White House Files Amicus Brief Favoring RIAA 371
declan writes: "The Clinton administration is siding with the entertainment industry to shut down Napster. It just filed a 37-page amicus brief (WP file) in the court case, saying Napster can't use the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 as a legal shield. The brief says 'the activities of Napster's users do not even arguably come within the terms of the statute' and the district court's ruling should be upheld. The Justice Department, the Patent and Trademark Office, and the Copyright Office signed the brief. By way of possible explanation, a colleague has compiled this handy list of entertainment industry contributions to Democrats. :)" While that's a clever jab, it hardly seems fair to lay the blame at the political party involved here. Seems more like a question of Establishmentarianism -- politicians in office like to remain there, and know about both corporate bread-buttering and the importance of appearing reassuringly normal.
From the brief mentioned above comes this convenient view of reality:
They can make that claim not because it's true in a larger sense (obviously, your computer can make a fine recording device -- ask at any music store), but because, as the brief goes on to say," ... Neither a personal computer nor its hard disk constitutes "a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium. Napster itself does not suggest otherwise."
If you define your terms correctly, black is white and 2+2=5, too."The terms 'digital audio recording device' and 'digital audio recording medium' are specifically defined in the Act. A 'digital audio recording device' is defined, with exceptions not relevant here, as any machine or device 'the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use.' 17 U.S.C. 1001(3)"
The strange bedfellows clause seems in full effect at the moment; remember that just weeks ago, an industry group including AT&T and other unexpected Napster allies filed their own amicus brief favoring the other side, on the reasonable basis that the controls the courts would be declaring acceptable under the DMCA would soon if not already impinge on activities of nearly any large digital carrier.
Oh, credit a decent argument . . . (Score:2)
But so what? AHRA is hardly Napster's only argument. The crux of Napster's case does not rely on AHRA or the DMCA "exceptions" -- it relies primarily on two key arguments, one hypertechnical, and the other a fairly clear slam-dunk from the Supreme Court opinion in the Betamax case.
The hypertechnical argument observes that the plaintiffs failed to identify (and provide registrations for) the Copyrights for which they seek relief. Under applicable statutory and case law, this should preclude relief. RIAA is seeking a special-purpose exception, so they can sue in the present "all-in-one" capacity. IMHO, they should be spanked for their arrogance. Real copyright lawyers routinely attach the certificates of registration to the complaint.
The sound argument lies in the fact that Napster isn't itself infringing directly any copyright of the plaintiffs -- a point conceded by the RIAA. RIAA argues instead that Napster has contributed to the infringement by all its naughty users.
However, the Supreme Court in Sony held that to be liable for contribution, one must use an apparatus not capable of a substantial noninfringing use. (Clearly Napster has the capability, for example, for distributing works for which the parties have permission to distribute; also, it is capable of facilitating space-shifting -- whether or not that is its "intended purpose" as some have argued.) The 9th circuit was spanked decades ago for adopting a "primary use" or "primary purpose" test, when the Supes reversed them in Sony -- and I suspect they are likely to look closely at the fact that this was PRECISELY the basis with which the District Court found liability.
So, let's not get too hasty. The W.H. may actually be making the right argument, and perhaps for the right reason -- perhaps not.
Re:definition of theif is culture- and time-based (Score:2)
Of course, if you actually compose good work, then you might be able to make a living off of that as well. After all, although we know that Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Bach were all poor folks who had to live in the gutters, it's obvious that composers can't make money under any model. Maybe you will have to figure out a way.
Re:NAPSTER DOES NOT VIOLATE COPYRIGHT LAWS!!! (Score:2)
And whether you and I are right or wrong, logical or not, doesn't work in the court room.
Look at MP3Board.com that's getting sued because they do web searches of Gnutella files. Crazy... So to get the work done for them, they go and sue AOL (whose newly founded employees of Nullsoft were the creators of Gnutella).
And don't forget the worste one yet: The magazine "2600" getting sued for publishing a list of web sites that had the DECSS software. Or a professor getting sued for showing a T-Shirt on the internet that contains the DECSS software on it. Or suing web site owners that point to web sites that point to web sites that have the DECSS software on it.
These over-large corporations (MPAA, RIAA) with a 50 million dollar a year legal department, are writing their own laws.
Rader
Re:definition of theif is culture- and time-based (Score:2)
There is no spin.
Don't talk to me; talk to your elected representatives. Work to get the law changed.
In the meantime, don't be a thief.
You never bought it in the first place. You just don't get it, do you?
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Oh, I see! (Score:2)
Well, that explains it. Your hard drive isn't a digital audio recording device... the software on it is! After all, the software can't be speech, if I recall correctly, because it's got a functional component which makes it more like a machine.
But wait... that would mean Napster would be protected after all, so that's not right. Damn, it seems like if the government has its way, software won't be speech or machinery. I wonder what the heck it is. Hopefully we can find some use for it, or I'm out of a job.
"digital audio recording device" definition (Score:2)
Embarrassing (Score:2)
I agree completely with your assessment of this situation. If Slashdot wants to maintain the quality of discussion, quality has to be present in what's presented for discussion.
Those Damn Napster Stories (Score:3)
sulli
Re:Stop With The Napster Stories (Score:2)
Yes, it is reasonable for the doctor to charge for the exam, but it is not reasonable for the doctor to forcibly gain monetarily from patients who later use the knowledge they gained from being examined to help others. Note, this sort of patients-advising-patients isn't practically good thing to do anyways, because there is not a perfect transfer of information; there are many contextual issues that a patient is not aware of that the doctor is.
You're right, it is no different. However, I think that eventually all information should be unrestricted in it's spread. But I'll settle for one battle at a time.
Re:definition of theif is culture- and time-based (Score:2)
Because the license applies only if you use that CD for playback.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Re:A note to the /. editors: (Score:2)
Getting back to the subject at hand, I'm not sure I understand quite what plain facts were turned on their head by the AHRA's definition (in 1992) of a digital audio recording device. Could you elaborate?
Re:Now this is unusual... (Score:2)
Napster says that a certain clause says that home recording is legal for noncommerical use by consumers. If consumers are allowed to copy, then napster is a legal business.
The act, however, specifically exempts computers from the act, as not being considered 'recording devices'. This was so computers would not have to follow the SCMS (serial copy managemtn system).
Double-edged sword.
Re:Napster (Score:2)
Re:Brilliant. Guns kill people, and Naster is ille (Score:3)
b=people
Premise: a kill b.
Action: Make a illegal.
Result: a can't kill b anymore!
a=Napster
b=files
c=people
Premise: a copies b illegally.
Action: Make a ilegal.
Result: c can't copy b illegally anymore!
They're not equal arguments.
Specifically the lawsuit wasn't filed with the intent of keeping people from copying files. It was filed with the intent of keeping people from using Napster to copy files. Yes, there are other ways of accomplishing the same task, but Napster is likely the current most common method of copying mp3s.
----
Re:The collective thoughts of Napster supporters.. (Score:2)
Because, hypothetically, the artists don't own their music any more than the RIAA does. The legal basis for copyright in the US lies in promoting the progress, not protecting property rights. If the laws are now diminishing the people's freedom without providing them with adequate compensation, there's a big problem. The RIAA, aided by outdated laws, is ripping off music listeners, just as pork barrel projects rip off taxpayers.
What's that you say, you mean information is free for people to do whatever they want to it? Not according to the GPL. The aforementioned act is ignoring intellectual property laws just as much as getting something for nothing from Napster.
Sans IP laws, we'd have much less need for the GPL. Sure, some big company could modify the software and keep the source to the changes private. Personally that wouldn't disturb me very much (nor does it disturb those developers who use the BSD license). Even if it bothered you a lot, though, you might still reasonably conclude that on the whole, we'd be better off if IP laws didn't extend to software.
Honestly, people who support Napster here should at least be honest about why they REALLY support it
Oh, please. I can't speak for everyone, but my interest in the matter is certainly not about the nickels and dimes I get to save. Most of the stuff I actually want these days is classical or baroque anyway, and you pretty well have to buy that stuff if you want anything decent. In any case, arguing the issue ad hominem is just silly... don't drag your useful arguments down with speculation about the motives of those who disagree with you.
AHRA (Score:2)
1) A digital recording device must follow the SCMS.
2) Definitions of what constitute a digital recording device
3) Computers are NOT a digital recording device for the purposes of the act
and
4) The noncommercial use of such a device (as defined by the act) by consumers is not actionable (ie: legal)
In other words, the music industry conceded that if a digital recording device followed their copy mangement system (let you only make copies from an original, couldn't do 3rd generation copies, basically), then it was cool.
Computers are not part of this act.
Re:"digital audio recording device" definition (Score:2)
Sec. 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Re:plain facts on head, I think (Score:4)
Let me give another (somewhat random) example, from 7 U.S.C. 6802 [cornell.edu] (2)(A)(ii), regarding "Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information" (whatever):
So, even though all the Douglas firs I've had as Christmas trees I've are clearly "greens" and certainly "cut," they're not cut greens. Even if I don't celebrate Christmas, it doesn't count -- because it's traditionally a "Christmas tree." Well, that's why the definition is important. The choice was made by the drafters of the law not to apply it to Christmas trees. They didn't do that accidentally. The definition is just a way to avoid repeating the applicability constraint dozens of times.
My point, of course, is that the definition of terms embodies the intent of the law. It provides a context and scope for the legislation, which is good. The AHRA seeks to narrowly define (thank goodness) the devices it covers. Maybe I'm assuming a level of sophistication that I shouldn't, but that seems sensible to me, and that's why I didn't understand what your contention was.
Re:Embarrassing (Score:2)
Re:definition of theif is culture- and time-based (Score:2)
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
My email to the President (Score:2)
Only A Matter Of Time (Score:2)
Re:definition of theif is culture- and time-based (Score:2)
Which constitution do you speak of? We are not all subjects of a global evil empire.
Being able to do something does not make it a natural right.
Copyright does not preclude copying; the copyright holder is free to grant permission for unlimited copying should the see fit to do so.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Re:Napster (Score:2)
--
Re:Stop With The Napster Stories (Score:5)
CDs cost too much There's no law that says ...
actually, there is a law that says monopolies and price-fixing cartels are illegal. The major record labels just caved on such an case, all but admitting guilt, and other lawsuits against them have been filed. They've been illegally keeping prices artificially high fro a long time. Perhaps they reap what they sowed.
Information wants to be free. What the fuck does this mean?
It means two things: in ECON 101 you learned (or apparently did not) that in a competitive market, price will drop to marginal cost. Since copies of information in the digital age have a marginal cost of zero, it can be seen that information does indeed want to be free. The high prices of CDs indicate thas some other non-market forces must be at work. Second, the other meaning is that if you teach me something, why should I be restricted from teaching it to someone else since that costs you nothing? Consider mankind in prehistoric times, or children on a playground: they learn from each other, and it's a good thing too. That's what "it's a free country" means. You need to make the case for restricting freedom, and I don't think "because it makes a small number of people rich" is good enough, nor does the argument that the information would not otherwise be produced... there has been music for as long as there have been people. The only new aspect are the robber barons.
Indie bands give away music
Actually, my response to this is that every interview you hear/read coming out of Hollywood has the creatives telling us how it is their calling: they write/act/dance/sing because they can do naught else, it's the very fabric of their being. So, since they're not in it for the money, why give them any. At least make them admit they are a bunch of lying money grubbers first.
The RIAA rips off artists. So if they are already getting ripped off then that makes it OK for you to rip them off?
Huh? MP3s get ripped from the ripper off-ers.
then why isn't it OK for corporations to incorporate GPLed code in their closed source products? After all information wants to be free
you are slyly restricting the meaning of free, excluding freedom. If GPLed code is locked away, it is not free. It's only free if they grant the same freedom to their customers... oh, that's that's the GPL.
if it is OK to pirate music then it is OK to pirate software after all the rhetoric is the same and information wants to be free.
not exactly right, but you are on the right track. It's OK because it is not piracy to steal from pirates. And a number of the points I raised speak to the actual circumstances, not just the fact that people are selling copyrighted material. Look at video rental: nobody bothers to rent and copy videos because they don't cost much. But people often bring food to the movie theater because of the price gouging.
Furthermore, when the people think the government of the society they live in is corrupt, the idea of taking matters into their own hands is enshrined in our (US) Declaration of Independence. Interestingly, the corruption then was the same as now, protecting the interests of fat cats at the expense of the unenfranchised. Every lawsuit we see seems to be settled with Big Marketing Companies being allowed to buy and sell data about us, and stuff our mailboxes with spam, and still more illegal to take the cover off the box and see how they are spying (violation of ECON 101's perfect information axiom) or price fixing.
Now this is unusual... (Score:4)
Some of the things here are dead-on. The AHRA was never intended for something like this, that is for certain. And certainly, many of Napster's users are engaging in copyright infringement (whether or not Napster should be held liable for that is arguable, but it's also not the point of this post).
However, it goes on to say a few strange things. First, that copying an MP3 is not "making an audio recording." This is, in a word, absurd. While it is true that no audio plays when you copy a file, the fact remains that the mechanisms used in copying an MP3 from one disk to another are, for all intents and purposes, identical to those used in copying audio from one DAT to another This can be very easily demonstrated. Furthermore, no one disputes that MP3's contain audio (Wrapster notwithstanding, and even then they contain audio of a sort). Since DAT-to-DAT is considered making an audio recording, it is unfair to apply a double-standard by saying that copying an MP3 is not. Does this make it right or legal? Not in and of itself. But it is what it is.
Second, it claims that a hard disk is not an audio recording device. This in and of itself is basically true. However, they say it's not an audio recording device because AHRA excludes devices on which computer programs are stored. However, it's quite possible to have a hard drive containing only MP3s; I don't doubt that many Slashdotters have just such a setup. What is the disk, then?
I'm not trying to say the article is pointless. It raises several good points about AHRA and the fact that Napster shouldn't be using this to defend itself (neither should it be responsible for the actions of its users, but that's for another post). But some of the reasons they're giving for it are just plain dumb.
----------
one of my pc's is JUST for audio use (Score:2)
so according to this, my pc DOES hold as I built it SOLELY for digital audio use (ripping, encoding, playing, cataloging, searching, etc).
also, consumer and pro audio gear is more and more based on computer technology. and as the line blurs of what the "primary" function is (games machines that can store audio, dvd players that play audio, heck even PDA's that store and play audio) I don't see that act being very accurate or relevant in today's world.
fair use is being totally ignored these days. how convenient this is for the music producers - who never benefitted from FairUse anyway (it was always meant for consumers/users).
--
Re:Stop With The Napster Stories (Score:2)
You know, Carnage4Life, every once in a while someone posts a well-structured, well-phrased, well-designed argument on Slashdot.
These superlative arguments are immediately followed by a ill-reasoned, illogical, poorly-phrased, frequently irrelevant and, may I be so blunt, remarkably *stupid* attempts at counter-argument.
Frankly, Carnage, I'd love to read many, many more postings from you -- but my patience for wading through the shite to get to the pearls is rapidly wearing thin.
It is, I suspect, time to just give up on Slashdot entirely. The revolting masses have swarmed the system, and it's just sinking to the level of the lowest common denominator.
Just wanted you to know that at least one person acknowledges the quality of your post and agrees with your argument. Maybe I'll get to see you over at the other, better discussion boards...
--
Well Napster does.... (Score:4)
Re:Shut it down (Score:2)
Do you honestly believe that your average DVD-buying jerky-chewing consumer knows what copyright is and would give a flying fuck about it if he did?
Man, you are naive. Consumers are stupid. They buy things.
People are a different matter entirely.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Re:A note to the /. editors: (Score:2)
2+2=5
This is only feesable when using very large values of '2'
Primarily if your using one of the original pentium processors that had the rounding error and your using very large values of 2
Instead of pointing out that there are systems that are primarily built for audio use (specialty audio systems used for recording, or even CD MP3 players)
However some systems (computer) are built around digital mixing. (ie. Avid (for Mac) and I suppose BeOS as well as others
Nothing against StickerBoys post, just bringing up alternate views and being perhaps a bit of an Arse.
Re:definition of theif is culture- and time-based (Score:2)
If he/she had bought the music, he/she would then have copyright over the music in question.
This is clearly not the case.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
DHRA (Score:2)
Re:The collective thoughts of Napster supporters.. (Score:2)
How many artists can you name that are going to the poor house because of napster? What percent of working musicians do you think make a living on royalties? How can you steal something from artists that they don't even have in the first place?
And... come to think of it, the Slashdot community relies on copyright laws to protect something that is very close to their hearts... the GPL.
You are correct. The GPL exists only because we are currently living under antiquated laws enforcing "intellectual property". "When in Rome", so to speak. If and when IP is no longer recognized, then the GPL will no longer be needed.
Re:definition of theif is culture- and time-based (Score:2)
It's case won, Digital Research received monetary compensation and the right to clone MS-DOS. This is why Microsoft never sued DR over DR-DOS, but used every other means to destroy it. The settlement was under a strict non- disclosure agreement, so few even know DR sued, never mind that they won.
Where's the references to court cases? Or any kind of source info? Because I've never heard that story before, and without that info, it's impossible to verify this.
What was that "secret code"?
Simon
Re:How the hell is this flamebait? (Score:2)
You can moderate the truth down, but you cannot make it stop being true.
It's time moderators recognised that someone stating facts that do not support their view of reality is not flame bait.
Napster users are thieves. Napster the company runs a service that they know enables theft. Shut it down.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
definition of theif is culture- and time-based (Score:3)
interesting how the definition of theif changes over time.
it was ok for Gates to ripoff DOS in those early days. most people in-the-know do consider Gates a theif. but he got away with it, didn't he?
think back, oh, maybe a few hundred years ago. courtisans played music for their kings. if one heard a song that wasn't theirs, was it "theivery" to play that song for your king? I seriously doubt the concept of royalties [sic] applied then.
I guess what I'm saying is that today, the music industry has drilled it in our heads that its quite natural to pay every time you want to listen to music; even if its recorded music. oh, it wasn't so blatant when the labels organized; they'd charge you for the recording on the media and whatever you did with it was your business. but now, more and more, we're moving to a "you don't own it; its only on loan from us and we can change the terms at any point" system. I don't see ANYTHING natural about the current fee-based system. I say we go back to the roots of music; you get paid when you perform - period. if someone records the music, touch tittie - its out there and there's nothing you can do about it.
--
Napster's Adventures in Wonderland. (Score:2)
Digging in
[T]he compromise underlying the Act involves a basic quid pro quo. In exchange for accepting the marketing of digital audio recording technology and the use of such technology for noncommercial home taping, the music industry receives financial compensation (through the Act's royalty system) and protection against serial copying. This quid pro quo was central to the agreement and the legislation that embodies it. See, e.g., Senate Report at 30 (summarizing the purpose and basic elements of the legislation).
The government's analysis of the quid pro quo is defective. There is a third party. The third party is the general public, who pay actual money directly to the recording industry; payments described as royalties The nature of the royalty collection system is hardly mysterious. It is a statistically based royalty payment system. Royalties are collected on the purchase of blank media, and paid in proportion to industry sales of works on fixed media. There is no special definition in Section 1001 for "royalty." The Government would like us to believe that unlike any other royalty payment in copyright law, and that unlike any definition of "royalty" that I can find in any dictionary, this "royalty payment" does not actually confer any right to use the material on which the royalty payments are made, but instead provides a technicality, immunizing consumers from prosecution for their still-illegal activity. This is preposterous. It turns the entire concept of a royalty on it's head! Incredibly, the government is claiming that the real purpose of the Audio Home Recording act is to protect illegal activity by getting the government involved in a "protection racket." Hardly an argument the government should be making about federal law. If this is the true meaning of Chapter 10, then it should be thrown out entirely, because the government has no constitutional authority to enter into such a scheme. I certainly hope that the courts do not buy into this interpretation.
Section 1008 does not designate any use of copyrighted works as non-infringing; it merely bars "action[s] * * * alleging infringement" based on such uses. Assuming arguendo that Napster's users are otherwise engaged in acts of copyright infringement, nothing in Section 1008 purports to render those actions non-infringing, and hence the claims against Napster for contributory and vicarious infringement would remain unaffected even if Section 1008 did apply to Napster's users.
The action against Napster is based on the activities of Napster's users. It has to be. If Napster's users had been only copying non-RIAA music, this lawsuit would not exist. The government claims, in effect, that Section 1008 means:
"No action may be brought under this title against any consumer based on
when it actually says,
No action may be brought under this title based on
and on and on it goes. We learn from the government that the word "non-commercial" really means "home" because they were able to find references to "home taping" in the congressional record. The law does not say "home taping". The law says "non-commercial use". Once again, we learn that the law means something different than it says.
The brief argues that because computers and hard drives have no royalties, that the music industry doesn't benefit from Napster. This is nonsense. People are buying CDRs by the millions. I go to my computer store. There's an entire wall of them. A good percentage of that wall is devoted to audio CDRs. People are buying them like they're going out of style. Why are audio CDRs suddenly so popular? Either there has been a gigantic upswing, for no explained reason, in home copying of CDs, or more likely, the boom in CDR sales, including audio CDRs, when priced competitively, is largely a result of Napster users who want to clear their hard drive, don't want to lose all their MP3s when the hard drive on their Windows machine inevitably crashes or needs to be reformatted, or want to listen to MP3s on their CD players, Napster is a 21st century adjunct to the 20th century practice of home taping -- with the same result as traditional home taping, the consumer driven production of, under the AHRA, royalty-paid music CDRs.
Finally, the government makes a tortured argument that after all that, the AHRA is inapplicable because what is really going on is distribution, and that:
[T]he Copyright Act also grants the copyright holder a separate and distinct right of public distribution - the "exclusive right * * * to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." Id. 106(3).
No need to speculate on what "copies" and "phonorecords" are. The definitions are given in Title 17, Section 101.
''Copies'' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ''copies'' includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.
''Phonorecords'' are material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ''phonorecords'' includes the material object in which the sounds are first fixed.
The problem here is that a Napster downloader is not distributing a material object in which a work [or sound] is fixed; she is creating a copy. That's the whole point of the internet -- that you can share information without distributing material objects. If the two are to be considered identical, then the AHRA provides no protection, because even home taping is now "distribution", and the AHRA was clearly meant to protect, if nothing else, home taping. So which is it?
The government claims that copying is synonymous with distribution, that recordings aren't recordings, that royalties aren't royalties. I suppose this all makes sense to the administration lawyers who composed it, but to me it seems like a dirty attempt to recast the AHRA into a kickback/protection racket, which, sadly, is exactly what those of us who were using DAT in 1992 called it then. If the administration came out and admitted this, at least this administration would have the benefit of appearing honest, instead of acting as a shill of the recording industry, asking that laws designed to create and protect consumer rights be recast for the sole convenience of the corrupt entertainment industry, and that the only ethical interpretation of the AHRA be cast out.
This brief reflects strongly on the ethics of the Clinton administration, a fact that won't be lost on me in November.
Re:one of my pc's is JUST for audio use (Score:2)
The entire concept of copyright, odd as this may sound, was intended to benefit those who appreciate the art in question. The point was to give the copyright holder a limited monopoly on their work, so that they could make money off it or whatever, in an attempt to encourage them to produce more works. Its only recently that that's been turned into "copyright == ownership." When I buy a videotape, according to the original copyright law, I now own a copy of that work. I cannot copy it except for personal use (increase the number of copies in circulation) except as permitted by Fair Use.
At least, that's how I understand copyright. If someone else has some evidence as to other interpretations of the pre-World War laws, please post links or whatever.
-RickHunter
Re:Stop With The Napster Stories (Score:2)
I have money. I'm quite comfortable. I could certainly go out and buy lots of CDs.
Would I buy more music if I couldn't get mp3s? Certainly (hey.. I don't even use napster).
Why don't I buy music at the store.. is it because I feel like I deserve free music? No..
it's because I think "Why should I have to get dressed, put on my shoes, go to the mall, and look through a limited selection of music, perhaps going to a different mall/store to find waht I want, even though it may not be there, and when I do find it, it may be a bit overpriced", when I can simply sit at my desk, in MY home, with my bare feet, and download the music?
It's all about convenience! If I could pay a monthly fee to a record company to have unlimited access for personal use to their archives, I would! It would be a convenience to me!
The legalities are pretty simple. Copyright violation is copyright violation. Copying music via napster is technically illegal. Napster was formed to make money off the fact that lots of people whould use it to pirate music. This is contributory. I have no issue with that.
And I agree, people should get off the moral high-ground. There are two simple facts here.
1) mp3 is more convenient for many of us. WAY more.
2) if the majority of hte music industry's former market no longer believes in it's distribution model, it will not ultimately succeed in legislating those people back into being customers. Regardless of the reasons why, if everyone is turned off of the whole music-store thing, then that's how it's going to be, legal or not. REmember, ultimately, if the people of the US (or wherever) want copyright law changed, it WILL be changed
Re:definition of theif is culture- and time-based (Score:2)
I didn't say that there was any such empire. The rest of the above paragraph is crap.
It's called irony. You prat.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Clinton/Gore is really bolstering gun control!!!! (Score:2)
If Napster is illegal, then so is Usenet, the World Wide Web, ftp, K-Mart, General Motors, Smith & Wesson, Chicago Cutlery, etc.
These things all provide services or products that allow people to break the law.
For instance, GM produces cars. Cars can be used to facilitate bank robberies, murder, fraud, all sorts of illegal activities. Are you saying we should outlaw cars?
Smith & Wesson produces guns. I can use a gun to kill someone, which would be illegal. But I can also use a gun to defend myself (which is not illegal).
Clinton/Gore is against Napster because it bolsters their case for gun control: if you can outlaw Napster because it facilitates the breaking of the law, then you can outlaw guns because it facilitates the breaking of the law.
Let's just overthrow the U.S. government. We'll have to start by eliminating the damn media!
Re:definition of theif is culture- and time-based (Score:2)
If you accept that there even are "natural rights", which I do not, you still don't support your position with anything but repetition of the same flawed statement.
Copyright has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech applies to your own thoughts, beliefs and original works. Not being allowed to copy others peoples' works without their permission is not in any way an infringement on your so-called "natural right" to free speech.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Re:OK, here's where I draw the line. (Score:2)
But I have no doubts that the RIAA is going to overreach itself. Somehow, they will setup a law so draconian in their frenzy to protect their own asses, that they will outlaw their competitors. This anti-competitive behaviour will be their downfall.
Guess what, Chris Johnson is already doing all of the above - sending his music to MP3.com and hosting his own music. He knows where is rights end and the RIAA's start. And we should all support artists like him, especially when the RIAA starts overreaching.
Re:Stop With The Napster Stories (Score:2)
You see, the book publishing business is many times more ethical than the music publishing business. This as a result of it being a far more mature industry.
It is definitely NOT a given that goods are not perfectly substitutable. If the MPAA companies respected copyright law and actually allowed the artistes to exercise their rights (or if the artistes are not lazy bums), there would be some choice for consumers to choose which publisher they want to go with. But no - as a I recall, there was even some legislation (now repealed) where the RIAA tried to make the works out to be work for hire. Think about that.
The RIAA is evil, copyrights or not.
They're right (Score:5)
This is a VERY good thing.
If the court was to eventually rule for Napster on those particular grounds, the decision could eventually be used as a precedent to, among other things, collect royalties from PC makers for every PC sold to benefit the RIAA- and that's just for starters. In the long run, such a result would be a disaster for everyone involved *except* Napster, Napster users included.
If the appeals court, or, eventually, the Supreme Court, does eventually find in favor of Napster, it will hopefully do so on other, unrelated grounds.
Re:Stop With The Napster Stories (Score:2)
However, the computer as a whole is not such a device. And since this is about Napster, the network interface, hard drive, and Napster software and servers are certainly not "digital audio recording devices".
As others have pointed out, be careful what you wish for. If your computer components qualify under the act, you can legally make copies. On the other hand, you will end up paying a record industry tax as well as having to install a anti-piracy system.
The AHRA provides the music industry with two principal benefits relating to digital audio recording technology. First, the Act requires manufacturers of "digital audio recording devices" to incorporate circuitry that prevents serial copying. 17 U.S.C. 1001(11), 1002. Second, the Act requires manufacturers of "digital audio recording devices" and "digital audio recording media" to pay prescribed royalties into a fund that is distributed to copyright holders. Id. 1003-1007. The royalty payment system is administered by the Copyright Office. Id. 1005, 1007.
(How the CD-R industry gets around this is an interesting question. Perhaps they are just careful about their 'marketing'.)
According to a Slashdot comment the other day, Microsoft has already stepped forward to help enforce these provisions. Apparently, Windows ME includes "rights management software" down even to the device driver level.
Now, either Microsoft just doing these guys a favor, or (worse) they are actually getting ready for the big shakedown, or (even worse) they are actively planning it as soon as enough "rights managed" seats are out there. And, depending on the interpretation of the act, it might actually be illegal to distribute rippers which don't comply to the industry's copy management specs. Which probably rules out open source software.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2)
They were not trying to say that, under the DHRA, a computer is a digital recording device; the DHRA is extremely explicit that this is not the case.
They are merely saying that this is not relevant to the napster case.
Re:definition of theif is culture- and time-based (Score:2)
Microsoft purchased the rights to QDOS free and clear. There was no theft involved.
Anyone with an elementary understanding of the nature of copyright will realise that this argument is bullshit.
You don't pay to listen to the music. You're paying for a license to have a copy of copyrighted material.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Re:A note to the /. editors: (Score:2)
timothy, it's not that we don't want the stories you cover. We like what everyone else has to say, we just don't want to hear what you have to say, unless it's in the discussion and you get modded like everyone else. We can't turn off the editorial comments, and we can't mod them down. This actually contributes to the problem because you editors know that and are thus more reckless.
Re:Stop With The Napster Stories (Score:2)
You are mixing SERVICES with PRODUCT. If a doctor looks at my hand, and listens to my cough, thats 30 minutes he CAN'T look at somebody else's hand or listen to their cough.
This is interesting I think... (Score:2)
THis statement would seem to say that non-commercial copying is non-actionable.
What it seems to say, in more detail, is that the use of a digital recording device (etc...) for noncommercial use by a consumer is not actionable.
This same act, however, explicity says that a home PC Is *NOT* a digital recording device for purposes of the act.
Very interesting..... so although pc's are exempt from serial copy protection, they are also exempt from the exemption...
Re:definition of theif is culture- and time-based (Score:2)
which world do you live in?
I live in the one where big business wins and the little guy just tries to not get squashed in the process.
can you be so naive that you think writing to those in the pocket of big business power will care about us little guys?
--
I love it when it's this easy!!! (Score:2)
>give some examples of where they took place,
>hypothetical uses won't cut it...
I have personally, and repeatedly (and NOT hypothetically), used Napster to down load MP3 tracks of:
The Smashing Pumpkins,
Keoki,
Spooky,
Less Than Jake,
Limp Bizkit,
Mustard Plug,
The Offspring,
The Pilfers, and
Social Distortion.
... all of who have spoken publiclly and enthauasticlly in support of Napster.
I have also used it to gather MP3s of bands that, while not (to my knowledge) haven spoken out specificlly in favor of Napster, have historiclly supported their fans' right to record and trade their music: mainly Phish here... the Greatful Dead were well before my time.
All of the above are non-hypothetical "legitimate" uses of Napster, and would remain so even if the RIAA/metallica and its lackys are sucessful in destroying the fair use principle.
Now, as I recall, the Sony Betamax case DID rule that where there ARE legitimate uses, the technology IS legal. Too bad the RIAA/metallica has been able to buy so many politicians in the meantime.
Care to try again?
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Nice response (Score:2)
Corporatization (Score:2)
(yes, the Libertarian party and Reform party have some overlap here, but I disagree with each fundamentally on several topics...in all though, I'd say that there is a great mandate for a real non-establishment, reform/progressive third party, in whatever flavor it comes)
Re:A fair trade off?? (Score:2)
I think I agree with you. I just went to see Queensryche a few months ago, and Iron Maiden, Queensryche and Rob Halford just last week. None of them are ever on MTV AFAIK (unless they have some sort of special time for playing those kinds of bands, I don't know.. I haven't watched MTV in years). You're right that even when it gets down to the concerts, Ticketmaster is right there next to the record company, hoovering up our dollars. There was a $6.50 service charge on each ticket I bought last week. In addition to that, they use the movie theater trick of prohibiting you from bringing in anything to drink, and then charging 3 bucks for a cup of water. This is an area where it would be nice to see a change. More competition would be a good start.
Re:definition of theif is culture- and time-based (Score:3)
This is from http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html [aaxnet.com] :
Re:Napster (Score:2)
Actually, it's not so clear cut as that. The people using Napster are obviously violating copyright laws, yes, but does that mean that Napster is? Personally, I think it is in extremely bad taste to try to make money off of widespread copyright violation, but it is happening around the country with mp3 players and various services.
More obviously, in my eyes, is the fact that it is absolutely idiotic of the RIAA to bother trying to stamp out Napster. They should have tried to cut a deal with them a long time ago, I could easily envision a symbiotic relationship between the two, with all the advertising and glitz and shiny things of EmptyV. They could both stand to make some serious money out of such a relationship.
It seems that the RIAA is too control-hungry to even consider such a tactic; the mere *thought* of people being able to download any song at any time without having to pay anything sends them into conniptions(sp). They are stuck to this business model. I think it will eventually kill them, because it has been proven time and time again that it is very difficult to stop information from proliferating. Maybe they will learn.
Well, here's a suggestion... (Score:4)
The main problem I have with a lot of Slashdot posters is that they like to bitch and moan about things to look wise and intelligent to the moderators, but they never do anything constructive about the issues brought up.
Re:MPAA/RIAA are not "over-large corporations" (Score:2)
I knew already that the MPAA and RIAA are entities of themselves. Not only representing the big 5, but all the artists (yea right :)
But I'll disagree that we need to learn to differentiate the difference. I think many of the masses are swept away with the idea that the RIAA is a separate entity. "Oh it must be ok, some acronymed-group in charge of Artist's rights are taking care of it". ---When in fact the RIAA is 99.999% geared towards the Big 5's goals.
So I guess when I say RIAA=Big 5, I'd like to portray it that way, so that others will see through the smoke too.
However, except for that personal point of mine, I agree with the information you presented, and unfortunately agree with the last paragraph.
Rader
Times They Are A-Changing (Score:2)
Re:Shut it down (Score:2)
I'm not siding with anyone. I'm stating an opinion I hold that has nothing to do with anything the RIAA has said or done.
Use of Napster to download copyrighted works makes you a thief; whether or not you were one in the first place is irrelevant.
Musicians make music, for the most part, because thay have something to express. The needs of the people who choose to listen to their music have nothing to do with it.
If something is free, it cannot be a luxury. For a large section of the population, water is a luxury, and it shouldn't be.
You want, you want, you want but you sure as hell don't need what you are using Napster to steal.
Oh! Was that an insult?
I guess I should go cry then.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Re:Stop With The Napster Stories (Score:2)
This is a valid point.
If it costs money to produce (information) then money will be charged for production (this is ECONS 101).
Just because it costs money to produce something, it does not logically follow that you are entitled to receive money. It costs money to raise a child and release him into the world as a healthy adult, so who are you going to charge? In a world without IP, you will obviously spend your money doing things that will lead to reimbursement, if making money is your aim. The absence of IP won't stop you from making money. Your business model might have to change though. If you spend money on a business model that depend on the protection of IP laws and expect to be paid, then you would be wasting your time and money.
Indie bands give away music - Yes, to gain mindshare.
It's all about mindshare for the vast majority of artists. Precious few make any money on IP. Most make it on live shows. So they want the word out (mindshare) so attendence will be good. Musicians do not need IP to make a living. The absence of IP will not make a dent in the lives of the vast majority of working musicians. It will make it hard for those in the musical pork barrel industry that grafts itself onto musicians' backs.
It it not OK for corporations to put GPL in their closed source code because we currently live in under laws enforcing the antiquated notion of IP. GPL is an IP weapon of war that uses the mechanisms of IP itself. If IP were no longer allowed, then the GPL would no longer hold. But then it would no longer be necessary either.
Re:Well Napster does.... (Score:3)
Of course this isn't the case, any more than ftp or the world wide web is illegal. The shared model may be legally used in various ways, and it is this capacity for legal use that makes Napster's conduct noncontributory, per the Sony Betamax case.
The Ninth Circuit has already stayed the injunction on the ground that there remained substantial questions on the form and the merits, and there are sound arguments (not addressed by the White House brief) why the judge's preliminary ruling should be overturned.
So relax, be cool, and don't presuppose the legal battle is lost. Time will tell.
Re:plain facts on head, I think (Score:2)
Likewise... (Score:3)
Re:Stop With The Napster Stories (Score:2)
Quite, but not perfectly substitutable. People would rather pay to listen to a band they like than listen to music they don't like for free.
Same goes with books, computer games, movies, etc.
However, by colluding to restrict the supply of music, the record companies minimize their costs and ensure high prices.
Yes, there are monopoly forces at work here - it's called intellectual property.
"I did not have . ." (Score:3)
"I did not..have..sexual relations..with that drummer...Mr. Ulrich."
get some perspective (Score:2)
of course the DMCA is absurd (and dangerous). of course the MPAA's fight over DeCSS is simple-minded. but i get increasingly frustrated by the knee-jerk reactions this site has to anything that impedes anything in the digital realm. Napster is nothing if not a well capitalized black market for artists' work. You have to apply the same fundamental property rights to the digital world as you have in the physical world or else all property rights become pointless. downloading songs for free is a hard sell on the 'fair use' provision, and Napster has no other purpose aside from providing a black market.
why should ebay be allowed to sell stuff like tortoise shells and get away with "i'm sorry, we'll try and stop that next time"? if that were a local Kmart, they would've been forced out of business. either do away with property rights laws or at least make them consistent for both the digital and physical worlds.
Re:Stop With The Napster Stories (Score:2)
I've read your post a six or seven times and I'm amazed at the amount of circular logic
that you used in your argument. The only reason I didn't respond to your post that replied mine is because I left my PC shortly after posting to Slashdot and hadn't checked my users.pl page until
a few minutes ago.
I will only comment on the most unrigorous of your comments.
>>The RIAA rips off artists. So if they are already getting ripped off then that makes it OK for you to rip them off?
>Huh? MP3s get ripped from the ripper off-ers.
Ripping Off means "to cheat".
Ripping in some circles means obtaining an MP3 file from a CD track.
>>if it is OK to pirate music then it is OK to pirate software after all the rhetoric is the same and information
>>wants to be free.
>not exactly right, but you are on the right track. It's OK because it is not piracy to steal from pirates.
This is beyond illogical.
>And a number of the points I raised speak to the actual circumstances, not just the fact that people are selling
>copyrighted material.Look at video rental: nobody bothers to rent and copy videos because they don't cost much.
Music on Napster is free. Are you suggesting that artists should spend time and money creating music simply
to give it away to satisfy your need for free music?
No matter how cheap music becomes nothing changes the fact that it is FREE on Napster.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Now to comment on your the post I am replying to.
>Witness the open software movement: now those
>are artists who produce because they can't do >anything else. seems to me intellectual property
>laws protect the uncreative, it's the straw they
>cling to.
Bullshit. These so-called artists work at jobs that use Intellectual Property frequently to restrict the free flow of information, they merely give away their hobbyist work. The most notable example of this is Linus Torvalds that works for Transmeta that has PATENTED the various processes in the Crusoe implemnentation.
By the way, patents are the MOST restrictive form of IP.
PS: Then again maybe this validates your claim that Patents are used by the uncreative
Re:OK, here's where I draw the line. (Score:2)
I do mind if Napster loses on the grounds that music file exchange is against the law. I will be dependent on music file exchange to advertise my music to listeners who might then buy a CD from me direct. You _cannot_ argue people into liking music. You have to play it for them and see if they like it... if music exchange over the net is forbidden that leaves only radio- and it's damned impossible to get on radio, even if you _are_ a major label act (but not 'doing tonnage').
If you want to share your music with people then do so! Send it to mp3.com or one of the many other legal mp3 hosting web sites. Or host it on your own web site. There is absolutely nothing stopping artists (fledgling and otherwise) from doing this.
Re:Napster (Score:2)
Trading copyrighted music might be illegal, but I don't see it as wrong.
As far as Napster goes, it doesn't violate any copyright laws. It's a great conduit for illegal materials, but then again, so is just about anything else. Name one Internet protocol or application that isn't in some way used for trafficking pirated materials.
--
Re:Napster (Score:2)
Remember, too, that Junior agrees with this approach to the law, while Dubya would likely side with whichever set of corporate cronies had his ear. Vote Browne!
Re:Napster (Score:2)
Re:Shut it down (Score:2)
I'm not in denial about it.
What Napster is doing is facilitating theivary. The differnece between it and DeCSS, is that most people would have used DeCSS for legal reasons. Such as Linux DVD players that don't make you watch the trailers.
It is much easier to find illegal songs then legal ones on Napster. If your looking for legal songs, the convential internet is better as you get a fast reliable connection, unlike Napster with its Cable and Analog modems that are going on and offline. What makes Napster better is that it has illegal songs.
Re:OK, here's where I draw the line. (Score:2)
Unlike what some people seem to think, you _cannot_ 'support' me by buying stuff at this time. I don't have the capacity to make CDs on my own yet. I'm trying to get it together as fast as I possibly can, and I'm even kind of excited because I know I can do it better than mp3.com did.
I am amused, in a sick way, at the several posts I've seen that attack me as a greedy self interested person. Um, leaving aside my socialist tendencies and the amount of effort I put into helping others and sharing information, I thought to be a good little slashdottenlibertarian I was _supposed_ to be greedy? Perhaps it's a case of '_I_ am a real go-getter, _you_ talk too much, _he_ is a greedy little pest'. *g*
Though frankly I guess I could be much worse off- I could support Gnome or KDE (run away! incoming flamewar!)
Moreso than you think.... (Score:2)
It is, in a way, about social justice. The recording, movie, and television industries (among others) have long been lobbying and bribing our government into screwing over the people of this country by warping copyright and patent law. There is little or no public debate allowed. These things tend to be passed with little fanfare or media coverage. The DMCA was passed with a voice vote so we can't even know how our reps voted on it. While most people who are using Napster are doing it just to get the music, many of us would like to see Napster succeed simply as a blow to the industries that have been trying to have their cake and eat it too. (don't even start about the stupid metaphor)
They keep pushing and pushing for more and more control. It's about time they start meeting some resistance. While I don't expect Napster to succeed (and I really couldn't care less about the company itself), I can at least appreciate that they've helped draw some attention to the current state of copyright law, and probably provoked people into creating much better systems for distributing music and other media that are going to be a lot harder to get rid of. The more we keep this fight in the light where people can see what's going on, the more chance we have of getting people to really start paying attention. That's bad for them since they really don't want people to think about what's happened over the last 30 years or so. They want people to blindly accept that they should have the right to own creative works in perpetuity and control all access to those works. I'd like to see people start getting pissed off about that. I'd like to see people demand that copyright terms be shortened and demand that many of the works that should have passed into the public domain long ago be put there now.
Re:A fair trade off?? (Score:3)
Have you been to a good concert lately? There are thousands of people that paid $45 or more just to watch the band play for a couple hours. These people go out and buy the band's outrageously overpriced cds. Do you really think that they would balk at forking over a few bucks directly to the artist rather than the record company? Hell no. They'd jump at the chance. I know I would. There are a lot of bands out there that I really like and respect. I wouldn't hesitate to buy their cds and other merchandise. I just can't stomach the fact that the vast majority of the money i'm paying for cds now goes to the record industry which spends most of its time trying to figure out ways to screw me over and take further control over the music I buy. Give me a way to get the music I want directly from the artists and I'll be a very happy person.
Napster is doomed folks, move on. (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, I love it and use it, but the type of function that Napster performs is never going to be given the carried out by a publically traded company.
Arguably this is healthy - it pushes us towards real distributed file sharing like Freenet.
As for you folks considering changing your vote - be real - neither party in the duocracy would consent to this.
But... (Score:2)
Brilliant. Guns kill people, and Naster is illegal (Score:2)
Premise: Guns kill people.
Action: Make guns illegal.
Result: Guns can't kill people anymore!
Premise: Napster copies files illegally.
Action: Make Napster ilegal.
Result: People can't copy files illegally anymore!
Anybody see flaws in this logic? Napster doesn't break the law anymore than a handgun does. Stopping/slowing the legal sale of guns is about as effective as making Napster illegal.
Gun Workaround: Buy your guns on the black market.
Napster Workaround: Go back to 1998, using ftp sites for your mp3's.
A note to the /. editors: (Score:5)
For example, CmdrTaco recently aired his opinion that George W. Bush can, in not so many words, go suck his nuts. Since there was no evidence or even argument offered to support such an ad hominem attack, a large number of
My concern with your comments appears in this sarcastic comment: "If you define your terms correctly, black is white and 2+2=5, too.". Now, there is no possible way no matter how you define the terms that 2+2=5, or that total visible light spectrum absorption (black) can be the same as total light reflection (white). But I don't really have a problem with factual errors, because I've grown accustomed to them in
What I am concerned with, just as in the Bush example, is that such comments add nothing valuable to either my knowledge or to the discussion, i.e. is a waste of time. Instead of pointing out that there are systems that are primarily built for audio use (specialty audio systems used for recording, or even CD MP3 players) you instead make flippant remarks to simply try to point out how stupid the other side is. This is not news, and it is certainly not stuff that matters. Such comments can and do incite posters (as flamebait) that in fact hinder rational and constructive discussion, and I would ask you and the other
Stop With The Napster Stories (Score:5)
For months I have watched people on Slashdot justify violating copyright with crap like
There's no law that says you must own all the latest music. Humanity has lasted centuries without Metallica and Britney Spears, and the fact that you can't play their music at anytime will not kill you. People in third world countries don't hear the latest songs and I don't see them dying of "lack of music" so where does this feeling that you have to have popular come from.
What the fuck does this mean? If it costs money to produce then money will be charged for production (this is ECONS 101). It costs a doctor nothing to look at a rash on my hand or listen to my cough and get a diagnosis, but it costs money for me to get this service. Guess why? It cost a lot of money to imbue the doctor with his knowledge and to provide the doctor with medical equipment. The only information that wants to be free is information that is valueless.
Yes, to gain mindshare. Every indie band that is doing so, is doing this so as to obtain mindshare similar to all the Loss Leader dotcomms whose business plans are routinely trashed on slashdot
- The RIAA rips off artists.
This is my response to all the Napster loving slashdotters. If it is OK for you to violate copyright laws by illegally downloading RIAA sponsored music, then why isn't it OK for corporations to incorporate GPLed code in their closed source products? After all information wants to be free and they should be free to do whatever they want with the information in the GPLed code.So if they are already getting ripped off then that makes it OK for you to rip them off? The current system favors independent artists who instead of selling their souls to the RIAA create their own brand and market themselves. Such as my [triplesix.com] favorite [cashmoney-records.com] labels [nolimitrecords.com]. The Napster regime will only favor Napster. The artists make no money while Napster reaps funds from selling demographic info and advertising to 20 million users.
I guess that violates the intention of the authors of the code similar to how downloading copyrighted music from Napster violates the intentions of the copyright holders.
PS: Supporting Napster is no different from supporting w4r3z d00d5. If it is OK to pirate music then it is OK to pirate software after all the rhetoric is the same and information wants to be free.
Re:Brilliant. Guns kill people, and Naster is ille (Score:2)
Here's an Introduction to Analogies: the analogy should be something obviously true, that almost everyone agrees with. Many (myself included) do not agree that guns should be fully legal. Several studies have shown gun control to be effective (look at violent crime rates in Canada and the US, for instance). Of course, I'm sure several have shown it to be ineffective -- either way, the issue is even more controversial and uncertain than that of Napster.
Re:Shut it down (Score:2)
I left out this vital point in my initial post, thus leaving the thought incomplete.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Re:Shut it down (Score:2)
No. What I believe is going on here is that a bunch of whiny kids who were getting something for nothing are trying to turn their petty theft into some kind of big moral issue. It's not. They're thieves, and deserve to have their means of theft taken away from them. Doing this is easy in this case, as their means of theft, Napster Inc., aided and abetted in said theft through their inaction.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2)
Certainly, for a car-mp3 player, sold as such, this may not apply (it's not a PC anymore). I suppose companies like empeg and such could be open to being sued for breach of AHRA. However.. it could easily be argued that the empeg and such are not recording devices. recording MUST happen elsewhere, they only playback.
And this applies to manufacturing and sale. Just because you plan to use the home computer for music is not relevant to the AHRA.
THe point, though, is that, because they DID exclude computers from SCMS, they also excluded them from the exemption (the 'not actionable' stuff).
It's interesting.
And from what I recall of the committee that designed the ahra, they were VERY explicit that personal computers were to be exempt from the act; they did not want the growing computer industry stifled by the music industry.
Re:This is interesting I think... (Score:2)
Re:one of my pc's is JUST for audio use (Score:2)
Re:Stop With The Napster Stories (Score:4)
I quote: '...though we say "All information should be free", it is not. Information is power and currency of the virtual world we inhabit, so mistrust Authority.'; points for identifying the quote.
You can read the lengthier version in the actual Cyberpunk Manifesto, but I think this is what we mean when we say "Information wants to be free", or more generally, "All Information should be free"...
Actually, lots of bands give away music. I realize that radio is paid for by advertisements, but that money doesn't go to the artists; the publicity does. And yes, the RIAA does rip off artists, and I favor any system that cuts them out of the picture. Hence, me not buying CD's...
Napster won't make any money from me trying to sell demographic info; what makes you think I'd give it to them? I have no idea what their privacy policy is, either, but there's something else that needs some work...
Also, nowhere in your argument do you touch on copyright or downloading. Napster provides a service much like Samba or FTP; it's a file-sharing protocol. And once you pick a file to download, it's a point-to-point transaction. The only people involved in violating copyright law are individual people, and they might or might not be doing this on a case-by-case basis. However, in many cases, the RIAA offers no recourse even *to* copyright holders.
Let us assume for the moment that when I buy a tape, I'm actually just buying a license to listen to that music. Does that mean that I can trade in my tape for a CD? What rights do I have? If I buy a CD, and rip the mp3's, and share them, can someone else who bought the tape download my mp3's? They should have a license for the same music, and therefore no violation could take place. If I'm wrong here, please explain why in detail, because if I *didn't* buy a license, then I'd be pissed. That's how copyright is supposed to work, and that's how the RIAA claims it does. If it doesn't, well, CD's should be easily $8 cheaper, and freely distributable, or the RIAA should be sued into the ground for not giving us our rights in the first place (a class-action suit for damages over the past 50 years should cover it, thank you. This includes the consumers and the artists.)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:Well Napster does.... (Score:2)
> front of the bus and it also was illegal for
> those guys in Boston awhile ago to dump all that
> tea in the harbor.
Whoa, downloading songs I never bought is just as
right as standing up for basic Human Rights or protesting taxation
without representation.
Guess I can hum Glory, Glory Haleluia, put a
U.S. flag on a background, and polish my musket
all while sitting at the PC grabbing Metallica.
So nice to see the world so simply reduced
to black and white!
Re:Um... (Score:2)
Well, you can actually define terms that way (Score:3)
Errr... overall good post...however...
: "If you define your terms correctly, black is white and 2+2=5, too.". Now, there is no possible way no matter how you define the terms that 2+2=5, or that total visible light spectrum absorption (black) can be the same as total light reflection (white).
Let +: ( R x R ) -> R be defined
+(x,y) = x (+) y (+) 1 where (+) is standard addition; x,y are in R
As shorthand, we write +(x,y) = x + y
Theorem: + is a binary operation on R
Proof: Let x,y be in R. Then x+y = x (+) y (+) 1 is in R as (+) is a binary operation on R
x + (y + z) = x + (y (+) z (+) 1) = x (+) (y (+) z (+) 1) (+) 1 = x (+) y (+) 1 (+) z (+) 1 = (x (+) y (+) 1) (+) z (+) 1 = (x + y) + z
Q.E.D.
Theorem: (R,+) is a group.
Proof: Exercise left to another poster.
So in this algebraic structure, 2 + 2 = 2 (+) 2 (+) 1 = 4 (+) 1 = 5
OK, here's where I draw the line. (Score:5)
I do mind if Napster loses on the grounds that music file exchange is against the law. I will be dependent on music file exchange to advertise my music to listeners who might then buy a CD from me direct. You _cannot_ argue people into liking music. You have to play it for them and see if they like it... if music exchange over the net is forbidden that leaves only radio- and it's damned impossible to get on radio, even if you _are_ a major label act (but not 'doing tonnage').
I _particularly_ mind if it is made illegal to rip audio CDs under fair use. I am determined to allow people to do that with my CDs. If this is ever called into question I will unhesitatingly conspire to solicit illegal CD ripping, by encouraging people to make mp3s or whatever out of my CDs, just as I always have. I foresee a time when the RIAA wins against Napster and goes on to make all CD ripping illegal- and that's when they begin really stepping on _my_ toes.
If I was then taken to court for this, I would have intense satisfaction in testifying that I produced all the music, bought the CD blank (paying a tax to the RIAA in doing so), burned it myself, made the label which says 'noncommercial copying OKAY' on it myself, sold it to the customer with the full intention of permitting them to make as many copies as they wished- and then I would ask, what exactly is the justification for forbidding me to do this? It's my music, CD, burner and customer, and I already paid tax to something that does me no good at all and only takes money from me to give to my competition.
In a way I almost hope all this comes to pass so I have such a chance to put a common sense situation before the courts. I already dislike paying tax on CD-R media to prop up the RIAA which is trying to destroy me- the next step is clearly for them to forbid consumers from ever ripping CDs, or exchanging any sort of digital music over the net, and they _will_ escalate it and keep pushing until that state is reached- and at that point they are legally blocking my right to set DIFFERENT terms for my 'music customers', ones that I might feel are not only fair but are a damn good selling point assuming they like the music anyway.
Things are bad, but I promise, they could be _much_ worse- and I'm committed to operating as a direct-selling recording studio legally, going underground does not hold any appeal for me at all. I have a _right_ to sell my CDs and deal with their IP as I choose, they are mine and I am copyright holder and that gives me the right. I will know _exactly_ when the RIAA goes over the line, and they are treacherously close to it right now and could go unbelievably far over it, and probably will.
Again, I don't mind if Napster loses- because I am thinking of the _intent_ here, and obviously the RIAA labels have _no_ intent to share music, obviously the wishes of those copyright holders are being totally squashed. They should be respected- this makes COMPETITION and allows people (arguably more savvy people! ;) ) like me to specifically allow such trading- giving us traders a big advantage, giving our music MORE VALUE because you can do more with it and you can make copies of it and put it on a server for when you travel and etc etc etc the sky's the limit.
Certain types of IP law will over-reach, not only respecting the RIAA labels' wishes, but denying the wishes of someone like me through legislative action. And _that_ is where I draw the line. Let the RIAA do _whatever_ with the stuff they own- but keep their *&&^$^@#& hands off MY property!
Re:definition of theif is culture- and time-based (Score:2)
What seems "natural" to people (be it in this case "buying" music and then having a right to listen to it on any media they choose) isn't what the law enforces.
Thus, the law ought to be changed.
Copyright law in its current state does not necessarily represent All That Is Morally Right, and arguing from the viewpoint that it does gets you nowhere with those who disagree -- just like quoting the Bible while trying to convert someone.
Re:Stop With The Napster Stories (Score:2)
Again, you've been misinformed. Live shows are how the vast majority of working musicians make their money. You're simply wrong when you say album sales generate more money because the typical musician doesn't even have an album. And the typical musician who does have an album (I know many) does not make much at all selling it compared to what they make playing clubs. That's a fact.
Re:The collective thoughts of Napster supporters.. (Score:2)
The existence or nonexistence of IP laws will affect everyone's business models, not just artists. But if you really want to know if there are artists going to the poor house because of Napster, I can tell you unequivocally no!
It's a well known fact that you have to have an album doing platinum or better to generate significant artist royalties from sales of CD. Up until that point, all royalties are taken by the label to recoup the cost of producing the CD - to pay off their buddies at the studio, their buddies in promotion, their buddies in every part of the pork barrel. The typical working artist will never go platinum, so royalies are a moot point. They survive off of live shows and do not see royalties. You are definitely not hurting them. The exceptional artist that is platinum or better could be affected by royalties, but will already be rich selling out big venues. And even if they are platinum, royalties aren't guaranteed - see that VH-1 episode about the Goo Goo Dolls for an example of this. Their #1 song "Name" was all over the airwaves and they were extremely popular. They album was platinum. They got home from their tour and found a royalty statement in their mailbox - it said they still owed the label six figures for production costs. They had to pay for that and all the legal fees in the ensuing battle by going out and touring some more! And theirs is not an isolated story.
This is not an issue that affects musicians much at all. It mainly affect the pork barrel practices of the labels, but has been recast into a "protect the musician" fight because they believe their case will be more appealing that way. Notice how they haven't been able to find a poster child musician whose gone to the poor house to hold up as an example of the damage napster has done. If there was such an orrurance, you can bet your ass that they would be using it as propaganda!
Live shows have always been how the typical musician makes their money. They will continue to make money this way. They will not miss royalties they never recieved. The typical musician on mp3.com gets more money from downloading "pay for play" royalties than they ever would from label royalties, even though the "pay for play" royalties amount to a paltry sum. Any amount of tipping over the internet will exceed the typical royalty payment ($0) that the typical musician recieves.
The bottom line is that we do not need to have "Intellectual Property" around for musicians to make the same or better money than they do now. Getting rid of Intellectual Property would restore a lot of our personal freedoms, but would not place musicians in more financial danger than the current situation. It might bust open the pork barrels in the music industry, but that's fine with me.
We don't need labels anymore anyway. I have a 16 track hard disk based digital studio with 8 channels of effects that can burn straight to CDR via SCSI port, and it's small enough to sit in my lap. I cost $2000 - far, far less than a typical studio session. I can sell my CD off of mp3.com and get a 50% royalty (more than any label offers), and get royalties for every download of one of my songs that are subsidised by their banner ads (a paltry sum, but more than the $0 a typical artists gets from labels as royalties). I can generate interest in my live shows using the net.
That's more studio power and self promotion power than the Beatles ever had. I'm limited only by my own performance and creativity. We don't need the labels anymore. They became self-serving a long time ago.
Old Joke (Score:4)
------------------------
A couple went on vacation to a fishing resort up north. The husband liked to fish at the crack of dawn; the wife preferred to read. One morning the husband returned after several hours of fishing and decided to take a short nap. The wife decided to take the boat out. She was not familiar with the lake so she rowed out, anchored the boat, and started reading her book.
Along comes the sheriff in his boat, pulls up alongside and says, "Good morning, Ma'am. What are you doing?"
"Reading my book," she replies as she thinks to herself, Is this guy blind or what?
"You're in a restricted fishing area," he informs her.
"But, Officer, I'm not fishing. Can't you see that?"
"But you have all this equipment, ma'am. I'll have to take you in and write you up."
"If you do that I will charge you with rape," snaps the irate woman.
"I didn't even touch you," grouses the sheriff.
"Yes, that's true
------------------------
Re:definition of theif is culture- and time-based (Score:4)
I bought LPs. I bought cassettes. I bought cd's. damned if I'm going to rebuy THE SAME MUSIC yet again - I've already paid for the same performance several times over. (I know many people who double-paid, trying to replace their albums with cd's. if that's not double-paying, I don't know what is.)
I don't claim to know the subtleties of copywrite law; my point is that property laws change over time based on how society at that time views things. why, not long ago, it was legal in the US to own another human being. that law got changed since society gradually evolved to something better than it was. now there's a re-thinking and re-evaluation of what society is willing to pay and re-pay for. just saying that we once thought it was ok to pay royalties for past performances doens't mean that's the way it will always end up being.
--