Australian Court says Kazaa Users Breach Copyright 346
mferrare writes "This from Reuters UK: An Australian court ruled on Monday that users of Kazaa, a popular internet music file-swapping system, breached music copyright and ordered its owners to modify the software. The music industry told the court that Sharman Network licensed users to access a network it knew was being used for piracy and hence it was authorising people to infringe copyright"
Freenet needs your support (Score:5, Interesting)
The Freenet Project [freenetproject.org] is working towards the next major release of the Freenet software, hopefully this side of Christmas. Among the major new features will be:
The Freenet project requires $2,300 per month to pay for its full time developer, Matthew Toseland, but currently the project's reserves are very low, so if you can spare it (especially given the more immediate [redcross.org] drains on people's generosity), your donation [freenetproject.org] would be much appreciated.
Re:Freenet needs your support (Score:2, Interesting)
Freenet is slow. use emule. (Score:4, Informative)
That is because the freenet was developed for anonymisation, not for file exchange. That is, freenet is good against compagnies that sue their own customers.
If you want to leave kazaa because it future is doomed because their next client will/should contain copyright restrictions (I am sure there wil be lots of trolls here that say you can not determine this, true, but flaimbait) you might want to switch to emule
If you live in fear because ou think some compagny might sue you because of copyright violations please use freenet. But you might get afraid they capture you for aiding terrorist/childporn. Don't worrie you will never get such charges get uphold by a court, (if you get there).
EMule doesn't protect its user's anonymity (Score:2, Interesting)
Freenet is currently quite slow, but these problems should be rectified in the next version. There is no inherent reason that an anonymous P2P system must be slow.
Of course, you are correct that Freenet isn't about "file sharing", its about the free exchange of knowledge and information. If all you care about is getting free music, Freenet probably won't
Re:EMule doesn't protect its user's anonymity (Score:2, Informative)
Re:EMule doesn't protect its user's anonymity (Score:3, Insightful)
As did BitTorrent for a while before they started to sue BitTorrent users - it takes time for them to shift their focus, but they will. If this isn't the explanation, then what is? Are you claiming that emule is somehow different to Kazaa in the ease with which users can be monitored by the RIAA? If so, please provide some evidence for this.
Re:EMule doesn't protect its user's anonymity (Score:2)
No, I wasn't claiming anything. You just said something that was wrong and I corrected you.
As for Freenet, slow is a relative term. Slower would perhaps be a bet
use emule. (Score:2)
Riaa is sueing and warning emule users. It just is not that high-profile. There are more emule users than kazaa in the world. In the USA emule is relatively less popular.
If the anonymisation is done by proxying over more hops it is inherent slower. A faster speed can be reached by direct uploading. Note that uploadcapacity is sparse. Caching does not help get a higher upload. Motivating users to give more upload might help however.
Is there a working search in freenet? or are there still onl
Re:EMule doesn't protect its user's anonymity (Score:5, Informative)
http://blocklist.org/ [blocklist.org] is a nice place to find blocklists for emule/edonkey and a heap of other things too. Yes, emule supports these. The servers mentioned will send a chill down your spine. (Sonny Boy !!) Have a look at the list.
Re:EMule doesn't protect its user's anonymity (Score:2)
Yes, there is. To achieve any kind of anonymity, you need to route it through multiple hosts (those that rely on faking source IPs are a joke). So at best you're looking at 1/n the speed, where n is the average path length. They have already said that the new Freenet will premix through at least three hosts, and in addition comes anonymity for the
And emule is Fast?!!! (Score:2)
Trying to download any file that's popular and large (over a 100MB) usually takes DAYS. Plus there are bots on emule/edonkey network that steal all the bandwidth and download everything.
Re:And emule is Fast?!!! (Score:2)
Plus there are bots on emule/edonkey network that steal all the bandwidth and download everything.
Links please? what are you pointing at?
Note that emule is a file sharing applciation, not a file trading application like bittorrent is.
Re:And emule is Fast?!!! (Score:2)
I was on emule/edonkey for a while. I shared out a folder of REALLY old software like device drivers and old versions of software that have had newer versions for YEARS.
Almost immediatly dozens of clients start trying to download anything and EVERYTHING I had. Old NVIDIA drivers, Quake 1 source code, old esoteric LINUX distros....
I have a theory that bots like these slow down the network considerabl
Re:And emule is Fast?!!! (Score:2)
If you are on a cable-modem, expect max download speeds from your local ISP's newsserver, else subscribe (typical $15/month unlimited download and long retention) to a decent commercial newsserver and get a newsreader who can co
Re:And emule is Fast?!!! (Score:2)
Who wants to look for part 745 of a 10000 part
Re:And emule is Fast?!!! (Score:2)
I've been using USENET for ages and have 1 commercial server I pay for in addition to my ISP's and I have *NEVER* any problems with completition, ever! Spend $15/month and you have access to a good commercial server.
I have on various occasions used P2P and Bittorrent and all I can say is that it is incredibly unreliable and extremly slow. P2P is the most flawed protocol ever devised for the net.
Re:And emule is Fast?!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
This is why you have utilities like par2 [par2.net].
Then you don't need part 745 specifically, most of the time you have enough redundancy in the bits you've downloaded that you don't need anything. And if you don't, par2 will tell you that you need x recovery blocks to repair it. *Any* x blocks. So if you can get those blocks off usenet, you're fine.
par2's also good for making redundant backups - if you make a set of par2 files that's got more than 50% redunda
Freenet need not be slow (Score:2)
Re:Freenet need not be slow (Score:2)
For a non-anonymoes network the upload speed = the download speed. for an anonymoes network the downloadspeed = uploadspeed / average numbers of peers it goes trough. that is divide ~6-7 in the sim
Trusted Links (Score:2)
What use is it to just share your political feelings with your friends, which already know?
Re:Donating to freenet will not solve anything (Score:5, Insightful)
By continuously exchanging copyrighted material via the internet, copyright law will not end. If we ant to get rid of copyright law, we should petition the goverments, protest (with your money by not spending it on the apparently for you, or in your opinion, to expensive materials), start a political party against copyrights, etc..
You are wrong. The best way to get rid of unjust laws is to have everyone break them so they become unenforceable.
Re:Donating to freenet will not solve anything (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it's to publicly break them en masse, so that the jails will get too crowded so that people CAN'T be jailed. However to do that you need high numbers of people willing to do that. In the past people have been able to achieve the high numbers necessary because people WERE willing to go to jail, because the cause was something they strongly believed in.
I doubt you'll ever be able t
Re:Donating to freenet will not solve anything (Score:2)
Actually, it's to publicly break them en masse, so that the jails will get too crowded so that people CAN'T be jailed. However to do that you need high numbers of people willing to do that. In the past people have been able to achieve the high numbers necessary because people WERE willing to go to jail, because the cause was something they strongly believed in.
I doubt you'll ever be able to get enough p2p users to do it, as most use it anonymously. In that case, they aren't activists. They're
criminals
Well f
Re:Donating to freenet will not solve anything (Score:3, Insightful)
Explain to me again where the "unjust" part of the law is.
Re:Donating to freenet will not solve anything (Score:4, Insightful)
I run a small software company. The keyword here a is "small." Genuine small business with genuine employees making honest wages. After being tipped off by a customer, I looked at eMule and found that some of our software, which we sell for about 50% the price of our billion-dollar competitor, was being "shared" by 35 users.
I think it's unfortunate that you're sticking with a business model which requires artificial scarcity when for the last 10-15 years we've actually had a world of unlimited abundance.
Shame, but there you go.
Try releasing your code to everyone [merjis.com] and wonderful things will happen (and you'll make a good deal of money through consultancy too, but that's only part of the fun).
Rich.
Re:Donating to freenet will not solve anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Our software is not technically terribly innovative. I mean, it does a good job, and is user friendly, but its value is in that we as a company gather experts who put together specialist material and then we present it in a useful fashion (I dont really want to give away who we are or what we do, but maybe let's say we create specialty training materials). Releasing of our source code will do ZERO - if somebody really wanted to, they could probably make a pretty good duplicate of our code, but our real value is in the material we present and the way we present it. There are no real bugs in our software for users to kill, and because most of our users are individuals (because of the nature of the market we are in), there is no consultancy to be had.
Look, I'm really happy for you that you have this imaginary idea of how the software market should be. and, maybe there are a few small areas where a company could legitimately succeed the way you suggest (for example, MySQL). However, in this case, your suggestion has no bearing. We do NOT have an out-of-date model, and the vast majority of our customers are honest people who see the value of what we do and have no problems paying our modest fees. In fact, we are often held up in our trade press as an example of excellent value for money.
However, nevertheless, this doesn't stop some people from pirating it. There is ZERO justification for this - those people are criminals.
I'd also mention that due to the area we work in, EVERYBODY who uses our software is not poor and can easily afford it. We are not talking about word processors or web browsers here that has applicability to "up and coming" peoples of the world. Think (and this is just a silly example, but nevertheless) as if we were selling Yacht maintenance software that requires specialist understanding of yachts to put together efficiently and is of value to yacht owners only.
Re:Donating to freenet will not solve anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Donating to freenet will not solve anything (Score:5, Informative)
What's wrong with swapping material which is under copyright? I've had a BitTorrent client open all week, with my upload speed pretty much maxxed out. I've been distributing copyrighted material with it. And I haven't broken a single law. Because - get this - the stuff I'm distributing is stuff I either own or have permission to distribute.
You're an idiot if you listen to the RIAA/MPAA's lies about how "distributing copyright material is illegal". It's only illegal if you don't have permission. The RIAA want you to think that copyright is a "special" thing that only "artists" get, and you - the consumer - must fear, like an ancient pagan cringing before the idol of his god. But that's bullshit.
Copyright is a simple concept that naturally applies to any creative endeavour. Including anything you or I create. And if you or I create something, and we want to distribute it over the Internet, then it makes sense to use P2P networks. At which point we are using P2P to distribute copyright material - and yet we are not breaking any laws.
Don't listen to the RIAA/MPAA's lies. Copyright != illegal to distribute. Copyright == illegal to distribute without permission. Two little words that make a world of difference.
Freenet is just another P2P application, and since people have nothing to share except other peoples material, it will be used to do just that.
Maybe that applies to some people. Like you, I assume - you wouldn't say a thing like that unless it applied to you. But some of us create things ourselves, you know? And having done that, miraculously we have things to share that are our own. And we use P2P to share them.
If you walk into a store and steal anything, you get arrested (some call this bad luck!), and you will get some punishments. What is different here?
The difference is that theft is always illegal. Whereas sharing copyright material is only illegal if you are also infringing the copyright in that material. Which can easily be avoided by either creating the material yourself, or getting the permission of the copyright holder to distribute it - at which point (am I repeating myself here?) you can share it over a P2P network without breaking any laws.
It is not your digital right to exchange copyrighted material at all.
Whoa, you're saying I don't have the right to use the computer I own Internet connection I leased to transfer the material I created?
Fuck that. I'll thank you not to tell me to throw away my right to freedom of speech, if that's quite okay with you. It is my freedom that's on the line if P2P networks ever actually get made illegal, and I do care about my freedom.
Go after the people who are infringing copyrights, please. And leave those of us alone who are distributing copyright material entirely legally, because we own the fucking copyrights.
Re:Donating to freenet will not solve anything (Score:2)
So instead of going stupidly into a flamebait, just know what RIAA/MPAA are doing in these cases.
The alterations demanded by the judge in this case involve materials which need to be paid for, and where the copyrights of the copyrights holders is broken by not paying the licenses. That you distribute your work for free is great for whoever wants to have it.
Re:Donating to freenet will not solve anything (Score:4, Insightful)
If you walk into a store and steal anything, you get arrested (some call this bad luck!), and you will get some punishments. What is different here?
1/ Contrary to what happens if you steal a can of soup in a supermarket, when you download an mp3, you do not prevent anybody else from having it.
2/ To defend law in that particular case, where what is at stack is not high (we are talking about (C), not talking about people dying, or even about poor people getting poorer), the judge makes a decision which, when transposed trivially to equivalent situations, hurt some of our most fundamental rights.
3/ It's hard to understand why it's okay to borrow a book from a neighboor and not to borrow an mp3 from a guy 1000km away.
Thus, differences there are.
Cheers,
--Go Debian!
Re:Donating to freenet will not solve anything (Score:3, Informative)
2/ Go live in a communist country, and you are probably right. Somehow the world is a bit more selfish=kapitalism. People want money for their work, more money then what might be reasonably expected.
3/ You return
Re:Donating to freenet will not solve anything (Score:2, Insightful)
I must say I agree with him, and the comparision with lending a book is a good one, okay, there is only one hard copy of that book that is being exchanged, meaning that the author/publisher has been paod, whereas there could be any number of copies of files. But those files (say MP3s) came from original copies too...somebody bought the album and maybe converted the tracks either for personal use (I'm very protective of my CDs...some have only been used once...) or beca
Re:Donating to freenet will not solve anything (Score:3, Insightful)
If necessary, they'll have a whole new law drawn up. Don't think they can't.
Look at the recent DMCA. The fact that it exists shows that the US Congress is happy to make laws to prevent unauthorized digital distribution of copyrighted entertainment content.
If, as you claim, there is no legal theory by which freenet can be sued, the music lobbyists simply make up a new law prohibiting contributatory anonymization.
If P2p migrates t
come on now (Score:4, Insightful)
Come on now, this is the same argument that's been going on for decades concerning VHS tapes, cassettes, CDs, DVDs, etc. Sure Kazaa has its share of illegal bits and bytes, but if you want to censore everything, might as well get rid of the internet altogether.
Re:come on now (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:come on now (Score:3, Informative)
I think the legal term that applies to that line of reasoning is "substantial non-infringing uses." For instance, knives can be used to kill people by stabbing, but they are used much more often in cooking, so they are legal. Bullets can be used to kill people by shooting, but are used far more often in target shooting and hunting, so they are legal. Nuclear bombs always (ok, almost always) are used to kill people, so they are illegal.
All right, a li
Re:come on now (Score:3, Insightful)
Overheard in the near future: "Hey I just signed up with SonyNet, they format my harddrive for me once a month and decide what emails I need to read, and they got really cool movies and download speeds. What a great service!!!"
Re:come on now (Score:5, Informative)
Re:come on now (Score:2, Insightful)
> Australian legal community to just ignore the problem.
What do you mean `legal community`? It's your job,as a voter, to change the law if you don't agree with it. I admit though that that's probably harder than making odd posts about the `legal community`...
Re:come on now (Score:5, Informative)
Re:come on now (Score:2)
Re:come on now (Score:2)
It meant that to do what you just mentioned to copy protected software is to be illegal. Considering that most software is copy protected, I don't see how you could enact those provisions anymore.
Get Rid Of The Interent (Score:2)
But since its not practical to do that, they will do their best to attack the end points, and turn them into simple restrictive media devices, under *their* control.
nice call (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:nice call (Score:5, Interesting)
Fairly soon if you believe the news - some systems on trial already (eg. in the uk [rin.org.uk])
Plus, the main thrust of the judgement (according to news reports) seems to have been not that the software merely allowed, but that the defendants encouraged/incited the users' behaviour.
Car companies (at least here) are _already_ banned by advertising regulations from inciting people to speed.
Re:nice call (Score:2)
Where is here? In the US, it seems that is one of the big come ons. Zoom Zoom anyone?
all the best,
drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/44851 [ourmedia.org]
Re:nice call (Score:2)
Here is UK.
Advertising code may well be derived from EU regulations and therefore the ban might in fact be europe-wide (although likely to be implemented slightly differently in different countries).
Re:nice call (Score:2)
This would be the same Australian legal system... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This would be the same Australian legal system. (Score:2)
No, the kazaa thing seems to be in the Federal Court. The Formula 1 issue was a state issue in Victoria.
Kazaa still being used? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Kazaa still being used? (Score:2)
Ouch! (Score:5, Insightful)
The music industry told the court that Sharman Network licensed users to access a network it knew was being used for piracy and hence it was authorising people to infringe copyright.
Ok, so, extending this precedent, Comcast (for example) provides access to a network (the Internet) that it knows is being used for piracy. Ergo, all ISPs are authorising people to infringe copyright. I am amazed a court actually swallowed this.
Re:Ouch! (Score:3, Insightful)
Or that sports car manufacturers know their products are being used to exceed speed limits and endanger public safety..
Or that gun manufacturers know their products are being used to kill.
Re:Ouch! (Score:2)
Re:Ouch! (Score:2)
Re:Ouch! (Score:4, Insightful)
The court could reasonably argue that Kazaa's fundamental purpose was to facilitate illegal file-sharing, rather than the legal file-sharing that comprises a minuscule fraction of its business.
And, there's ample precedent for courts to reach beyond a defense made of cynical camouflage. E.g., "piercing the corporate veil" routinely violates the so-called rights of individuals who use corporations to escape liability.
Ultimately, any legal system comes down to whether you trust your (very human) judges.
Re:Ouch! (Score:3, Insightful)
For p2p apps like Kazaa it's much less clear cut. My personal experience is that the vast majority of content on such networks is infringing. Sure, there's a fair amount of stuff that isn't, but my belief (backed up by nothing more than gut feeling) is that the overwhelmnig
Re:It gets better (Score:2)
And letters.
And talking."
Works (at least in some places) don't get automatic copyrights until they are fixed. If you think about your examples, you will see that some don't necessarily have this feature.
Overall though, I agree with your sentiment. The internet is one big copyrigt violation machine, with the possible defense of fair use.
I have had someone (I think it was a lawyer even, I can't remember though) tell me that the copy that gets made in my cache when I read a company's web
Re:It gets better (Score:2)
Not quite. I am not sure of te full details, but you might want to check on the laws against "bootlegging." I do know there was a ruling in the US that one was unconstitutional as there was no time limit. (At least IIRC.)
all the best,
drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/43358 [ourmedia.org]
kazaagate (Score:5, Informative)
Including the full official court ruling as well [apcstart.com]
No I dont know him, but have found the site very insightful throughout the trial.
So that means... (Score:3, Insightful)
1) The NRA defence of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is now dead
2) Microsoft are liable for writing an OS that they KNEW would enable virus writers to propogate
3) DARPA are buggered as they built the underlying technology to DELIBERATELY enable information sharing.
I'm one of the few people who don't do illegal downloads but this really isn't an attack that work in the above cases so why does it work here?
Re:So that means... (Score:2)
That should never have been a good defense to begin with. Guns may not kill people all by themselves, but having a gun makes it much easier and therefore more likely that you'll kill someone.
``2) Microsoft are liable for writing an OS that they KNEW would enable virus writers to propogate''
Microsoft are at least taking steps to prevent these viruses from propagating. They do fix most of the bugs that these viruses exploit. Sha
Re:So that means... (Score:2)
Sharman Networks, despite being aware that their software is mostly used for illegal purposes, takes no steps to prevent this.
Are you serious? Just how would you suggest they do that? Recieve filtering-lists from the various **AAs and implement them uncritically? As far as I can see, that's the only way.
And lemme see... Does this have potential for abuse? "Some indie artist is stealing all our smoke. Yeah, lats ban him from searches as well". "Oh damn. Some perfectly legal DRM-circumventions are fl
What!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What!? (Score:2)
In the same way selling a knife to an under 18 makes you liable to prosecution, etc. we have to take responsibility for what we're doing.
Re:What!? (Score:2)
What? By this logic, the manufacturer of a firearm would be held liable for any murders committed with said firearm because they knew it could be used for such a purpose. Thankfully, such cases have been struck down in the USA.
Actually, as was recently done in a 9-0 ruling by the supreme court, grokster can be sued for intentionally seeking out copyright violators t
longer article and transcript (Score:2, Interesting)
http://news.com.com/Australian+court+rules+against +Kazaa/2100-1030_3-5849480.html [com.com]
Full judgement:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/ 2005/1242.html [austlii.edu.au]
- reasonably plain english, and worth reading. No cause for outrage here folks.
wait (Score:2)
Watch out bittorrent.
Changes (Score:2)
Rather balanced... (Score:2)
The judge also outlines some very basic steps that Kazaa should implement
Good (Score:2)
In other news today... (Score:2)
Seriously though, it's easy enough to argue that the primary use of Kazaa et al is piracy. However, were there enough appropriately licensed content (eg creative commons etc.) then this would be less clear. It would be a shame to lose the right to use peer to peer technology for 'legitimate' tasks, especially if projects like BitTorrent come under fire for the same reasons.
In other news (Score:2)
Pirate Pistols (Score:2)
What about the rest of the internet (Score:3, Insightful)
I can use a browser to get cracks for software.
This just in:
The following software can be used to access copyrighted works:
Mozilla Browser Suite
Firefox
Internet Explorer
Opera
Lynx
Links
www
wget
curl
ftp
cuteftp
wsftp
gftp
(This is not an exaustive list)
ARIA (Australian Recording Industry Association) and the AFI (Australian Film Industry) has called for a ban on the above mentioned list, and any other softwares that allow access to the FTP or WWW networks.
Re:As a record store owner, (Score:2, Interesting)
I am a developer and just had a similar discussion with somebody in a p2p hub.
He was looking for upgrades to his already pirated and cracked software.
I outlined my stance and got a positive reaction from the other users in that hub.
It was as follows, I don't mind if people download and play or use my software or others, but if it becomes enough to want to play online with friends every day, or enough to become a business asset, then that person SHOULD become a customer. Expecti
Re:As a record store owner, (Score:5, Informative)
I'm afraid this isn't obvious to me. I never buy CDs from record stores; I buy them on the internet, often second hand. It is cheaper, easier (order from your house, and they deliver), and I don't like browsing in shops. People are still buying music, legally, just not from you. They buy on the internet, either CDs or downloads (e.g. iTunes Music Store).
Re:As a record store owner, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As a record store owner, (Score:4, Insightful)
I've only gotten one album from the 'net, and it wasn't from an automated file-sharing network. It was from an acquaintence who frequents many of the same music forums that I do. It was Maxim's Hell's Kitchen album. I've since purchased the actual CD, and Maxim's second album "Fallen Angel", as a result of it.
Re:As a record store owner, (Score:2)
Well, I don't know. It doesn't bother me that someone might be a good songwriter, but not a good performer, or vice versa. As long as the end product is good, it's okay for it to have been a team effort.
What we're seeing now though, are end products that aren't that good.
Re:As a record store owner, (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I haven't bought a single CD in about a year (no, I haven't downloaded anything either, I don't have the time, and my currently fairly extensive collection serves me fine on the few occasions I have a moment to listen to my tunes, like in the car on my way to clients'.)
I'm sorry to hear about your business. My mom and I have both built up small companies individually. However, we've done so in areas in which there was demand. I've done my best to keep on top of that demand, and to adapt my services to what's required; as long as I can keep doing this, life goes on.
However, if anyone was so fucking arrogant as to come up with something like a "blacklist", I would be the first to sign up for it voluntarily. As I've said, I don't pirate music; most of what's around today is too shit for me to waste time on. I've 3-4 CDs I've burned from friends, but compared to the ca. 700 I _bought_, you'll agree that these are peanuts.
As I wrote in a letter to the head of consumer relations for EMI Germany when I realized that my girlfriend had bought a copy-protected disc that took me more than 5 minutes to rip a copy of so she could listen to it in her car without scratching the original, I will not subscribe to ANY goods or services from ANY company that treats me like a potential thief instead of a customer. I'm an honest individual, I'm smart and hard-working enough to be prosperous, and that's a pretty choice customer demographic. But hey, no EMI CDs for my girlfriend (who owns several) or myself since...
However, I don't care how barefoot your children have to walk to school, if you, as someone who wants to sell me something (which you do not seem to) even hints at a threat, I will vote with my wallet. Maybe some of the 7-10 friends whom I will, as a statistically average consumer, ask to do likewise, will also avoid doing business with you. So what? You're not selling air or food or water. Maybe some of their friends will too. In fact, I've already noticed myself going to fewer movies just because the RIAA warnings and "no cameras" signs piss me off on principle. So what? There's cafes and books and girls in short skirts outside, I think I can deal.
And you know what? I don't matter. I'm just one among millions. But act like an arrogant prick instead of someone who wants to woo me for the purpose of an honest exchange, no matter how hard you're being hit by '1337 p1r8 d00dz, and you may see that the ones among millions from whom you won't see a red cent out of general principle will add up.
It's capitalism, survival of the fittest. With an attitude like that, no business has any right to exist.
Re:As a record store owner, (Score:2)
Careful there. You've admitted to violating copyright. You might as well be admitting to distributing drugs. (But your honour it was only 3 marijuana leaves! I think you'll agree that's peanuts compared to the coca cola I consume).
Make no mistake RIAA/MPAA and the rest would very much like to, over such a simple thing as copying 4 CDs , send you to prison with a large cellmate named Bubba for
Re:As a record store owner, (Score:2)
For example, depending on the precise circumstances, burning those CDs would be legal (technically, nonactionable) in the US.
Re:As a record store owner, (Score:5, Funny)
I also finance terrorism, smuggle fissionable material to al Qaeda operatives in Baluchistan, coordinate a major child pornography operation, smuggle kidnapped women for the purpose of injecting them with MASTER RACE SEED (tm) in my underground lair, and leave the fucking toilet seat up BECAUSE I CAN.
But I guess the CD copying is what they're really interested in.
Re:As a record store owner, (Score:4, Insightful)
It's interesting to note that the parent comment went from Insightful to Troll in the time it took me to read it and click reply...
Seriously man, I feel sorry for you that your business is facing a difficult time, but a "national register of pirates" doesn't sound like the best option to me. To ban people from buying CDs would only encourage them to pirate more, wouldn't it?
I will admit that I have used P2P to obtain music in the past (although barely anymore, I prefer to buy music online first) - some of my favourite artists I discovered by P2P - if I have the money, I will by the CD, if I like it. If I don't like it, I probably won't listen again, and since I wouldn't have bought it anyway, nothing lost.
I actively encourage people to buy CDs of the artists in order to support them. Bumblefoot [bumblefoot.com] is my favourite artist and I went to the trouble of importing his CDs from the States (not available in the UK) after I had downloaded them with P2P. Interestingly enough, it was Bumblefoot himself who put his own music onto P2P.
You also mention Metallica - a group whose policy on piracy I can't agree with because they were putting strong pressure on Universities to permanently expel students they suspected of sharing their stuff - an action that would have serious effects on their education (duh) and quite possibly long-term effects on their career. It is quite disturbing to realise that this is the way they would have their loyal fans treated for wanting to share their music with other people.
Just so you know, I'm not advocating piracy. I'm advocating sharing music and if possible, buying the CD to support the artist. I'll tell you for nothing that "piracy" has made me a better musician, and has definitely made a difference to the possibility of me recording and distributing my own music some day.
Re:As a record store owner, (Score:5, Informative)
Re:As a record store owner, (Score:3, Interesting)
Why was this modded a troll when it's clearly saitre? I mean with gems like "They have fought the War on Drugs with skill, so why not the War on Piracy?"
I thought it was pretty funny myself.
Re:As a record store owner, (Score:2)
No I'm not, I wasn't aware it had been posted before, which several people have now pointed out.
So once would have been funny, but if it keeps getting posted, troll is fair enough.
Slashdot needs its satire meter callibrated (Score:2)
60% Troll
20% Insightful
20% Informative
100% Whooosh!
Re:As a record store owner, (Score:2)
Cop Killer was speed metal, not rap. Maybe you're facing bankruptcy because you don't know much about the audience to which you're aspiring.
LK
Wow, I can copy and paste too. (Score:5, Informative)
The second time I saw this story, I thought, "Umm, you already said that."
The third time I wondered what the hell is going on. Then I tried a google search and looky what I found.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22My+business+
And thats not even half the time the story has been posted. It does the rounds on slashdot quite regularly. It should be added to slashot posting spam filters or something. Great work of fiction, isn't it?
WTF? (Score:2)
Re:Mp3 freedom? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not just about Australia anyway. All around the globe companies try to overpass their rights and tighten their customers in any way they can.
It's not just about piracy, it's about the perverse control they want to have. And they send us the bill, because each time a new technology comes out, with protection system, they make you pay for the R&D of the unwanted proctection system. At some extend, they have the right to protect themself.. but it's being rat to send the bill a
Re:Mp3 freedom? (Score:2)
Re:Ban file-sharing? What about libraries? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ban file-sharing? What about libraries? (Score:2)
Another difference is that in case of borrowing books or DVDs is that you return them after a while. Then, you don't have access to the content anymore. Wh
Re:Ban file-sharing? What about libraries? (Score:2)
If you're talking about a situation unique to Holland you should mention that. The
(Note that some shops may have agreements as a way to save on the
Re:But they're "authorized," doesn't that make it (Score:2)
Just like Robin Hood and his merry band. Were the starving of England criminals because they ate the King's food and drank the King's wine, all approppriated by Robin Hood's valiant hoarde?''
And in some countries, the downloaders are not doing anything illegal. The files are being offered for downlo
Re:eliminating copyright migth improve music (Score:2)
I have a similar way of thinking about this, but I don't think the solution is to eliminate copyrights. What is needed is to eliminate the major corporations who's business is to completely control the music industry.
We need to damage their bottom line enough by not buying their products, so that they get smaller and smaller and eventually become as insignificant as any other independent label, at which point independent music will be on an even footing, and therefore able to flourish in a marketplace tha