huge and complicated intellectual property issue that needs to be addressed. Anyway, my point is that an important part of a boycott is to talk to people about the REASONS BEHIND that boycott.
Re:Take that, Lars! (Score:2)
There are heaps of open source clones out there that connect to the napster servers. Try a search [freshmeat.net] on freshmeat [freshmeat.net].
===
Re:Now (Score:2)
Syberghost dun said:
Actually...you'd be surprised at how many folks could find it...I told my sister (who knows enough about how to install Win98 without help, but whom I still wouldn't trust to know how to use Alta Vista) about it...two day later, Win98 goes south and has to be reinstalled. She calls later, proudly announcing she's reinstalled both Win98 and her main programs including Napster and Napigator.
Her literal comment regarding the latter: "I actually remembered that one--just had to remember the 'gator' bit." :)
The MPAA/RIAA side: (Score:5)
Oh, and they'll also be licensed and not sold, and, because they're now selling songs, they'll claim that there's no reason for any player to play unencrypted music, so all THOSE players will be made illegal. Of course, like software, they won't accept returns.
And if the player they've licensed for goes sour, you'll be stuck with megabytes of useless crap. They'll never let you convert your music to a second player, as you might be lying about your origional one breaking and you might be a pirate. So you'll have to buy it all over again.
Need I continue?
Oh, and once they've made everything else illegal, they'll put on limits. You can only play the music so many times before it disables, or so many times a month, or a limited timeframe to play it in.
And of course, once people forget about free music and think 'public domain' is a dirty word, the price will go up. $1? $5? $20? a track. The monopolies will screw you for as much as they [safetly] can. And then they'll work to make copyrights perpetual.
This is what the record companies want out of the digital future. This is what any 'copyright control' company wants. Music, lyrics, video, photography, software. This is what they all want.
Napster and any other way of letting the MASSES trade media that's unencrypted and not digitally linked (Masses != computer nerds who know FTP or IRC.) risks this bright future for record companies. It gives the heretical idea that people should question copyright. Something which they haven't seriously done in decades. Like the witches at the stake, Napster must be destroyed for that reason.
Computers don't necessarily make information free. They're good at processing information, duplicating it, checking it, debiting accounts... Thus, they allow control at a fine level that would have been impossible in the past. The media companies want this control, and are holding our public heritage as a hostage until they get it. This is why you they don't release content on the internet.
To those who think this isn't happening.. They're working on a specification for encrypted-USB speakers. Intel demo'ed a graphics chipset that encrypts every pixel to your monitor. DIVX came and (thankfully) died.
The internet gives everyone a press. As a famous quote goes ``Freedom of the press is only for those who have one.'' The internet must be controlled to protect those who already have presses. The media companies own the presses, and they claim to own the content they publish. Generally, they don't create that content, but they're damn good at grabbing control of it. They are powerful, and used to scheming for what they want.
Quick note... (Score:3)
TheGeek
And a third: (Score:2)
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game! [8m.com]
More importantly (Score:2)
Re:Action failed: copyright reg was prerequisite! (Score:2)
Hrm, actually I think you've misread the document. The document you have linked to does not contain the appellate judge's ruling but rather Napster's application/argument for a stay against the injunction. Take a look at the last page. It's signed by the lawyers for Napster. So this is not one judge tearing apart the ruling of another judge but lawyers telling an appellate judge why the previous judge screwed up. It was still a good read though.
Of course, it *is* 2am. Maybe I misread it in which case disregard
Re:Interesting article at cbs.marketwatch (Score:2)
Re:People STILL don't get it. (Score:2)
C) USC Title 17, Chapter 10, Paragraph 1008 legalizes all non-commercial copying of copyrighted music.
Yes it does. Go look it up.
Why did Congress pass this law?
Because the record industry wanted a tax to be paid to them for all digital audio media sold. Congress said, "Ok, but you have to agree that all non-commercial copying is not copyright infringement." The industry was happy with the outcome and has been accepting money for 8 years on every digital audio tape and audio CDR sold.
In return, all non-commercial copying of copyrighted music is legal. That's exactly what Napster's users are doing..
"But wait!", you say. "Napster is a commercial, for-profit operation!"
Yes, but the activities of its users are non-commercial. There is no law that says that it is illegal to form a for-profit company to aid people in engaging in not-for-profit activities.
Don't forget, in your analysis, that the public is paying the RIAA a surcharge for every digital audio tape and audio CDR sold. That is why music sharing is neither immoral, nor illegal.
can't stop MY NAPSTER (Score:2)
Re:Now (Score:2)
Most Napster users are on Windows. Gnapster is not for Windows, nor is it likely to be anytime soon.
Secondly, the problem isn't so much the client; it's the server network.
There are lots of OpenNAP servers, but people don't know where they are.
I tried the three OpenNAP servers listed in my version of Gnapster earlier, and the results were:
Two were down, and the third had 8 people logged on. When I logged in, it went from 22 songs available to 230+. That means my pathetic MP3 collection was 10 times as large as the entire body of people using that server.
That's not very useful for the average Napster user, don't you think?
Gnapster is pretty useless without the Napster network being up.
--
This may not be a good thing (Score:3)
Once naspster is shut down, then people (like the bands on my web site) have a real case against RIAA for using their monoploy power to prevent their music from being heard which results in poor sales.
And the next time the RIAA is talking about "how will the artists get paid" ask them about how much the artists get paid for cutouts and "clearance" cds.
Re:Is napster really what you think it is? (Score:2)
Re:Action failed: copyright reg was prerequisite! (Score:2)
Re:The link for the story (Score:2)
Not that I'm aiming for free karma or anything, but here's the Reuters story [yahoo.com] on Yahoo. :)
===
Re:That's more like it (Score:3)
Ahh... but there are times when injunctions are nessecary... imagine that we're farmers that have a small stream running through our properties... I'm downstream from you, and you build a dam to stop the flow of water... my farm could be ruined if something isn't done RIGHT AWAY.
Of course though, I'm not saying that this is one of those cases... but sometimes an injunctoin is nessecary.
-Misch
Is napster really what you think it is? (Score:3)
Before you label napster as a cyberspace patriot, only there to fight for your electronic freedom of speech, at least try to consider the other side as well. If you compare napster to radio, which should be a good comparison, don't forget that (legal) radio stations pay artists a certain amount of money for their work, and the artist (or more accurately the owner of the work... quite often the record company) at least has the option to decide which of his songs are ok for radio, and which he would rather chuck in the bin than let anyone else hear.
As I understand it, it was this situation that infuriated renowned control freak Lars Ulrich so much that he wanted to take legal action. Metallica were in the studio finishing an album, and were astonished to hear their unfinished, unreleased album on the radio. Someone had distributed a demo using napster, without asking metallica if it was ok with them.
That metallica are filthy rich, and haven't made a decent record in 10 years is completely irrelevant. If open software coders find that a commercial company which is considering an IPO takes their work, rips off the COPYRIGHT notice, and makes money distributing their proprietarised work, then how would slashdot readers respond?
Re:Now (Score:2)
Re:People STILL don't get it. (Score:2)
I agree. The fact that 90% of that music is copyrighted, however, doesn't bother Napster executives one bit, because they still make their money. (Oh sure, they put up their little disclaimer "Trading Copyrighted stuff is a No-No", but it's there for image only.)
Was IRC designed to transfer illegal material? It was designed to transfer files.
Actually, it wasn't. RFC 1459 says nothing about file transfer. IRC was desined to be a text-based chat. Nothing more.
I think. If I ICQ a copy of a song to someone over ICQ, does it fall under fair use?
Nope. It's the same principle, no matter how you trade the copyrighted material, including "burning" it to cassette and giving it to them.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't feel like weeding through the technical jargon in "Fair Use", but from my current understanding, the following scenarios are totally legal and fall under fair use:
I have a CD Player at home, and a Cassette deck in my car. I copy the songs from CD to cassette to listen to in my car.
I have a CD Player in my Living Room, and a Computer in the Computer room. I rip the songs from CD to MP3 to listen to on my computer.
Basically, as long as you own the original CD, you have every legal right to do whatever you wish with the music *EXCEPT* duplicate it for someone else, no matter WHAT the means. Buying a CD basically gives you an unlimited 1-person license for your own use. (The RIAA would have you believe differently, but that's the way it is.)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Links to articles (Score:3)
CBC [infoculture.cbc.ca]
Wired News [wirednews.com]
MSNBC [msnbc.com]
CNN [cnn.com]
--
How did we survive? (Score:2)
Napster's Stay Motion (Score:5)
Effect of boycott? (Score:3)
Sounds pretty good, until you realize that $1 million is a drop in the bucket to the recording industry. I don't know what their revenues are off-hand, but I will say that I work for a large corp. (somewhere around #150 on the Fortune 500, I think), and we don't even blink at the gain or loss of $1 million.
The boycott has a long way to go if it wants to have an impact on the recording industry.
Is there a third side to be on? (Score:4)
Re:Is napster really what you think it is? (Score:2)
Since the Internet allows millions of people to read copyrighted articles without any payment are the authors being fairly compensated, or should they complain that the Internet is facilitating copyright violations? Maybe we need an injunction on the Internet.
If a company puts music on their phone menu, and then passes the price of the per-play copyright to the consumer, how do you like that? Should you be forced to pay for music you didn't intentionally listen to?
I think you mentioned a key part of copyright we *do* want to preserve. Protection against corruption and loss of control. Authors and artists *should* have control over timing and contents of releases, and be protected against others profiting from modification or resale. But the person who released the metallica demo (which they presumably received under a contract prohibiting release) is the party that should be in court.
Re:Now (Score:2)
Suppose... (Score:3)
--
Why? (Score:3)
Napster claims that the injunction would have put them out of business. The injunction did not state that Napster had to shut down, merely that it had to stop helping people copy copyrighted music.
Further, the court asked RIAA to post a 5 million dollar bond to cover any losses suffered by Napster as a result of the injunction if Napster ended up winning the case. How likely is it that temporarily shutting Napster down would cost the company more than 5 million dollars?
What reason did the court have for staying this injunction?
The RIAA vs Napster: A Diologue (Score:5)
Neuracnu Coyote presents:
The RIAA vs Napster: A Diologue
aka: Monty Python and the Holy Internet Startup ---
[SupremeCourt] Bring out your copyright infringers!
[SupremeCourt] Bring out your copyright infringers!
[SupremeCourt] Bring out your copyright infringers!
[RIAA] Here's one.
[SupremeCourt] $2500 in court costs for the injunction.
[RIAA] Here you are.
[Napster] It's not illegal!
[SupremeCourt]
[SupremeCourt] What?
[RIAA] Nothing, here's your $2500.
[Napster] It's not illegal!
[SupremeCourt] Here now - he says it isn't illegal!
[RIAA] Yes it is!
[Napster] It's not!
[RIAA] Well, it will be soon. Our lobbyists are working on it.
[Napster] Stealing music is freedom of information!
[RIAA] No it's not. It'll be illegal any moment.
[Napster] I don't want to file Chapter 11!
[RIAA] Oh, don't be such a baby.
[SupremeCourt] I'm sorry, that's an impropper injunction. Here, little Internet Startup, have a stay against that injunction.
--
How will it continue? You decide! Get involved, send emails, sign petitons, write your congressmen, boycott the RIAA. Do something!
Interesting article at cbs.marketwatch (Score:3)
Here are a couple of quotes:
Napster went too far. A wildly popular software application and Web community for its millions of users, the company took already-existing Internet protocols (FTP, gopher and HTTP), added a nice Web interface and marketed itself as the best place to "share" music.
The judge was fast to point out that if these uses were so substantial, then it should not harm the company's bottom line to prohibit the infringing uses, but save the noninfringing uses. And, if the company cannot find a technological solution that allows it to separate its legal uses from its illegal uses, then maybe "the 19-year-old who was clever enough to invent the program" is not so clever after all.
That is the moral of the latest chapter in the Napster story. A company that is smart enough to write an application that is used by 20 million people should be smart enough to find a way for that application to conform to the law. And if the company does not think that conforming to the law is important, then maybe it is not smart enough to succeed.
The boycott should still go on... (Score:5)
Napster is not out of the water yet. Just because the Court of Appeals gave them a reprieve doesn't mean that Napster still can't get shut down by the RIAA. I could get into the philosophical reasons why Napster shouldn't be shut down, but a lof of you know them already.
I've already heard the standard cries of "I'm gonna burn my Metallica CDs!" and "I'm gonna send a flaming e-mail to Hilary Rosen!," but c'mon, what effect will that have? So what if you burn your Metallica CDs, you already bought them, right? And so what if you flame Hilary Rosen? You're just giving them ammo to use against you ("Look at this Napster user, see their blatant disregard for us?!?"). That is why I suggest that the planned boycott for the RIAA should go on. If you're going to send a message to the RIAA about how you feel about Napster, hit them where it matters most: their wallets.
And yes, I realize that this may give the RIAA more reason to cry "They're downloading music from Napster, so now I can't afford my new Lexus!" and the such. But then again, they're going to latch onto whatever they can squeeze sympathy for their side out of.
And if this doesn't make the RIAA listen up, I don't know what will.
Further reading:
www.boycott-riaa.com [boycott-riaa.com]
www.riaaboycott.org [riaaboycott.org]
Napster Buycott [napster.com] (that's not a typo :))
RIAA Member List [riaa.com] (for the boycotting, duh!)
RIAA Contact List [napster.com] (let your voice be heard!)
--
Re:That's more like it (Score:2)
The point of temporary injunctions is to prevent irreversable harm while the trial proceeds. It says little about the final verdict though it may reflect a judge's initial impression of the merits of a case.
In this case, the court shouldn't have considered it (as you say) on the grounds that Napster could loose 100% of their mind/market share before a verdict vs. RIAA loosing a small portion of their revenue (which they could potentially recover anyway). The former is far harder to recover from. Interestingly, RIAA would probably loose more in boycotts with the injunction than if Napster continues to operate. That is especially true if you buy the theory that most Napster downloads are of music that the user would NOT have bought anyway.
Of course, at this point, RIAA would rather loose more money and put Napster out of business to protect their business model over the long haul.
Re:Napster's Stay Motion (Score:2)
Argh! The Media is toooooooooo stupid for me! (Score:3)
Re:The boycott should still go on... (Score:2)
Right, if you want to piss on Metallica, you need to rip and mp3 encode all of your Metallica media at nice high archival-quality bitrates, and upload them everywhere you can, making them freely available whether or not they're carried by Napster. It won't help Napster any, but it'll sure piss off Mr. Squeaky (IE, Lars.)
Three Other Links to This Story (Score:2)
Federal Judge Allows Napster To Continue Music Trading [nytimes.com]
Court grants stay of Napster injunction [cnet.com]
--
Re:Why? (Score:2)
stop the copying of copyrighted music over its
servers without shutting down entirely?* And
the answer is--*ding*--it can't! Music files
don't come with little tags that say whether
or not they're copyrighted. The order was
tantamount to shutting down Napster entirely,
because there was no other way to comply with it.
Carrying through the injunction would have forced
Napster to shutdown for some long, indeterminate
period, and most likely would have driven it out
of business.
Chris Mattern
Gnutella busted today? Denial of Service? (Score:3)
There are numerous messages over on the chat board at the Gnutella website that indicates that others are having the same problem.
I always thought that something was likely to happen bad to gnutella, seeing how it loaded the network so heavily with only 3000 clients at a time - the most I ever saw was maybe 5000. Napster had a total of 23 million users (not all of whom were logged in at any given time).
Has the gnutellanet gotten broken into islands? Is there a failure in the protocol?
I don't believe there really could only be a few users because there is a message on the Gnutella site that says they had to install a new server and buy more bandwidth to handle all the hits and client downloads they are getting.
Maybe decentralized peer-to-peer isn't all that it's cracked up to be - or at least the kinks aren't worked out of it yet.
Ah, I see this message posted on the development board: