Copyright Infringement In the News 697
Lots of newsbits about copyright infringement today - let's mash them all together with some egg whites and breadcrumbs and see what we get. marklyon writes "The DOJ announced that they are planning to prosecute filesharers under the The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act. John Malcolm, a deputy assistant attorney general, made the pronouncement at the Progress and Freedom Foundation's annual technology and politics summit Tuesday. Cnet has extended coverage." Reader M_Talon writes "According to this article on ZDNET the RIAA is using one of the DMCA's more nasty clauses...the right to subpoena an ISP for a suspected pirate's personal information. They want to force Verizon to reveal the customer's information, and Verizon is refusing on the grounds that the pirated material isn't on their servers." Reader MattW writes "Apparently some theaters are consenting to run anti-piracy ads before movies. After all, these are not a bunch of fat cats we're talking about -- piracy now threatens the livelihood of the rank and file workers of Hollywood. After all, the movie studios are having a terrible year,
right?" Finally, the Washington Post (probably one of the last articles we post from their site, as they go registration-required) discovers spoofed files on Gnutella, and public radio is reporting that the RIAA will drop their suit against listen4ever.com, since it's, uh, gone.
Under the NET Act... (Score:2, Funny)
I guess this means that we can copy Crossroads (Britney Spears movie).. no way that was worth $1000
Re:Under the NET Act... (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong.. I think the movie and record comapnies should all jump off the highest building they own, but stranger things have happened when they start using their money and suing the average defensless Joe.
I figure they could state it in two different manners
1 - If you had the movie stored on your system and also had a p2p program of any type installed - they could say that sales losses where diretly effected by your sharing of the movie.
or
2 - They could state that if you copied the movie (especially if on DVD), and bypassed their.. umm.. 'security' measures, that you most likely shared that process with others. Thereby cutting into their profits.
Either way the movie and recording companies will continue to strong arm the public until the complete foundation falls apart at the seems. And when it does it will creat a mini-anarchy of a turning point in all of this.
Until then, I suggest that we continue to fight and argue and hold on tight for the ride.
Re:Under the NET Act... (Score:4, Funny)
BTW, this is off-topic, but
Today is a sad day. My Oscar Goldman action figure with the exploding briefcase finally tumbled from my computer. Oscar hit his head. The head cracked.
The briefcase still explodes, though.
Steve Austin, who for 26 years always rode shotgun with Oscar Goldman, has now moved two inches to the right on my "bionic" shelf in order to fill the space that Oscar left. I've still got the Jamie Sommers action figure, the Bionic Transport and Repair Station, and the Maskatron figure. (Although Maskatron has lost his mask.)
Anyway, if you don't know Oscar Goldamn and his exploding briefcase, you're too young.
Now, for something on-topic:
The obvious question -- if this NET act is the law that puts 14 and 15 year olds in the super-high security, DEFCON 1 lockups in Colorado and Illinois for swapping N'Sync and Britney -- is how, exactly, is the $1000 figure calculated?
I'm sure a case could made that each song on each CD -- on the millions of CDs -- are actually worth in excess of one thousand dollars -- each! -- due to distribution costs, royalty payments, hotel bills for executives, Hilary Rosen's swank house in the Hamptons (the price for which has surely been amortized over the millions of Britney CDs littering the land), and MPAA Jack "Maddog
(And no, I have no idea if Hillary has a house in the Hamptons or Maddog Jack has ivory golf clubs
Re:Under the NET Act... (Score:3, Interesting)
They can not prove, unless they have hard evidence that you have been sharing those files with others, therefor you are only liable for, what YOU have on your computer(s). Although with evidance, you could very well be liable for up to: 5 years. Doh.
What does this teach us, Load a small, simple OS; Load VMware. Load a second OS of choice in VMware. copy all p0rn, warez, divx, mp3's, etc to VMware, shutdown VMware - Encrypt. Boot VMware to RAM drive. Decript and play- when the door bell rings. kill the power. They see nothing but.... a large amount of encrypted data. They can't even see what the OS is.
good news! (Score:2)
Re:good news! (Score:3, Interesting)
At issue in the RIAA's request is an obscure part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that permits a copyright owner to send a subpoena ordering a "service provider" to turn over information about a subscriber
After the precedent is set most ISP's will just hand over the subscriber's name is my guess... of course there's always a chance that the precedent goes the other way, but it looks like a long shot from the wording of that quote.
Who decides if it's prosecutable? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Who decides if it's prosecutable? (Score:2)
Re:Who decides if it's prosecutable? (Score:2)
The law says:
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000.
That's subject to interpretation though; does a work worth $0.00001 posted on KaZaA fall under this penalty if there are 100,000,000 users of KaZaA? Or do they have to prove that 100,000,000 users actually downloaded it? I'd be willing to bet that since the law says "distribution", that means that $1,000 worth of piracy has to take place. It wouldn't count if the RIAA downloads the same $1 song 1,000 times, they have to document 1,000 different people downloading it.
I'm not in favor of file sharing, I'm just intrigured by this flap.
Re:Who decides if it's prosecutable? (Score:4, Insightful)
Point taken, the law ain't perfect. However this gives me hope that the DOJ is at least *trying* to punish the actual wrongdoers instead of just controlling everyone like the RIAA would like to do.
If copyright actually is important and should continue to be viable, then going after copyright infringers in this manner is exactly what is needed. Sharing CD's openly with hundreds of people isn't fair use. It is copyright violation. This law might unfairly punish copyright violators, but at least copyright violators are the only ones punished. That's already light-years better than legislation like the DMCA, which is billed as solving the same problem, but which adversely affects all content users.
Translation:
Don't rip any CD's and put them on KaZaA, unless you like to play russian roulette.
Also, if someone gets in trouble for something they did before this law was updated, scream bloody murder.
Re:Who decides if it's prosecutable? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just another example of the fact that if you look deep enough into US law, you'll find that you don't have any rights at all. Every right that you think that you have, including sharing what you've bought with family members in your own home on the same computer, has been covered by some half-assed law that was rushed through congress and quickly forgotten about five or ten years ago.
The RIAA will never get it... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The RIAA will never get it... (Score:2, Insightful)
usenet (Score:2, Insightful)
Hrm... (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Don't distribute works you don't own the copyright for.
2. Don't distribute works whose total value is more than $999.99US
3. Don't distribute works whose total value is more than $999.99 US for more than 180 days.
The government kinda shot itself in the foot with this one. It will be damn hard to prove that you have distribute works for 180 days whose total value is more than $999.99US.
Re:Hrm... (Score:2)
Nyah, it's easy. The RIAA has someone download 2000 copies and they're there.
Re:Hrm... (Score:2)
Re:Hrm... (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure they'll multiply the cost of the CD ($30) with the number of users who downloaded the client for whatever service you are using (easily > 100,000,000). Isn't that how the BSA used to calculate the "revenue lost" that it always reported to the media?
Wrong Name (Score:5, Funny)
"The DOJ announced that they are planning to prosecute filesharers under the The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act."
This bill is actually entitled Make'em Stop, Period--No Electronic Theft (MS.NET).
I hate this -- why are we letting it happen? (Score:4, Insightful)
The majority of Americans do not see digital piracy as theft. The majority of Americans also do not see picking flowers at a public park as theft, or sneaking a grape at the supermarket. The majority of Americans drank alcohol before the legal age. Technically, we should all be in prison, but these minor crimes don't really hurt anybody, and so they are overlooked. Why, then, is the DOJ going after file sharers?
Isn't this a fucking democracy? Why is the majority submitting to laws made by the whims of the same companies that release O-Town records and other toxins into the environment? Why am I the only one sending daily letters to his Senator, that Clinton bitch, begging for support for our digital lifestyle?
I don't want to go to jail for pirating the new Pearl Jam or Queens of the Stone Age albums. I bought them anyway, but since I didn't clean them from my WinMX serving directory, i'm technically abetting piracy. This laxness could get me 5 years in a federal "pump me in the ass" prison, and that is wrong. I don't think I deserve it. I don't think my crime is that bad. I don't think that I'm depriving anyone of actual property or actual money they might have actually made, and I don't think the majority would argue with me.
So why are we letting it happen?
Because we have to do it this way, thar's why! (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, we listen to the majority but protect the individual from that same majority. We have copyright laws for a good reason, and they should be protected.
Re:Because we have to do it this way, thar's why! (Score:2)
Re:Because we have to do it this way, thar's why! (Score:2)
I hate to use you as a foil, but I've seen this far too much. I'm sorry, but that is just an idiotic argument.
Here's your proof:
If there is ONE person that has downloaded a song without paying for it, the industry has been damaged by EXACTLY that one song. QED.
And yes, it's irrelevent whether more music has been purchased or not through the use of filesharing because of the supposed added promotion ("Hey man! I wouldn't have bought this album if I hadn't downloaded it first!"). It's up to the copyright holder to decide if they want to use this oh-so-l33t new promotion method.
True, but (Score:3, Informative)
Copyright laws were put in place purely and simply for the good of the public.
Lord Macaulay, in his famous 1841 speech before the house of commons, succinctly summarized the reasoning behind copyright laws in the English speaking world:
The advantages arising from a system of copyright are obvious. It is desirable that we should have a supply of good books; we cannot have such a supply unless men of letters are liberally remunerated; and the least objectionable way of remunerating them is by means of copyright.
The preamble of Article 1, Section 8 of the US constitution also states the purpose of the copyright and patent powers (if not their scope):
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Copyright does not protect authors, it creates a bargain between the public and authors whereby the public refrains for a period from unlicensed copying his works in return for his producing those works. The idea of natural rights to intellectual property have been around for some time, but they are not the basis of copyright, nor have they ever carried much weight until now.
Re:I hate this -- why are we letting it happen? (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't this a fucking democracy?
No, it's not. It's a constutional republic, and you're response shows exactly why that is. Just because the majority want something from the minority doesn't mean you get it. Do you think it was OK when the white majority in this country held the black minority in slavery?
I'm sure I'll get flamed away and modded down for even making such an extreme analogy, but it holds. Just because these companies make millions of dollars a year, doesn't mean it becomes OK to steal from them.
Re:I hate this -- why are we letting it happen? (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact of the matter is, the industry is playing both sides of the fence with their money. They're buying legislation so that 14 years olds don't "steal" from them. And they're buying legislation so they can steal from the artists.
As much as they like to paint the picture that WE are stealing food from the children of musicians... THEY have been doing it so well -- long before the internet was even born. Bo Diddley died a penniless man. Today's B stars are similar to indentured servants. Even some A stars.
No business should be given the god-given right to be profitible. Yet this is what they're DEMANDING from our government. They claim 5% loss last year and blame it on me? My company lost 14% due to last year's recession. 10% layoffs were our present. Oh! If only I could blame a bunch of kids and then sue them instead.
My parents are slowly going out of business due to eBay. Maybe they should sue eBay, eBay's ISP, and the users who use eBay! That's the life of businesses: competition, good business plans, make money, lose money, research, technology, customers, product.
The Big-5 have enjoyed a life of being a monopoly. Price fixing. Cheap/free labor. And more and more government protection.
There is definately something wrong here, and it doesn't begin to start with file sharing.
Re:I hate this -- why are we letting it happen? (Score:2, Informative)
As a matter of fact, it's not. It's a Democratic Republic. Which means that the majority of our elected representative's views become law and are enforced, for worse and for worser, by the executive branch.
If you want this to stop, vote for statesmen instead of lawyers and politicians. Voice disgust over the evident usurping of legislative power by John Ashcroft and his Assistant Attorneys General. Creative enforcement of questionable code of law is NOT what the executive branch is charged with.
People are too damn lazy anymore. Speak up and be heard... the first step may have to be convincing the businessmen and special interest lobbyists who buy the politicians to see things our way (think EFF), while slowly replacing the politicians with real statespeople who have a freaking clue and are not swayed by their payola, but instead genuinely represent the interests of their constituency.
Re:I hate this -- why are we letting it happen? (Score:4, Insightful)
And you're not the only one writing to your representatives about this, though I doubt many others are doing it daily.
Re:I hate this -- why are we letting it happen? (Score:2, Insightful)
Your examples are bad. Sure, you can pick flowers for free in a public park (though watch out for the park rangers, and if everybody did this there would be no more flowers left to pick), but unless you have the skill, you can't get a professional-quality flower arrangement for free, nor should you expect to. You can sample a grape at the grocery store, but if you want the whole bunch you have to buy it. Same for if you want a salad containing grapes (either buy the grapes and make the salad, or buy the salad). You're confusing constituent pieces (musical notes and words, for lack of any better way to break up a song) versus a complete product (a finished song or album). I can see a case being made for filesharing to "preview" an album (although most online places where you can buy CDs also allow you to sample those CDs, as do many brick&mortar stores). However, it's a very easy step from "I'll just download this one song to see if I like it" to "I'll just download this whole CD, because I don't want to pay for it". (Let's not make this an argument about CD prices -- yes, they could and should be lower. If you don't like that, vote with your money and don't buy. However, that doesn't give you the right to then go and steal the music anyway.)
Nope. It's a republic. You vote for people you think will represent your views properly, but that does not mean that they will. And if they don't, then you don't vote for them again.
Simple solution -- clean those out of your WinMX directory. Quick, simple, and saves you from a trip to the big house.
Nobody ever does. On the upside, you'll fit in very well in prison, where everybody's innocent.
Possibly true, but then probably not. If you've downloaded more than a couple songs on an album and kept them around without buying that album, then they've lost a sale (apparently you like the songs if you keep them around and still listen to them, and you would've bought the album if you couldn't just steal the songs). Maybe you didn't have the money to buy the CD, but then that doesn't give you the right to just steal the music. ("Your honor, I was flat broke but I needed a car, so I just took one from the lot. I felt I was entitled to it because I couldn't afford one and I really needed it.")
Re:I hate this -- why are we letting it happen? (Score:3, Insightful)
You've just made one distinction. By taking that car off the lot, I have deprived another person of their property. If I download a digital copy of "Christie Road" by Green Day, who have I deprived of property? By the same logic, I'm stealing from an author by using a library.
No, I don't know how to fix the industry so that the laws make sense, but keep in mind that copyright was originally 20 years. The classic example is the buggy whip industry and Henry Ford.
Re:I hate this -- why are we letting it happen? (Score:3, Insightful)
You say, "but it's different when you download the mp3. You can burn it to CD and get the same product!" Bullshit. It is not the same product. It is compressed and crumbly. It lacks the cover art. You can't tell me this doesn't have value, because people with computers still buy CDs.
You say, "but people can rip the album perfectly and burn that!" True. But this kind of quality freak is the same type who has already bought your cd. I should know...I AM him. Last week I bought Deltron 3030 after being entranced by the MP3...an album that my loser friends have been trying to get me to buy for years. I spend about $200 every month on music. The record labels should love me. Instead, they want me to go to prison.
5 years in prison equals $12k in "lost sales", guys. Do the fucking math.
Re:I hate this -- why are we letting it happen? (Score:2)
You see how this can get out of hand? Your one snuck grape now has the possibility of putting the grape farmers out of business.
I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here, I'm just saying you have to look at the big picture and think to yourself that while what you're doing isn't going to effect the recording industry, a million of you probably will.
I for one think the thing that makes this case so important to the DOJ is money. Grape farmers and people against underage drinking don't have anywhere near the financial backing that the RIAA does. Not to say they have DOJ members in their pockets or anything, but financial contributors come from all walks of life and sometimes you have to grease the wheels a little.
One more thing from my soapbox. When I download a mp3's, it's for the simple and basic reason that I can think of a hundred better things to spend my 15 bucks on rather than a CD. I've never kidded myself into thinking by downloading the latest cool new song or cd that I was in any way any type of freedom fighter or revolutionary. I was at best a cheap bastard, at worst a petty thief, but never delusional.
Re:I hate this -- why are we letting it happen? (Score:2)
Re:I hate this -- why are we letting it happen? (Score:2)
I do not agree with this myself and would rather be broke and free than a rich slave. It appears that those smarter people like yourself are being lazy and not using buying power and advocacy to broadcast a louder message.
In this world many people have to be locked up and lose all rights before people realize what they gave away.
The drug war is an excellent example. For many years a minority has said locking everyone up will not help. However the majority refused to listen and wanted more prisons. Now I see more and more Americans changing their view as their friends and families are locked up. I saw a special by John Stosel on ending the drug war that would have never been on TV 20 years ago.
Lock up their loved ones, then they will fight!
Don't like it? Don't buy RIAA music. (Score:2)
If you don't like the RIAA's rules, don't play by them .. but that means don't buy (or distribute) their stuff.
Intellectual property is the new drug war. (Score:2, Insightful)
Intellectual property is the new drug war.
Ideas, including creative offerings like music, are becoming contraband. In this case, ISPs are being targetted as suppliers in as much as they offer the bandwidth for sharing those ideas. The RIAA and MPAA fancy themselves as the idea cartels.
Truth is, "the majority" obviously is not submitting to any related laws. We're burning CDs left and right. That's our right under fair use practices. Let's be honest though. Sharing these tracks over P2P however does put fair use at odds with copyright infringement. Argue about artists getting a paltry share of the take all you want. You should buy what you listen to.
However, the RIAA and MPAA are criminalizing anyone and everyone who wants to share the sound, and the government is only too happy to help. They want to sell us music, and punish us for enjoying it. It's akin to the CIA funding and arming the Afghanis against the Soviet invasion in the 70's and 80's while another government agency, the DEA, wars with heroine suppliers from...AFGHANISTAN!
The only way this gets stopped is steadfast civil disobedience. If^H^HWhen they sue, someone has to ride it out all the way to the Supreme Court and have the DMCA stricken from the books. Easier said than done, and somebody's checking account and life will probably be martyred, but life would be a whole lot better in the wake.
Copyright Infringement PSA's in movie theaters? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hollywood is starting to believe their own press and it's time people started to remind them that they are ONLY ENTERTAINMENT.
hrmmmm (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean, I would assume most people in the theater are ummm... going to theaters?
As a whole though, fuck the MPAA and the RIAA.
MPAA: Movies and TV, generally suck. I only get the occasional movie if its really good. Otherwise your prices don't justify a product I'll watch maybe once or twice.
RIAA: I'm stealing music you stole (more or less) from the artist. What goes around comes around...
----rhad
Re:hrmmmm (Score:2)
Fuck the RIAA. Fuck the MPAA. Fuck'em with the broomsticks they rode in on. Frankly I don't care if all the musicians go broke. I'll still buy from the thousands of non-famous artists I like, just like I do now, I'll still go see their shows, and maybe I won't have to listen to manufactured crap anymore. Don't worry Lars, I'll still buy you a beer.
There will be no such thing as free speech when you have to buy a government-approved, licensed, and specially tracked "Digital Rights" certificate.
DoubleSpeak of the year award goes to ... (Score:2)
Larry Kenswell, on new formats to combat copying.
Quote: "What we'll see is new media coming out that will have a lot of flexibility built into the format," said Larry Kenswil of Universal Music Group.
Yeah, flexible as in "Flexible to do what WE want it to do in your computer/mp3 player/home audio system."
This statement takes *huge* balls to make with a straight face.
Units shipped fell because unit price has soared (Score:2, Interesting)
I'll tell you why I stopped buying CD's. It's because a CD used to cost about $11 when they first came out, and now that the technology is available to produce them for $.05 a piece they cost about $25.
Hey RIAA, stop selling the damn things at such a ripoff price, and we will start buying them again. (And no, I don't burn them either, I just don't listen to the new (CRAP) music that is being forced down our throats.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Units shipped fell because unit price has soare (Score:2)
I actually do remember buying my first CD -- and I remember I paid less for that first one ($13.99 at MusicLand store in a local mall) than for the CD I just bought recently ($15.99 at Best Buy).
I mean, I suppose the logic is that, well, the price for artists and distribution have skyrocketed, but AFAIC, that's the last time I buy into something based on the promise of "cheap" things to come.
Not enough room in court systems.... (Score:2)
I think that alot of people use these services for legit uses, but not everyone. I think it's absurb though, that I they want to get rid of a service that I can be using for legit purposes just because of some people! It's like canceling the Ice Cream party for the whole class when some kids are bad, even though some of the kids in class are being good (well, it was a good 3rd grade analogy, but that's where the RIAA and MPAA's logic level is)
Re:Not enough room in court systems.... (Score:2)
SAVE THE CHILDRENesque!!!!!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
"downloading movies instead of buying a ticket or a video would hurt the industry's behind-the-scenes workers, including makeup artists and custodians"
Now I am not advocating theft of their property - what I am upset about is the rampant attempts by media to skew your opinions on a subject with emotional connections. Iknow I know... its *always* been happening - but these days it is so much worse than it ever was before - as the causes that the media is used to convey information for are more and more plastic and manufactured.
the media is continually trying to sway public opinion through emotional manipulation. Putting you in a position where if you dont agree with the opinion or dont have the emotions they want you to then you're automatically a terrorist - or hate the children etc....
(I know I am not articulating this as well as I would like... but I think that you get the point) I am just so tired of the slant that is put on all the information out there. Is there no place that I can get information - generic and straight forward without the emotinal buzzwords and hyperbole??
Re:SAVE THE CHILDRENesque!!!!!!!! (Score:2)
"Fuck the children!"
You are completely right, people drag out senseless emtional things to get other people to do things. Classic sales technique. I for one am sick and tired of "America the Beautiful" being played before a movie starts. I love my country, but what real good is playing a silly crappy remake of that song doing before I watch a movie filled with violence?
Pbur
Hehe. My Plan (Score:5, Funny)
My city's big theater already has a poster on their ticket booths saying 'Pirates Not Allowed...blah blah blah...MPAA' with a picture of a pirate.
Our plan is to go into the theater with a video camera and one of us dressed as a pirate and yell out "Arrr...thats discrimation".
Hehe...just something to do to toy with those coporate bitches.
Re:Hehe. My Plan (Score:3, Informative)
That chart to the right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Music CD's, OTOH, have remained at the same stinking price (for the most part) for the last 5 years. Want to sell more of something when the demand/market share ISN'T increasing? Do you want to actually slow piracy? Charge a reasonable amount for a product that's in LESS demand! These guys just can't seem to understand that the CD buying market itself is not the same as it was 25 years ago -- thers is just too much supply for the demand.
Re:That chart to the right. (Score:4, Insightful)
You know something is wrong when the Soundtrack CD for 'Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery' and the DVD, including commentary tracks, deleted scenes, and all the other DVD goodies, are the EXACT SAME PRICE.
Re:That chart to the right. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but in this case I have to pull out my free market cap. The correct price for an entertainment product is whatever the customer is willing to pay.
This, of course, does not mean that I support measures such as the DMCA (by definition, it implies less free market), or the blob known as intellectual property as the law currently recognizes it.
Re:That chart to the right. (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. CD sales are going down because they are not at the price that the customer is willing to pay, i.e. the incorrect price. However, the entire problem here is that the RIAA is trying to recoup its losses by blaming their lack of sales on piracy and getting a piece of somebody else's action through levies and court settlements because of it.
Re:That chart to the right. (Score:2)
While I don't boycott the RIAA completely, generally I only buy around 3 CD's a year as I think most music nowadays is pure shit.
This year has been the exception though as I've actually bought probably 10 CD's, but that's only because Ozzy has rereleased some of his old CD's with bonus tracks.
Re:That chart to the right. (Score:2)
An anti-piracy ad? (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't this what we want? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this has been pointed out before, but isn't the whole point that they go after copyright infringers and not the software makers that produce napster and kazaa?
Now, granted, they are doing both. But we can't bitch when the government is going to prosecute the people who are infringing on copyrights. Just because the RIAA is involved, and the term DMCA has been used, does not mean that what is going on is wrong. Say what you will about "but the RIAA is EVIL!", it doesn't make infridging on their copyrights right (as in anywhere close to legal), and they and the justice department has every right to take people who do to court.
Now, you may also have issues about current copyright law. Granted, it isn't very good, but if you want the copyright law changed then bitch about the copyright law to your congressmen or representative. Don't take a stand on this issue, as far as they are concerned everyone who trades music on the net is a criminal, and you can do nothing about that. Convince them that the copyright law is way to long, many of our problems would go away if we could reduce it to something sane like 10-15 years.
And for all of those "we'll make a better system based on trust to trade music files" but don't want to play the political game, you are idiots. Who do you think they are going to prosecute? You and everyone else who uses that system. The only fight we have is in politics, there is no technical solution to this problem. As much as you would like to think you'll win this battle whipping up some code in C, you are going to find there is nothing you can code that will keep the handcuffs off of your hands.
</rant>
Re:Isn't this what we want? (Score:2)
Yes I would perfer they went after the copyright nfringers, but with proof. I don't want anybody to be able to say, we think someone might be commiting a crime, please gives us all the information on your users.
Yes, but do they need new laws? (Score:2)
If the companies really want to go after major P2P nodes then they can do the legwork and file a civil lawsuit just like they did against the guy cranking out VHS tapes in his garage.
Re:Isn't this what we want? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't be so sure. This is what systems such as trust-network, anonymous networks such as GNUnet [ovmj.org] are supposed to resolve. As long as we're allowed to have general-purpose computers, open networks, and good bandwidth, I think technical solutions can stand up. If we don't have general-purpose computers, or open networks, we've got other issues. Destroying our bandwidth is probably one of the few non-immoral attacks that can be effected, but an attempt at doing so likely won't succeed given the average persons's desire for it (for whatever reason).
I'm leaning towards the idea that the politics will change, not because we affect today's politicians, but because the up-and-coming persons of society are being conditioned differently (supporting things such as Napster). We might just have to out-live the current generation of politicians.
Keep in mind I'm not certain that a new cycle of politicians will help. Greed and powerlust is ageless.
from the anti-piracy ad article (Score:4, Insightful)
Chernin also decried efforts to download copies of the latest Star Wars installment. About 10 million people tried to download "Star Wars: Episode II -- Attack of the Clones" and "Spider-Man" in the weekend after its release, and 4 million succeeded, he said. "
It just struck me as odd that the two movies the guy is talking about made just a little bit of money. from http://movies.yahoo.com/boxoffice-alltime/rank.ht
#5 Spider-Man $403,820,726
#13 Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones $298,843,836
Re:from the anti-piracy ad article (Score:2)
#5 Spider-Man $403,820,726
#13 Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones $298,843,836
That was my initial reaction too. But think about it this way - does the fact that the movies cited made a lot of money make the theft any less wrong? The law should not discriminate for or against people based on their wealth. If you believe Chernin that a theft took place then it doesn't matter whether the movies made or lost money. Its still theft.
On the other hand if you don't believe it was theft then the amount that the films made is also irrelevant to the argument.
Either way the box office take of Star Wars is not the issue.
These people need to be taken to task. (Score:2, Interesting)
It is in fact Some Wild Ass Guess (SWAG). He like the rest of the RIAA droids pull these numbers out of their ass and Congress is accepting them at face value. It's pure bull!
It's as ridiculous as it would be for Linus to stand up and say that 5 billion people attempted to install Linux and 3 billion were successful, making his operating system the most widely used in the world. How would he possibly know?
Re:from the anti-piracy ad article (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, let's assume that those movies are both in VCD format and requires two CD each (a typical format). That's a total of 1,300 MB per movie or 2,600 MB for both of them.
(4,000,000 downloads) * (2,600 MB downloaded) = 10,400,000,000 MB downloaded. That's 10.4 Petabytes (Petabytes = 10^15 bytes). To put that into a little bit of perspective, that would take over 47079.4 years to download that much data through a 56kbit dialup modem.
Now, perhapps those movies were encoded in a more space-saving format, such as Divx. That's about 700 MB per movie and 1,400 MB for both. The total downloaded would be 5,600,000,000 MB, or 5.6 Petabytes. That's still a heck of a lot of data.
I seriously doubt that these two movies were downloaded 4 million times during the weekend of their initial release.
America: The only place in the world (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it just me, or has this gone too far. It's time to break out some good old vigilateism on these control freaks. Time to organize.
Re:America: The only place in the world (Score:2)
Now, if you want to go to a country where you CAN get busted for listening to music, move to Iran.
Hah! (Score:2, Insightful)
In related news... (Score:3, Funny)
This combination allows millions to 'listen' to any music and then replay it back by 'singing' the song. This will allow thousands to hear songs without purchasing them. The ramifications on the CD industry by these criminals is completely real, and must be stopped, according to the RIAA.
The lawsuit is believed to exclude deaf-mutes, though they are being examined for the ability to feel vibrations and possible replay them by tapping the rythm out on any surface available.
NET? (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the definition of theft [dictionary.com]:
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position ; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
Emphasis mine. That should be easy; no file sharing programs remove files from RIAA hard drives. Problem solved!
This is all good (Score:2)
Uniform enforcement, on the other hand, or even the widely-publicized appearance of uniform enforcement, brings the issues out of the geek ghetto to where the voting public confronts it.
Best thing that could happen would be for the RIAA to file criminal charges against Aunt Martha for letting her friends copy her Burl Ives recordings.
How to make an average pirate think twice (Score:2)
Anyway, I think that they are using a wrong approach to tell people that software or any other piracy is a bad thing. Currently, it seems that they just wish to publish the capture of the big fished. What I suggest, is that they would nail a couple of "innocent" senior citizens with one pirate CD instead. Anyone, who is not nowadays thought as a pirate but still has one or two illegal copies will do. That should make people think.
Meanwhile, they should ofcourse nail the big ones too, but these joe average cases are the ones that should be passed to media, I think.
The Most Frightening Thing About All This (Score:2, Insightful)
It's obvious that these laws were passed with the intent of punishing people who copy and sell copyrighted material for financial gain, meaning money. But they are so scared by Peer to Peer sharing that they have simply redefined "financial gain" to cover any exchange of anything by anybody.
People have a deep urge to share. "I'll give you a copy of mine if you give me a copy of yours" is not motivated by financial gain.
But now a law that was designed to prosecute the guy who runs off a 1000 copies of Photoshop and sells them through the mail is being used to make a criminal out of me, my kids and virtually everybody I know.
cost-cutting in economic slowdown? inconceivable! (Score:2)
Chernin argued that piracy will not only hurt creators of original content but also consumers if movie studios lose so many ticket sales that they begin cutting expenses.
Well well. While the rest of us are cutting our expenses and companies are going bankrupt left and right, the darling movie industry can't seem to even comprehend the concept.
I'll start to feel sorry for the movie industry when they actually lose money for a few years in a row. Actually I won't feel sorry at all, I'll feel like the theory of evolution has just been validated.
Is it my network or yours (Score:2, Insightful)
My take on it is that it's like the phone system; anything upstream of the NIB belongs to the phone company and is on their network, anything downstream is on the user's network. This works for DSL and dialup, and a similar line could be drawn for cable. Unfortunately, it's quite possible that a sufficently incentivized court could decide that by using an ISP, you are putting your computer on THEIR network, and thus 512(c) applies.
This would be very bad, not just because of the subpoena clause. This would allow 512(c) takedown notices of items stored on your own machine. Host your own website with material the RIAA doesn't like? If it's on YOUR network, 512(a) absolutely protects your ISP from any monetary liability regardless of any takedown notices, and against injunctions in most cases. They'd have to sue you directly to get results.
But if the courts rule that your website is on your ISPs network, they can send a 512(c)(3) takedown notice, and your ISP would have to either cut your website off immediately or risk liability.
corporations writing the laws (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the government is now the enemy of the people, the only option is civil disobedience (that is, not changing the habits we have such as copying cd's for our own person use which used to be perfectly legal)
Re:corporations writing the laws (Score:2)
C//
Legalized DOS (Score:2, Insightful)
The labels are also supporting a bill, now under consideration in Congress, that would make it legal to "impair the operation of peer-to-peer" networks, such as LimeWire. That could be done, for example, by overloading file-sharing services with so many requests that they slow to a crawl.
And does Congress realize that this will also affect everyone up and down the line, including the backbones, the ISPs, and other users on the same nodes in cable broadband systems?
Re:Legalized DOS (Score:2, Insightful)
Self serve... (Score:4, Interesting)
Irritating (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, these are not a bunch of fat cats we're talking about -- piracy now threatens the livelihood of the rank and file workers of Hollywood. After all, the movie studios are having a terrible year, right?
Yeah! After all, we ALL know that it's OK to steal from people if they have more money than you. The bastards!
If you're going to make a point about whether something is right or wrong, it doesn't help your case to bring out irrelevent facts about how rich someone is. Right is right, and wrong is wrong.
Re:Irritating (Score:2)
hmmm... is the way that the money they have was made "right"?
just saying... since there is such a clear demarcation of right and wrong.
Heh.. (Score:2)
I always thought a good Slashdotting would smack the RIAA in the eye, never thought it'd happen this way though.
Your tax dollars at work... (Score:5, Insightful)
perpetrated massive fraud and theft on their shareholders,
employees, and customers is just too hard for the DOJ. It's
much easier to surf the internet for tunes, subpoena an ISP for
personal records (thereby avoiding doing any work), and bust a
14 year-old kid who can't afford a new CD since his Dad was
was swindled out of his job and pension by the economic
damage resulting from widespread, unprosecuted corporate fraud.
A troll?
Best Quote (Score:2, Insightful)
You'd think they'd get it eventually, but I guess some people never will.
NET is good (Score:4, Interesting)
I know everyone's got a point of view on this matter, ranging from "all information should be free at birth" to "all information should be controlled and tolled".
My view is best expressed by first clearing up the confusion about nomenclature.
"Copyright"
I think Fair Use includes the ability to make copies, so I don't buy Jack Valenti's argument that making a copy of a DVD is, or should be, illegal.
Also, there are too many cases where the free flow of information can be unduly inhibited by onerous technical burdens just to protect the current business models of RIAA and MPAA members.
I think they should rename the concept "CopyCharge".
Owners of the current copyrights should have the exclusive right to distribute for charge.
Of course that includes money. But also, in all fairness, I think it should include Napster-like barter exchanges where "if I give you access to X copyrighted material then you give me access to Y copyrighted material".
I think everyone should respect copyright ownership in that way.
Thus, I don't have any problems with them prosecuting people who actually distribute copies of material for compensation when they don't own the "copycharge" right.
I do have a problem with heavy handed tactics where the flow of all digital information is restricted just because of some lawbreakers. It's just like crowbars. Yes, they can be used as burglary tools, but they're also quite useful in many other circumstances.
Yes, please, by all means prosecute actual burglars. No, under no circumstances, should you outlaw tools. That's why I view NET as great, but other laws such as DMCA and CB.... as abominations.
Is prosecuting end users bad? (Score:2, Insightful)
That being said, is prosectuting end users for copyright violation bad in itself?
The absurd technological measures that they are proposing to "protect" their content will have far reaching and long lasting implication on what we can do with our hardware (whether or not I ever load file sharing software or "consume" any of their content).
Prosecuting someone who shares a bunch of teeny-pop (who is probably a minor) seems to be a much less damaging use of their money.
The good effects of file sharing (Score:2)
So let me get this straight. Because they are supposedly losing money to file sharing (which lets say they are) they've had to ditch artists, slash budgets for tours and videos, and reissue music out of their back catalogues.
Now, consider the recent trends in music with many many really crappy bands being made by the record companies for the record companies (think N'Sync, Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, etc.) and also a number of not really all that good bands getting publicized to death. Now think about some of the music in their back catalogues (Pink Floyd, The Who, The Doors, Steve Miller Band, Santana, The Eagles, Billy Joel, Eric Clapton, Phil Collins, Bruce Springsteen, etc.. etc.. etc...).
Is the fact that people would rather buy good music than the crap the RIAA has been forcing down peoples' throats so surprising to the RIAA? Hell, if anything the supposed lost revenues seem to have made an improvement!
Ten Commandments of the RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
1. Thou shalt have no entertainment before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any device by which thou mighst render my copyright protection ineffective.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of Britney Spears in vain, for I will not hold him guiltless who disrespects her.
4. Honor Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti, that thy days of entertaining thyself might be long and pleasurable.
5. Thou shalt not download MP3s.
6. Thou shalt pay inflated prices for thine CDs.
7. Thou shalt pay unto me a tax for the blank media which thou acquirest, compensating me for heathen pirates.
8. Thou shalst allow me to search thine computer at my fancy, to ensure that you are virgin from illicitude.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's MP3 collection, lest ye be tempted to download MP3s from him.
10. Thou shalt not seek out alternatives to me, for I am the one true RIAA.
What if we could build a new Internet? (Score:2)
I've been thinking about something like this, ever since reading William's Otherland. In it, there is a virtual reality network only accessible to the hackers of the world, by invitation only. Completely non-technical, not to mention VR, but it started me thinking about how you could go about something like this.
If you care to hear more about this, read my work in progress page [24.125.76.224] about it...
WARNING: I do tend to rant a bit, so it's not exactly prim and proper.
Red Book Standard (Score:2)
I own a 200 disc DVD/CD changer made by Sony. I have nothing but good things to say about this product, as it plays CD, CD-Rs, and DVDs quite well. It has one minor issue though: it won't play anything but Red Book compliant CDs. For example, I have to burn copies of all the CDs I buy that use the new "Enhanced CD" format in order to use them in this player. The replacement cost for this product is US$800. The exact player I own is still for sale in the US. Anyone want to venture a guess as to whether Sony will be liable if they deliberately make this product obsolete and fail to warn potential consumers?
I have no incentive to replace this player if it is made obsolete by the RIAA. Whatever anti-piracy technology they create will be cracked and then I'd be forced to replace it again with the next anti-piracy-compliant music technology. No thanks.
The Shameful Washington Post Article (Score:5, Insightful)
I honestly have to wonder whether the music industry paid to put propaganda on the front page of The Washington Post, because David Segal has been around long enough to know better than to write a piece like "A New Tactic in the Download War [washingtonpost.com]" (8/21/02).
Segal repeatedly points to falling sales of CDs and implies that piracy is the cause:
"The record labels have been spurred to action by figures they find terrifying: The number of 'units shipped' -- CDs sent to record stores or directly to consumers -- fell by more than 6 percent last year, and it's widely expected to fall 6 to 10 percent more by the end of 2002. Those drops are already hitting the industry hard. Labels are laying off employees, ditching artists, slashing budgets for tours and videos, and combing their back catalogues for reissues that cost almost nothing to release."
Yet he neglects to mention that every industry has been hit hard and is laying off people -- even the news media. If CD sales fell 6 percent last year, I'd say the music industry is doing extremely well, because the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell about 9 percent in that same period (including the post-9-11 recovery).
Segal goes on to say sales are "widely expected to fall 6 to 10 percent more by the end of 2002." Guess what? The Dow has fallen over 10 percent since the beginning of the year, on top of last year's 9 percent loss, and the economy is widely expected to get worse. Could it be that people are spending less money on trivial things like CDs because they have less money in their pockets? Or because their retirement savings have been wiped out? We would all like to be patriotic and buy an album a day, but one must have priorities. At least until CDs become edible and wholesome.
"There's evidence, though, that Americans are spending more time than ever listening to CDs," Segal continues.
What is Segal's evidence?
"Market surveys suggest that more blank CDs (CD-Rs) than recorded CDs are now sold in the United States."
Perhaps Segal could explain how an increase in CD-R sales constitutes evidence "that Americans are spending more time than ever listening to CDs."
CD-Rs are also facilitate fair-use activities. The 40-something who has just discovered CD-Rs decides to put his deteriorating record collection on CDs so he can listen to them for years to come. The 20-something creates a custom mix of his favorite songs from several CDs so he doesn't have to take his eyes off the road to change discs on his way to work.
CD-Rs are also used to archive data. We live in an age where the data repositories we depend on, from the computers in our homes to the physical documents in the World Trade Center, are no longer safe. They can disappear in an instant when anything from a software glitch to a terrorist attack occurs. It stands to reason that people look to the CD format to archive their tax documents, emails, family photos, scans of their kids' artwork and anything else that's important to them.
What mother couldn't turn up enough content to fill a spindle-full of CD-Rs a month? And as she realizes the potential for storing memories and documents, she begins to collect even more. She takes more digital photos and more video of her family. She starts scanning in old family photos and scanning the catalogues for a moderately-priced DVD-R burner because she needs more space.
CD-Rs are also quickly replacing the floppy disk. Floppy disks wear out, they are susceptible to magnetic fields, they don't mail very well, they're slow, and they only hold 1.4 megabytes of data. A DSL user can download 1.4 megabytes of data from the Internet faster than he can read 1.4 megabytes of data from his own floppy drive. CD-Rs will not wear out in your lifetime (unless you microwave them), they are impervious to magnetic fields, AOL has proven that you can transport them in many creative, inexpensive ways, they offer fast data transfer rates and they hold at least 650 megabytes of data. There is also evidence of a growing market for CD-Rs to be used as frisbees, travel mirrors, cetrifuge shrapnel and kid-safe Chinese throwing stars.
However, Segal's "evidence" proves nothing about American listening trends.
Segal also mentions the music industry's support of a bill that would make it legal to "impair the operation of peer-to-peer" networks and follows it up with a quote from RIAA chairwoman Hilary Rosen in which she announces that the industry has a "history" of being "generous with consumers," and that it is simply looking to enforce its existing rights.
Segal tries to present the appearance of a balanaced story by noting that the bill's "strategy has generated plenty of skepticism." This is true. However, the only skepticism he cites is the industry concern that "foolproof locks... don't exist in the digital realm."
He neglects to mention the larger concern: that the wording of the supported bill would make it legal for the music industry to attack any network it "suspects" may contain pirated files. It allows big business to engage in unrestrained vigilante justice on the digital frontier with the kind of attacks that have brought down major Internet services like Yahoo and ETrade in the past. These attacks are currently federal crimes, for good reason. The bill would give the music industry the legal authority to shut down any service on the Internet indefinitely, without a court order or subsequent review. The Washington Post may want to bear this in mind the next time it publishes an unfavorable review of a music album.
This shoddy journalism smacks of the kind of factually incorrect propaganda corporations distribute in their press releases.
Segal's article fits well with the music industry's propaganda campaign. At a time when the bill is being considered in Congress, a front-page story in the only Washington paper that ends up in every Congressman and Senator's office highlighting the alleged need for legislation to save the industry and combat lawlessness is worth its weight in gold.
I find it exceptionally difficult to believe that the music industry could "buy" this story. I also find it hard to believe that a seasoned reporter like Segal could be lazy enough to write this article and that a front-page story would not undergo the scrutiny necessary to uncover its deep holes and steep slant. The most plausible explanation I can find is that The Post is so genuinely concerned about the implications of the bill it wants to secure its place on the industry's alleged "generous" side.
This is just sad..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then I wanted to move some DVDs into a form I could actually watch on a plane (pda), cause my laptop screen is too big for cattle class and I find that even owning such a tool would make me a felon...
And now I reflect on how the DoJ wants to make these bold statements, but when it comes to protecting me from
1) having my software cracked and put up on a foreign site (along with a lot of other victims)
2) having my 401K raped (actually I don't invest in tech, but I still got nailed due to overall market misery)
they could care less about me or any other average citizen other than when some entrenched interest thinks we need to have something else taken away from us.
I come to the sad conclusion that the government that governs me does not in any way shape or form represent me or my interests. It's getting worse every day, and the common consensus at this time from the system to the average slashdot reader is that we're criminals, and anything done to us is perfectly fine, but anything we do is inherently bad.
Methinks the time for massive digital civil disobediance is upon us. Since we're all already guilty before the fact, since it's perfectly OK to assume we're bad and act accordingly with zero proof, who the hell wants to be hung for a sheep. Time to be a wolf, I say.
On the matter of AOTC downloading (Score:5, Interesting)
Oops! I forgot to mention that I waited in line 3 hours to see it on opening midnight, and that I saw it 3 more times, including once on a digital screen. That's $40 for tickets (NYC prices). Yeah, MPAA, that download was one hell of a "lost sale."
The Scariest Precedent (Score:3, Interesting)
What happens when someone finally builds a machine that allows you to duplicate simple objects?
We will we not allow a device this fantastic to exist?
That would suck.
MjM
I never mod down...
Random wacky thought #2 (Score:5, Interesting)
Net is a "moral-free" zone! Film at 10. (Score:3, Insightful)
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-954651.html [com.com]
"The vast potential of broadband has so far benefited nobody as clearly as it's benefited downloaders of pornography and pirates of digital content"
Chernin, the president of the owner of the Fox corporation, decries the Net's lack of morals. Isn't that delicious?
"The truth is that anyone unwilling to condemn outright theft by digital means is either amoral or wholly self-serving."
Irony meter going off the scale!
Make no mistake about it, this is a culture war with trillions of dollars at stake. It is becoming more and more clear that Hollywood isn't just being greedy, they actively hate and fear the Internet. They would destroy everything we have built rather than adapt to reality.
Re:RIAA/MPAA and Communism (Score:2)
I don't recall either of those people as Communist despots. They were despots, but they dropped the "Communism" act right quick once they had a stranglehold on things. Pick up a history book. It'll do you some good. For that matter, read the Communist Manifesto. It's not as scary as your McCarthy-addled parents obviously taught you.
Re:Great! (Score:2)
Does that mean they plan to put all Americans in jail and start a prison-labour based economy?
Re:From the NET act. (Score:2)
C//
Re:Clever (Score:2)
C//