KaZaa Ignores Court Order to Shut Down 365
An anonymous reader submitted that "The Amsterdam district court ruled two weeks ago that the KaZaa P2P program is acting unlawfully by making software available that allows users to download music files and must shut down. The court gave the company 14 days to do this or face $40,000 US a day in fines. KaZaa has chosen to ignore the shutdown order."
WHy would it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
NO... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:NO... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:NO... (Score:3, Informative)
If you want more details, goto #giFT on irc.openprojects.org, ask for jasta.
-jasta
lead developer giFT, openFT, gnapster
Re:WHy would it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, why isn't the court going after Microsoft since Internet Explorer is the underlying layer of both KaZaA and Morpheus? Microsoft has about as much control as KaZaA over the Fasttrack network, and is even more culpable because their software is behind both of the major Fasttrack clients. If they want to pursue a ridiculous interpretation of the law, they might as well apply it consistently and not just to convenient targets.
Another order.... (Score:3)
Yes, this is a joke, I know they need to make money somehow.
About spyware (Score:3, Informative)
However. There are alternatives and one of the less known ones is Grokster [grokster.com]. This is also an official client to the fasttrack network and it does also include spyware but you can disable it. Actually it's disabled by default! I've been using it and when I've checked with AdAware it's green. So go get it!
Meanwhile. What happened to giFT/OpenFT [giftproject.org]?? I'm still waiting.. :)
Re:About spyware (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Another order.... (Score:3, Informative)
Just a thought.
Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:2)
And get your ass thrown into jail? There are plenty of unjust laws in almost every civilized country. If you ignore them, however, the penalty is stiff.
I guess you could ignore the imprisonment as well, and get shot trying to escape.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that's exactly how it's supposed to work - just ask any civil rights marchers from the Deep South, for instance. Once the government realizes that they can't throw everyone in jail, the laws get changed. Or sometimes you get a new government.
Really, you're taking a gamble that enough other people will join your civil disobedience that the government can't ignore you.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
For one thing, most people wouldn't consider it worthwhile. This isn't about basic human rights, it's about consumer rights, and that's a whole different-- and less urgent-- ballgame.
Re:Good (Score:2)
That's one hell of a gamble in this case. The governments of the world cannot throw all the users of Kazaa in jail because they are anonymous. They can, however, jail those who made Kazaa, and use them to set examples of other programmers who would make P2P technologies.
Unfortunately, most of the public would not march for them. Most people are truly apathetic.
When I find a law is unjust, I contribute in a way I can: go to non-violent protests, write letters, sign campaigns, give cash to the EFF, NRA, Libertarian party, or whoever I think has the best chance to help fight it. I would not be willing to break the law unless it was a major force of tyrranny that threatened the lives of the people in my nation.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
It is never appropriate to ignore a law. You can obey it, or you can lobby against it, or you can openly defy it, but you must never ignore it.
The strength of our society (by which I mean the modern judicial society in general, wherever in the world it is found) is based on the authority of the law. We consent to be bound by the authority of law, and in return we live in a prosperous, ordered society. If a law is unjust, you must fight-- within the system when possible-- to overturn it.
But ignoring a law, even an unjust law, trivializes The Law as a whole, which erodes the core pillar of our society.
Disagree or even disobey, but always respect and honor.
Re:Good (Score:3, Informative)
Unless you want to contend that Robin Hood respected the laws of King John (he was careful not to get caught, so an argument could be made).
First of all, Robin Hood is fiction, and besides that the story predates the modern legalistic society.
'Round about the time of the American and French revolutions a shift took place in world politics. The absolute authority of monarchs began to be replaced by the absolute authority of The Law. I don't mean any one law specifically, but rather the idea that The Law, as a body of rules, is the highest authority.
This isn't a new idea; it's embedded pretty firmly in Judeo-Christian cultures going all the way back to the time of the Hebrews. In the pre-Christian era, The Law was handed down by Yahweh himself and was considered to be infallible. The coming of the Christian church in the first century AD brought the era of the Popes, which led in part to the medieval idea of the divine right of kings. Suddenly The Law was no longer an entity of itself, but rather simply an extension of the will of kings and queens and Popes who had a divine mandate to rule.
Philosophical shifts in the 17th century led to yet another change in this paradigm. John Locke refuted the divine right of kings pretty thoroughly in Two Treatises On Government; in these writings Locke first put forth the idea of the legitimacy of government through the consent of the governed. Locke took some of the ideas of Thomas Hobbes-- notably the concept of man in a state of nature and of moral law-- and extended them, attempting to apply them to the real world in a practical sense. Locke contended that, in an ideal world, Hobbes's ideas would hold sway, but that the real world is one of scarcity, and as such it is necessary for man to willingly delegate some of his natural moral authority to society in the name of greater good for all.
Then came the American Revolution (among other changes in the world at the end of the 18th century) and with it a political system never before seen in the world: one based on the very Lockian idea of political legitimacy and the consent of the people.
Inherent in this idea is the notion that we, as citizens, must respect the law of our land, for man in the natural state and man as a citizen of the society are incompatible ideas. In order for a government to stand, all of its members must uphold their end of Locke's social contract.
A lack of respect for The Law leads to anarchy and chaos. Perhaps the anarchy may come in a small way, and be hardly noticable at first, but eventually it will erode our society and lead us back to barbarism.
So I stand by my original opinion. Disagree with laws. Disobey when your conscience tells you that you must. But if you fail to respect the law, the only source of authority that our society allows, then you're destroying our country and our society as surely as if you did it with guns and bombs.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to listen to music then pay for the damn stuff.
If someone set up a site whose sole purpose was to facilitate trading of WareZ for profit nobody would be leaping to defend them. OK Elton John and Bono probably get paid more than the average slashdotter, but the average slashdotter gets paid a heck of a lot more than the average third tier band with a major label recording contract. In 1999 the number of slashdotters with eight figure bank accounts probably outnumbered the number of musicians with one (no longer though, thanks GWB!)
What I really have no time for are the various venture capital funded attempts to make money out of ripping off music. Napster was such a shitty concept. They build up a big user base by giving away other people's property for free then they turn round and 'monetise' the base - spamvertising, pop up ads, spyware and of course screwing up your DNS to point to the Idealab! creation of the week. So the deal is Napster gives away $10 worth of someone else's property then tries to buy them off with a 5% share of the 20 cents they make back off advertising - great business model.
Of course it must be said that the MPAA and the RIAA are hardly deserving of sympathy for their predicament. Perhaps if the MPAA had not introduced the DVD zone system so they can charge twice as much for DVDs in Europe as they do in the states I would have some sympathy. I might even have some respect for them ifd they did not insist on peddling their pathetic lie that the Zone system is there to enforce different release dates in different zones - if that is the excuse then why are back-catalogue releases zone encoded.
And don't get me started on the cluelessness of the RIAA and their SDMI scheme. In the DMCA the RIAA effectively stole the returned rights of many recording artists by bribing Congress to declare the recordings 'works for hire' and thus exempt from the returned rights provision. It was only when the whistle was blown that a hasty ammendment was introduced to another bill repeal the section of the previous act. Fortunately the computer industry can afford to buy far more congressmen than the RIAA can by a factor of ten so I don't worry too much about the Hollings proposal.
The KaZaa case is not being heard in a US court so the relevance of the Libertarian party and the NRA mentioned by another poster is not immediately apparent. Incidentally the Netherlands has pretty liberal IP laws compared to the US, we managed to get Karin Spaink and co. off when the $cientologists went after them.
The real issue is the extent to which KaZaa can exercise control over their network and the extent to which they have deliberately placed it beyond control. Funny thing about courts is that they are not too sympathetic when you tell them you cannot do something because you anticipated a legitimate legal action and deliberately acted to make it impossible for you to comply. In the case of KaZaa there are a fistfull of shell companies set up with the sole purpose of frustrating court action.
The offense of 'contempt of court' is not simply failling to obey a court order, it is challenging the authority of the courts. So KaZaa may be considered to have been in contempt by launching their scheme in the first place.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
The ramifications of the emerging "intellectual property" regime extend far beyond pop entertainment. Even within the realm of entertainment, I cannot accept the idea that our common culture is "owned" by whoever capitalized its creation. The popular songs of U2 and Dire Straits are, in fact, in the public domain. They are widely known cultural referents, and many musicians could play them from memory. Unfortunately, the law has not kept up with reality, and denies that these songs are in the public domain.
But how do you even know there were civil rights protests? You know because that information was free to retransmit and archive. The Olympic Committee bans any unauthorized coverage of the games - they consider the games their "intellectual property". Even the athletes are forbidden to keep diaries. What if a city hosting the next WTO summit sells the "media rights" to a corporation? Then it would be illegal to pass on news or images from the protests.
If you watch the development of IP, it's clear that there is a powerful drive to destroy information. Shut down the fan sites, delete the tributes and remixes, take the old books out of print, take the old records off the shelf. Your example of Scientology vs Spaink highlights this destructive, censoring aspect of "intellectual property". And corporations are allergic to history - they'd like consumers and stockholders to live in the eternal now. Ever dig up an old computer magazine and see how quaint the "high-tech" ads appear? Kind of takes the edge off of techno-lust. Now if you were the publisher of that magazine, wouldn't you like to exercise your "intellectual property rights" and magically make the old magazines disappear? Your advertisers would like that.
And besides, by destroying the old material "content providers" create a vacuum into which to sell the new material. Already we are seeing laws (building codes) that are copyrighted by private corporations and illegal to reproduce. How long until your day-to-day activities are governed by secret laws?
Why? That's like saying "If you want to breathe air then pay for the damn stuff." Sure, it could support a massive air industry. Sure, the nonexistent air industry is losing billions of dollars a year, but why should I care? Conversely, why are you posting to slashdot for free? Surely you "deserve to be payed" for making insightful comments? Doesn't it bother you that I'm "ripping off" the "comment industry"?
I agree with the second half of your post.
Re:Good (Score:2)
Henry replied, "What are you doing OUT of jail?"
(Of course, if you live in a $27 house, even if it's on lakefront property, having the government take everything you own isn't a big deal.)
Re:Good (Score:3, Interesting)
Well that's great, but... (Score:2)
Re:Well that's great, but... (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:2)
America the land of criminals. Until proven innocent.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
But I don't particularly support music companies because they regularly screw over artists. This is not justification for stealing music, just an interesting fact that no one is suing the recording industry for the theft they've done...
As far as justifying the music I steal
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, lets also take KaZaa out of the IT world and put it IRL then.
KaZaa is a music sharing network that depends on its users to ensure they only distribute free music. KaZaa is no more at fault for your personal failure to use your own judgement than the city is at fault when people use city roads to traffic drugs.
Using a road to commit crimes is no harder (actually its easier -- notice how much easier it is to break the speed limits) than using KaZaa to break copyright. And, normally, the law punishes the guilty (copyright violators) and upholds the rights of the innocent (the people building the infrastructure who never broke the law doing it).
>If you made music, you'd want to get paid for your effort, too...
I agree. That's why we must go after the perpetrators (people using the KaZaa network illicitly) and not the builders.
There you go -- no slashdot mumbo jumbo. Just 100% clear laymans terms. You should be able to tell that to just about anyone on the street and they should understand.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
They claim that they shouldn't be shut down cause they sell "legal" drugs. The illegal drugs they can't control.....
What would a cop do?
Control it, or we'll shut ya down.
Re:Good (Score:2)
Kazaa is not providing anything but a space for people to "distribute" stuff.... muchg like a flea market. Anyone can come, pay the fee (if there is a fee...usually is) and setup a table and sell stuff.
Should the flea market be liable if you are caught selling illicit drugs at the flea? Its not like you came by and said "Hey, I want a stand at your flea market so I can sell drugs", you just came up and paid the fee and got a space.
Same on KaZaa...they have know way to know what it is your distributing. They are just providing you space.
Or how about this.... This isn't the drug store arguing they should stay open, its the owner of the property the drug store rents its space from saying they should be allowed to keep their building open and to rent it out to someone.
-Steve
Re:Good (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Good (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree. That's why we must go after the perpetrators (people using the KaZaa network illicitly) and not the builders.
Just to bring this back to the Slashdot level, let's not forget that if you're trying to remove the people responsible for the artists not getting paid, you're also going to have to go after the labels.
manipulate the legal system? (Score:2)
It seems to me that Kazaa, Napster, mp3.com et al have taken relatively orthodox approaches to their legal defense.
Bearing in mind that IANAL, how can one of these companies adopt a legal defense strategy that is the worst nightmare of the RIAA/MPAA and/or the government(s)?
What if Kazaa were to form five more corporations and cross-license its technology with them, then declare bankrupcy in an effort to keep the technology alive?
How could Kazaa involve the largest number of jurisdictions in an effort to dramatically increase the difficulty of prosecution?
What about involving Sealand?
These companies are going to continue to fall to the grim reaper until one of them does with the legal system what the technology has done with the distribution channel.
The next company should insure that it will cost over $1 billion to successfully shut them down.
You bet your *** I'd use it. (Score:2)
The very moment that Microsoft gets on the side of the consumer, I will be their loyal customer.
Microsoft could do any or all of these things to cause me to immediately rethink my (currently very dismissive) attitude towards them:
Microsoft management has not yet become bored with greed. I would like to see what happens when they do.
Re:Anonymity (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, some changes might have to be made to the way ISP's operate, and in some instances, court orders would need to be issued for the ISP's to release that information, but it could be done...that is, if the RIAA/MPAA were TRULY interested in punishing the guilty.
The fact of the matter is, they have no interest in doing so. Why? Because "the guilty" == "the customers." Start going after the customers, and you start alienating customers. Alienated customers are no longer customers...or, more specifically, no longer a source of revenue.
I honestly don't know what the RIAA and MPAA hope to accomplish with all this silliness. They should realize that they can't stop piracy, and they're obviously not willing to go after the pirates. It seems to me like a half-assed "show of force"...and the only purposes it's serving at this point is to alienate customers, and put honest, hard-working people out of work...all for nothing. It's truly sad.
Re:Good (Score:2, Insightful)
If I were to build a PRIVATE road on private land, and allow you all to sign a waiver so you can drive as fast as you want, the police would have NO jurisdiction to give you a speeding ticket (but arguably it could not directly connect to a public road without a checkpoint, etc..). However if you committed murder on the road, it would definitely be in the police's jurisdiction (ever heard of a speedway?).
I don't understand this mixed message that the internet is public and private property at the same time. On one hand, nobody forces ANYBODY to have internet in their homes. You don't want your kids surfing porn, don't get the internet (there are obviously other means for accomplishing these ends).
"Illegal file transfer" ?! I PAY money for anything of value to me. I only have a finite amount to spend. I will spend a relatively fixed amount on my entertainment. The price of that entertainment determines how much I receive. I would never PAY money for any of the Napster crap I ever downloaded... I downloaded because I COULD. People who use warez are not people who would ever have purchased the software in the first place. No company is LOSING money.
If labels are worried about LOSING MONEY, maybe they need to ADD VALUE to what they sell. Remember when album artwork meant something? Nowdays I throw a CD in my 100 disc changer and never look at the booklet. The fact that you can purchase a DVD for about the same price as a music CD is pathetic. A DVD is a great example of adding value to something- something many people might even already own as a video cassette.
At best, an "illegal copy" should be of inferior enough quality to prompt the purchase of the original (ie. who wants a badly compressed mp3 or grainy video file of a song or movie they really like?). People have yet to trade full
Re:Good (Score:2)
However, I thumb my nose at this pittiful attempt at stealing rights. Why should they close down?
After all you can do the same thing with bash, a raw socket, grep and a flat text file.
It just so happens that when someone makes anything easy it comes to the attention of shit heads like the RIAA to protect something that isnt even theirs.
Re:Good (Score:2)
And if you were the entrepreneur who started Kazaa, you'd want to get paid for your effort, too.
What's that you say? Kazaa is making money by exploiting others? Welcome to the music industry.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Since that is the case, to either through boycott or downloading, deprive the RIAA of its means to retain the stranglehold it has on the music industry isnt an ethical problem.
Once they dont have the clout to trick unsuspecting artists into enslavement and debt contracts, maybe a more healthy online distribution can be set up. Preferably where the artists and writers get the most of the money.
Personally I dont buy any CD's anymore unless from the band itself, and I dont even listen to RIAA crap if I can avoid it.
No centralized server. (Score:3, Funny)
Personally, I hope Freenet or one if it's same minded ilk (redundent caching with encrypted content) builds the technology to scale out as large as these kinds of systems have.
Freenet (Score:2, Informative)
That was always my gripe with freenet, that it's been too damn hard to use... Keep up the improvements, guys, for everyone's sake.
No! Don't test it in the courts! (Score:2)
You really don't want them to do that test in a court. If a court finds that people are producing things that are invulnerable to court orders, you can bet that within days legislation will be passed preventing any such software from being produced again. Mandatory government-accessible backdoors might well become a legal requirement, and writing or using software without them might become a criminal offence with ludicrous penalties. Remember, governments are quite capable of passing such draconian legislation: RIP in the UK, DMCA in the US, etc.
The thing is, you couldn't really blame the government for introducing such measures, at least not with any justification, because those who object would have brought it upon themselves. With freedom comes responsibility. If you abuse freedoms -- and the likes of Napster, Kazaa and co have allowed people to abuse freedom on a massive scale -- then you're going to be held responsible, and those freedoms are going to be compromised.
Re:No! Don't test it in the courts! (Score:2)
No way, that's impossible! The government would never pass laws that are unpopular, uneccessary, and unenforcable. I mean, except for the war on drugs. Oh, wait...
Re:No centralized server. (Score:2, Informative)
Umm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, what do they think this will gain them? While I don't like the DMCAA et al, I think we can all agree there are flat out illegal pirates out there amongst the legal users. Because of this, they're an accomplist to theft/copyright infringement/whatever you want to call it. Plus whatever other legal teeth those provide for sinking into the owners of KaZaa.
Sigh. If the music industry would just quit fighting, start providing MP3 format cds with a couple of extra songs/what have you, I bet they'd find that their piracy issues would go down more than they expect. I won't even try to argue financial benefit, since it's no one really seems to know (RIAA: OH, we lost MONEY! Stores: NO, you sold more! People: Hey, we're getting f*cked!)
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yesterday morning, as I was sitting in traffic on 680 wishing I'd attached an outboard motor to my car, I got to hear an interview with Huey Lewis on a local radio talk show.
The interviewer asked Huey what he thought of the whole "downloading thing", and his answer was that it was "complicated", but that his son downloads stuff all the time (that's hearsay, you Feds, you leave Huey's kid alone!) and when he finds something he likes he buys the album. So Huey didn't really have a problem with it.
When the interviewer mentioned that he himself downloads a fair bit of music, but doesn't buy many CDs, Huey pointed out that people their age just never bought (or sold) much music anyway, relatively speaking... it's far and away a kids' market.
Re:Umm... (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a nice argument, but even though a small percentage of downloaders actually do this, they are definately in the minority. You can't really base a decision like this on what some people do, rather how it going to be used most of the time.
When the interviewer mentioned that he himself downloads a fair bit of music, but doesn't buy many CDs, Huey pointed out that people their age just never bought (or sold) much music anyway, relatively speaking... it's far and away a kids' market.
Applying this to software or research and development for any organisation: Does this make it ok for warez kiddies to steal software just because they weren't going to buy it? Does it make it ok for small companies to steal technical secrets from big companies, because they weren't going to research them anyway? [Hint: The answer is no.]
Re:Umm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Are they? That's not been my experience. A poll would be interesting. (Not a Slashdot poll, that would obviously be skewed to hell and back.)
Applying this to software or research and development for any organisation: Does this make it ok for warez kiddies to steal software just because they weren't going to buy it? Does it make it ok for small companies to steal technical secrets from big companies, because they weren't going to research them anyway? [Hint: The answer is no.]
Thanks for the hint. The condescension was both well-placed and well-executed. Wait, no it wasn't. You just missed the point.
I didn't cite Huey's kid by way of justification. The point, as I said in my first sentence, was that the RIAA is fighting an uphill battle against what really seems to be in its own best interest. Obviously they have the right to attempt to fight this thing, but it's really pretty stupid in light of the fact that downloadable music only seems to fuel record sales.
Have I bought every album containing a song I downloaded and liked? No, of course not. But I've bought more music overall because of my ability to first find and listen to it for free. There were interesting reports published in the last couple of years that showed record sales increasing relatively steadily, with a bump upward a little while after Napster became popular. You can treat that as rumor, since I don't have a link to said reports handy, but I think they did show up on Slashdot.
Re:Umm... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this is perhaps what the RIAA is fighting most of all. It is very important that you not be able to purchase your music accurately or else they will lose potential sales of most of their library.
I think what they fear the most is that people won't buy an album for one song any longer. I know I used to buy albums because I liked one song I heard on the radio and thought that band would be good if it sounded anything like that. I was definitely wrong.
There are definitely albums worth buying, but I'll no longer spend $18 on one song.
Re:Umm... (Score:2)
No, but you also can't count them when calculating how much money piracy "costs" the industry.
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Informative)
Basically what Kazaa said is that they have no way to comply with what the dutch judge told them to do (namely to put an end to the illegal exchange of the above mentioned stuff using Kazaa). It is simply not feasible since the transactions are fully peer to peer. The searches nor the downloads go through a central server.
In any case, Limewire 2.0 is available now and has some new features that should enhance scalability of the gnutella network greatly. Gnutella is open source and has no dependencies on a login server (unlike Kazaa) eliminating the last link to a central server. If Kazaa is going to lose their case it will be because of the logins.
Re:Umm... (Score:2, Insightful)
Any extent to which they can be deemed "accomplices" is only in the same way that VCR manufacturers are accomplices to whatever illegal uses are made of their products. The critical fact is that there are significant non-infringing uses of the technology, and that is what got VCRs past the supreme court in the betamax case.
Re:Umm... (Score:2, Funny)
I think what you meant to say was this:
I think we can all agree there are legal users out there amongst the flat out illegal pirates.
History repeats itself (Score:5, Insightful)
That sort of reminds me of what Kazaa is doing, to the effect of "The Dutch court made their decision, now lets see them try to enforce shutting us down."
That was then, this is now (Score:5, Informative)
What Jackson actually said was, "John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can." Please note that name. Marshall was the first jurist to argue that the Supreme Court could review the actions of other branches of government [jmu.edu]. In 1830 this concept was still controversial. Now it's universally accepted. Recent presidents ignore the Court at their peril. Eisenhower enforced court orders he empahtically disagreed with [state.gov]. Nixon was forced to obey an order that cost him the Presidency [c-span.org]. FDR, probably the most popular President in history, couldn't even get away with adding friendly judges to the court [nara.gov].
it's not about KaZaA (Score:3, Interesting)
Bear in mind that Napster has targeted March as their return date, complete with pay-as-you-go music and under the boot of RIAA et al. Why would you go pay on Napster if you could jump on other networks and get it for free?
Refusing, but with a reason (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm personally of the same opinion as the author of the article. I think that as soon as they get shut down, they go to a much weaker position to negotiate from. Why negotiate with KaZaa to make money fromthe music they're distributing when they aren't distributing music anymore?
Mr. Spey
Re:Refusing, but with a reason (Score:2)
tcd004
Re:Refusing, but with a reason (Score:2)
This is why I think they're trying out a different argument. They can always fall back to, "we can't do it", but the other court case gives them a different option.
Mr. Spey
Not civil disobedience (Score:4, Redundant)
Re:Not civil disobedience (Score:2)
For the "too lazy to click links" crowd: (Score:3, Redundant)
More like they're trying to squirm out of the deal by either claiming they can't shut it down (being de-centralized and all that), or that doing so would violate previous court orders. They're not ignoring by any means, they're attempting to squirm.
Redundant, probably, but it's posted with the intent of staving off some of the "woohoo stick it to the man!" posts.
Re:For the "too lazy to click links" crowd: (Score:2)
Whatever else you may think about why they're doing this, it still takes balls to ignore a court order. Imagine a cop walking up to you and telling you to get out of the car. You refuse on grounds that it's a free country and you aren't doing anything wrong. That takes balls. A little stupidity too, unless you're a really good lawyer, really rich, or both.
So yeah, stick it to the man. Don't you just love it when the underdog takes on the Man. Remember back, long ago, around 1995 or so, when Netscape could do no wrong? Man, those were some cool times. FTPing Mosaic. Then switching to Netscape. Laughing at IE 2.0. Those were the days.
What were we talking about? Can I get another hit?
Re:For the "too lazy to click links" crowd: (Score:2)
Once Netscape announced their IPO, then the negative postings started to happen. Just like I remember a time before everyone was spam-proofing their email. Just like I can remember the original 'Green-Card' spam (may Canter and Siegel rot in hell, btw.)
I do remember the original flap over the 'blink' tag. But I swear there was a time when Usenet almost universally didn't have any negative comments about Netscape. I can't pinpoint it exactly, but I remember distinctly the first few times that I read Netscape flames. They kind of snowballed, just like spam-proofing did. If I had infinite time I'd read through groups on google to narrow it down, but I don't think I can be bothered. Maybe I have my rose-colored glasses on again, but I'd thought that Lasik had removed the need for them. :)
bah (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:bah (Score:2)
You'd think they would tone it down or something, considering that they are
"Why, Patrick, doesn't that violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?"
"Yes, Leo, but I won't tell anyone if you won't!"
Cheers,
levine
Re:bah (Score:2)
Yes, anything you say can be used against you if the judge in the case believes it to be relevant. But you cannot be arrested on the weight of a statement alone.
last decision by judge (Score:2)
//rdj
Evolving to a what? (Score:2)
"We developed this great piece of P2P software, but now that we're being sued, fuck that and lets stream some music!"
Of course, I haven't been to sleep in a good while, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
still talking (ZDNET) (Score:2, Informative)
Consumer vs Corporate Morality (Score:3, Interesting)
It's up to us to put pressure on them to licence their music. A good way to do that is to swap MP3s. You might call it theft, but many of these companies are not exactly saints and in any David vs Goliath battles, dirty tricks are to go. in there arrogance, record companies forget that they only exist becuase of us, the consumers. By acting together we remind them of that fact.
Re:Consumer vs Corporate Morality (Score:2, Insightful)
If you could walk up to your friend who owns a BMW and copy it for free, wouldn't you be insane to go out and buy one?
Re:Consumer vs Corporate Morality (Score:2)
The pricing model and licensing setup is made to make damn certain that they dont sell any significant amount that way.
They want you to pay for at least a CD's worth per month, and then pay for the rest of your life or what you've paid for stops working.
Even the most dense consumer will realize they're being ripped off completely, since it's not far from your average friendly neighborhood protection scheme. That is not a buisness plan that someone who wants to sell a product would make.
Re:Consumer vs Corporate Morality (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is why "you in the industry" are in the process of running your insanely profitable businesses into the ground. What you're feeling tightening around your neck is not Napster or Kazaa or Gnutella or whatever -- it's Adam Smith's famous "invisible hand"! Look, it's very simple. When all of your customers feel that you are charging too much for your product, or that your terms of use are too restrictive, or whatever, a black market is going to spring up. Simple as that. It's as true for bread as it is for music -- if every bakery in the US banded together and raised the price universally to $100/loaf, college students would be breaking into grocery stores and selling grey market Wonder Bread out of their dorm rooms. It's the magic of the free market at work.
Now, you say that's dirty pool because people used to think sixteen bucks a CD was a fair price, so they should continue to feel that way. But you've missed the ground shifting underneath your feet. New technologies have devalued your product in the eyes of the public. You need to either reprice it or accept that there's gonna be a certain amount of loss. You can throw out tepid, restrictive alternatives [pressplay.com] all you want, but why should people buy it? What's your value proposition for the consumer? (That's what businesses are supposed to do, you know -- serve consumers.)
Is grey-market music illegal? Sure. But grey-market bread would be too. Laws that attempt to impose morality on human nature [cornell.edu] are doomed to failure [cornell.edu]. Better to figure out how to profit off human nature by providing something useful at a price your audience thinks is fair than to try to ram outdated products and outmoded laws down our throats.
-- Jason Lefkowitz
Re:Consumer vs Corporate Morality (Score:2)
Afraid not sonny.
While certain sectors of the tech market have had a downturn this past year, the area I work in is doing gangbusters.
It's bizarre that you assumed I worked in the music industry.
Now back to your regularly scheduled illogical argument...
*YOU* have a choice.
You can either pay for the music and listen to it.
Or you can not listen to the music.
Since recorded music is a luxury item and not a subsistence item, you do not have any inherent moral right to steal it because it is being denied to you.
Thus ends today's lesson on morality.
Re:Consumer vs Corporate Morality (Score:2)
Well, didn't someone say "we in the industry" during a conversation on the music industry? I know I thought music was the industry you were talking about.
Anyway, you are probably wrong.
You can either pay for the music and listen to it.
Or, better yet, we can download it for free, and become so angry at the record industry that we cease even buying what we already do.
The music industry has been gouging both consumers and artists for as long as their essentially uneccessary asses have been dragging dirt. We have put up with $16 CDs because there was previously no alternative*. Now there is one, and suprise! People are flocking to it. Even as evil as the US government can be, it is more than the threat of an audit that keeps most Americans from cheating on their taxes. It is the belief that at its core, our government is providing us with valuable services that we should pay for. It is the understanding that if we don't do our share, others will suffer. Record labels provide none of this, and rake in profit the whole time. The music industry has used its monopoly on popular music recordings to rip off anyone within arm's reach. If "stealing"** music is not an option, then why are there dozens of availible ways to do it? Why don't the practitioners of this "theft" seem like criminals? Because they're not. IP is a new concept, and the effort of people like you to apply RP (real property) ideas to IP materials have failed. You and your ilk are like dinosaurs, and there are 1000 hungry mammals (indie record labels) ready to dance on the chalky ground in which you turn to coal.
*There have always been alternatives, like LPs or 7ins, which can still be had for $10 and $3, respectively. Fugazi CDs are always availible for $10 mail-order. Unfortunately, since the industry marketing machine controls the airwaves, no artists not overpromoted can even breathe.
**Bullshit. Illegally copying music is not depriving the original owners of property, and can even have a number of fair uses, often rendering it legal again.
Re:Consumer vs Corporate Morality (Score:2)
Lets say I am a bitter old billionaire. Say I buy up all the record companies and stop distributing the music and disallow anyone playing the music. Is that fair? The record companies are trying to dictate how we buy and enjoy music and is wrong in the same sense as this example.
Re:Consumer vs Corporate Morality (Score:2)
Let's get things straight (Score:5, Insightful)
A system like this only works if all the users keep their P2P agents running 24/7, so that others can access their shared files. But when the agent is running, you get a stream of annoying popups. So people only run they agent when there's something to download. So they boast a huge database of stuff that's mostly unavailable.
Re:Let's get things straight (Score:2)
Re:Let's get things straight (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't get it -- why does Kazaa only work if *my* shared files are available 24/7? So what if you can't access my files; millions of others will be available.
they boast a huge database of stuff that's mostly unavailable.
Not in my experience. Almost everything I try to download is available.
And for the record, I download, almost exculsively, unreleased live recordings. P2P services put bootleggers out of business.
Napster and Kazaa are cultural treasures. I couldn't, in a lifetime, find the gems I can find on a p2p service in a few hours.
Re:Let's get things straight (Score:3, Informative)
What next? (Score:2, Redundant)
So next up are they going to order Washington University to shut down for making wu-ftpd available? That's software that lets people download music files too.
- icemind
What? Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it's too easy... (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words, any dolt with a computer can figure out how to download via KaZaa,Napster, etc... but if they were required to not only find a server and connect via FTP that it would be deemed too difficult for the masses and is therefore not a threat.
The same goes for IRC, etc... Transferring files via most applications is too intellectually challenging and what KaZaa and Napster are being nailed for is being innovative enough to make file transfer via the Internet "easy".
Of course, my personal take on it is also that these companies have little cash with which to fight back. Microsoft's peer to peer has been available for many years and is just easy to use - but it doesn't offer automated searching of hosts. You need to actually understand how to find a host and connect. Same with browsers.
The companies behind these technologies have lots of cache and lawyers. Napster and KaZaa don't.
This is the real issue the RIAA has with P2P and their current implementation. It's too easy.
My Defense of Kazaa (Score:4, Insightful)
First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online. Sure I can find some albums every once and awhile, but most of the time the stores have never heard of what I'm looking for, can't get it, or it will take weeks to get, etc...
Second, in the electronic music spectrum, there's alot of stuff I don't like. I used to try buying CDs, then find out they were junk. Waste of money. Sure, I'd buy CDs of artists I liked that I could actually get ahold of, but I'm listening to alot of bootlegs and things from Europe that can't be purchased, at least in the USA...
Third, I'm poor. Now more than ever, it's difficult being a college student. I couldn't buy albums at all (maybe a couple a year) if I even wanted to. I'm sure alot of other people feel the same way. Most of the people who are pirating on Kazaa (including me) I bet would not buy the album of the person they were pirating anyway, either because they don't like it that much, it's just something novelty they wanted, or they're too poor to go out and actually buy it. You can argue then that the person should not have that recording, but the artist still is not losing money anyways and perhaps smaller ones gain from sharing their music to people who would have never heard it otherwise.
Fourth, everywhere I look, record sales are booming. They're having no problems pushing CDs, even though they're generally $3 - $5 more than 5 - 10 years ago when I was in my teen popular artist CD buying phase.
The only thing I can find in my local record stores are asshole employees, limited selection (plenty of the MTV crap), and high prices. I could buy online, but it's more of the same except the salesperson is taken out and replaced by phony reviews.
I'm glad Kazaa exists, it has opened me up to music I would not have found otherwise and allows me to get my hands on things I wouldn't be able to get my hands on.
Re:My Defense of Kazaa (Score:2, Funny)
First, I really love Nike Air Jordan shoes. Not the new ones, I'm talking the original red and black ones. But you can't buy those ANYWHERE these days. Not even on the internet.
Second, I have tried a lot of different shoes. A lot of the shoes I've tried fall apart soon after I buy them. So maybe I was just borrowing his shoes to see how long they would last before they wore out.
Third, I'm poor. I don't think I could afford more than a couple pairs of PAYLESS shoes a year. Can you believe my hardship! I'm probably the only poor college student in the world. Like I said, I have other pairs of shoes, but I wanted THOSE AIR JORDAN shoes that the other guy was wearing. I don't think I would actually go out and buy Air Jordan shoes though, even if they were for sale.
Fourth, everywhere I look, shoe sales are booming. And shoes cost even more now that when I was a teenager. Even more than when I could actually buy the original air jordan. Shoe companies sell PLENTY of shoes, probably even more because the guy I stole them from probably had to go buy another pair!
The only thing I can find in my local shoe stores are idiot employees, limited selection (plenty of Sketchers crap), and high prices. I could buy online, but it's more of the same except the salesperson is taken out and replaced by crappy customer service.
I'm glad this guy was there. I was able to get the shoes I wanted that I wouldn't have otherwise been able to find.
Seriously though, I know that shoes and digital music are not the same. Not at all. However, all of the reasons above are justifications for behavior that TeleoMan himself admits is wrong. (Unless he has a different interpretation of the word "pirating.") Every lawbreaker has their reasons, their justifications, but that doesn't make the action legal or moral.
For now, sharing digital music in certain ways has been ruled illegal. It might not always be. I hope it won't always be. But none of the reasons listed above would keep you out of trouble would the
What really happened... (Score:5, Funny)
Reporter "You have shut down earlier clients..."
KaZaa "But in the newest client, it is impossible to do so..."
Reporter "If it is run by clients connecting to clients, why do you need to be around."
KaZaa "Because the software won't work otherwise."
Reporter "For some reason, this seems like what Microsoft would do..."
Fair Use of Kazaa (Score:2, Insightful)
- I like pudding.
Fair use "law" is no more. (Score:2)
Let's sue everybody that shares files (Score:5, Funny)
Are RIAA/MPAA et al going to sue Microsoft, too? After all, Microsoft makes software that allows file sharing [slashdot.org] over the internet with no content control.
Shoot, even WITHOUT all the unintended security holes, it's pretty easy to set up a web server with all your mp3's and get a search engine to list them all.
Reverse Class Action (Score:2, Funny)
International Law - Locations and Ramifications? (Score:4, Interesting)
What is interesting in all of this is the international ramifications. What's to stop a file-swapping service from setting up in a small, easily-influenced island nation with lax laws on such things? Antigua and Barbuda [antiguafreezone.com], in the Caribbean, comes to mind (mostly because im in it at the moment) - low/non-existant taxes, a dedicated free trade zone, a FAT pipe back to the US and Europe, (the much-loved Casino-On-Net is here, for example), and a judicial system that is, well, not particularly likely to push through complex technology-based cases anytime soon. With enough other "legitimate" US-linked technology companies here (such as the casinos), any threat to simply unplug the island would be met with serious lobbying and financial pressure... And thus such companies as Kazaa would be in a more solid position to "sell out" - as is the logical outcome for these services: get big, get threatened, then sell out to a record company (Napster, MP3.com, et al).
As an interesting note, Antigua is building a call center that will house 800+ employees, with the express purpose of delivering outgoing telemarketing to the US and Canada. It's billed here as a wonderful project to provide "high tech" employment (really), with no thought given to how telemarketing is seen by Americans/Canadians. It will be very interesting to see how US telemarketing laws are applied to incoming international calls.
Are these file sharing services just going to hopscotch around the globe, then?
Water Under Bridge (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll go off on a slight tangent, but bear with me. When you need water, you just go to the tap and turn it on (at least in North America, that is). You get what you what when you need it.
What you don't hear is the Water, Gas and Power company screaming about how their rights are being destroyed by people being able to bottle the water and give it freely to a friend or neighbour. (Or derivative uses thereof, such as cooking, flushing, etcetera).
Why? It's commoditized. It's too damn cheap to bother with repackaging or giving it away. It's there. You get charged by the aggregate volume that you use in a month. You want to give a hectaliter to Joe Farmer down the street? Go right ahead, we'll bill you for your use. But why bother? Joe Farmer can get it for himself.
This is what the music industries need to realize. The cat is out of the bag, the genie is out of the lamp and Elvis has left the building. The days of charging $20/cd are gone for good.
This does not have to be a bad thing.
Commoditize the damn thing so that it's too damn cheap to bother with trading music (other than, "Listen to this cool track I downloaded"). Give people high bit-rate, guaranteed quality, do-what-you-want-with it music for pennies on the song, and you'll make more money than you can dream of. And judging by these guys expense accounts, that's a lot of dinero.
Otherwise, die like the dinosaurs did.
Re:Water Under Bridge (Score:2, Informative)
Do they have the right to shut down? (Score:2, Insightful)
The article is _WRONG_ (Score:2, Informative)
*Sigh*
The mp3newswire.net story is complete bollocks... they probably thought: 'hey, more than two weeks pasts, KaZaA hasn't shut down, they're probably ignoring the verdict...'. The quotes in the article are even based on things said weeks ago!
What's the _real_ story?
Is was already posted a week ago on a Dutch site [emerce.nl]
The most (and only) interesting part of the article: (translated)
A spokesman from KaZaA's main office in Sweden explains they don't need to [shut down] yet. "Since we're negociating with Buma/Stemra right now, we are not forced to shut down"
Tsssk... if only more people could read Dutch :-p
Kazaa and FastTrack (Score:2)
The Gnutella network on the other hand, is a more anarchic network. All power on the network is distributed equally among the users of the network. Thus, although it has been around longer than FastTrack, there is no central authority the MPAA can force to submit, so it is not as easy for the MPAA to shut it down as Napster and FastTrack are.
Beyond Gnutella there are publishing networks like Freenet and Mojonation. These networks would be even more difficult for some authority to attack than Gnutella. Publishing is free, and content is split up and distributed. Add to this encryption and reverse proxying, and it becomes difficult for people to know what data they store, and where data they request comes from. This type of network is even more resistant to authority's attempts to shut it down. The design of publishing networks is more complex and less utilitarian than that of Gnutella however. Thus design and usage of publishing networks is not up to the level of that of the Gnutella network yet.
Re:Damn. Another one. (Score:2, Informative)
It is, that's correct. However, this case is in Holland, and the DMCA is a US law, so your comment isn't as relevant as you think.
Re:Damn. Another one. (Score:2)
Re:Usenet anyone? (Score:3, Funny)
Once the toothpaste is out, it's hard to get it back in.
Re:Usenet anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
So the secret isn't out yet, you haven't told us where to find a broadband provider with free, unfiltered newsfeeds.
Re:Actually Surprising? (Score:3, Informative)