Implications For Software Like Napster And Gnutella? 223
vsync64 asks: "My employer hosts the main Gnutella site, and with the recent ruling against Napster, our servers are being pretty much crushed by the flood of Napster refugees. I'm wondering how much longer people believe this software will be usable. Obviously, given past events such as the whole DeCSS thing, the software will never disappear. Since there is a long tradition of "piracy" and sharing, going back to world-writable FTP sites, IRC channels, and BBSes, the practice won't disappear. I'm just curious as to what options the government and major corporations have in trying to stop it. They could probably get the software removed from the main sites, and possibly enact legislation to criminalize 'systems [and software] for the primary purpose of violating copyright', but what would the media and the unwashed masses think of this? Could copyright violation become stigmatized, much as smoking has, or could such an action be the final straw that turns public opinion against the large corporations once and for all?"
So, lets see if I have this right... (Score:1)
Re:Try stiffening the penalties... (Score:1)
Re:Copyrights violations (Score:1)
That assumption couldn't be more wrong. If there were no copyright, then there would only be two types of source code:
First, there would be public domain code. All open source projects would fall into this category. This code would be open, available, and owned nobody and controlled by noone. Anyone could use this code for any purpose.
Second, there would be code that nobody ever sees. Individuals and organizations who wanted to produce closed-source software would have to shield, obscure, and otherwise protect their code with contracts, usage licenses, and security.
The big difference would be that the public domain code would have no protection whatsoever from being absorbed by closed-source projects. There would be no protection for programmers who wished to enforce their choice of open source development on others.
In a world without copyright (and therefore no GPL) there would be nothing to prevent Microsoft from using any and all of the Linux kernel code in their own closed-source products. Without copyright protection, if your code was open, it would have to be public domain.
It is copyright law, and nothing else, that gives the GPL its teeth. Don't believe for a minute that the lack of copyright protection will somehow eliminate all closed-source software. The truth is, without the protection of copyright, there's no middle ground and we'd see less, not more open-source code.
Anyone who was around and using software in the late seventies and early eighties knows exactly what the software world would look like without copyright. Back when nobody knew what "software" meant, it was very unclear exactly how much protection copyright offered for software. Copyright law took several years to mature and adapt to the computer revolution and during that period the growing pains were sharp and harsh.
Would we really want to return to the days of dongles, hardware copy protection, usage contracts, and burdensome licenses? Without copyright, that's what software houses would have to fall back upon to protect their intellectual property. It wasn't until copyright established itself in the software world that we were finally able to move past those cumbersome and ineffecient methods.
If this concept bothers you, ask yourself why? The foundation of the GPL is that programmers should have the right to dictate how their code is used. If you accept the GPL, you accept that a programmer has an inherent right of control over their code that they can then be able to say "this code should never be used in a closed-source program".
How is it that programmers should have this right and musicians should not? Why should software have protections that music should not? Shouldn't a musician have the same degree of control and be able to say "this song shouldn't be made freely available"?
While I'm sure you'd love to write off the "GPLNet" guy (cid #17 [slashdot.org]) as just a simple troll, this isn't the case. The theoretical GPLnet that the AC proposes circumvents the wishes of GPL programmers in the same manner that napster circumvents the wishes of artists who do not wish to have their music freely distributed. Instead of calling those on the other side of the argument trolls and stating your opinion as if it was an undisputable truth, why don't you take a stab at actually supporting your position with some reasoning and logic. Then, perhaps, we could take your opinion seriously.
Re:Generation Gap (Score:1)
Re:IANAL (Score:1)
Makes sense. Thanks!
--Joe--
Re:Copyrights violations (Score:1)
While true on a pedantic level, the reality is, in the absence of copyright, authors of software would have many fewer reasons to sit on the source if they're distributing the binary.
--Joe--
Re:Copyrights violations (Score:1)
Yes, I did, and yes, my position is largely based on opinion and I don't have a room full of hard data to back me up. I'm not sure you completely understood what I was saying, but still, you did point out that I have some hidden assumptions I'm making. I don't believe they're entirely unreasonable.
First, let me point out that I did not say that people would be motivated to share source. Rather, I said they would be less motivated to sit on it. It's an important distinction. I still believe there are cases where companies would sit on their source code, for good reasons or bad, but in the grand scheme of things, there would be sufficient shared software that the unshared portions would be a minority of all software, rather than a majority. In the long run, that may cause things to shift so that companies are motivated to share their source as well, but that's a ways off. In general though, things will be more open.
Why do I feel this would be so?
When you look at the current state of intellectual property laws, all of the current pieces have grown up together in an intertwined fashion, such that it's often difficult to tell where one set of laws ends and another begins. (Notice how people invariably confuse copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets, even here on Slashdot. Each is a distinct concept, but they all protect intellectual property in some way.)
Because all of the pieces are built on each other, you cannot remove one piece without changing the others accordingly. A political climate that would result in copyright being pared back to its original scope (limited monopoly on creative output, rather than the unrestricted monopoly in perpetuity that it is becoming) would inherently also see patent laws weakened somewhat. To compensate, likely trade-secret and trademark laws may offer more protections, but with greater restrictions and/or finer-granularity of control rather than the broad claims that are allowed presently. Mainly, you'd see the focus shift from "protecting the past" to "protecting the present and future". By this, I mean that we would no longer focus on protecting Steamboat Willy (one of the first Mickey Mouse cartoons) or even Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy, but instead on protecting whatever I've created today or will create tomorrow.
In the present market, copyright protections actually favor existing works over new works, since existing works have proven commercial viability whereas new works do not. New works can be phased in as they prove their commercial viability, and then milked for all they're worth once proven, or buried when shown to be unviable in the volumes that big business desires. The current copyright protections (many of which will extend into our grandchildrens' and/or great-grandchildrens' lifetimes for works that are being created right now) build an artificial market around nostalgia, and also serve to bury many aspects of our culture. Witness all of the recent hub-bub about arcade and video game emulation for games written 20 years ago. Those games are a huge part of our culture, but sharing them is illegal. Game companies today are only interested in selling you new games, because the old games don't have a broad-enough appeal, but simultaneously, they must fight illegal ROM distribution lest it erode their intellectual property rights -- they want / need to "bury" these old games.
The current copyright protections also act as a rudder that allows the larger companies which are producing content to steer our culture as they see fit. I don't particularly like that, as it means that themes which are unpopular with the content producers never get aired to any large extent. It also means that they can effectively control the speed of the so-called consumer treadmill. How often have you been forced to upgrade hardware because software vendors refuse to sell the older versions of their software that work fine for you on your old machine? What if I was happy with WordPerfect 5.2 running under MS-DOS 3.3 on a 286? Well, if I wanted to build that setup, I could legally acquire the 286, but I'd have a difficult time legally acquiring WP 5.2 or MS-DOS 3.3. (With most computer licenses these days, you couldn't even sell me your copy if you happened to have a copy -- even if you transferred all documentation and media to me!) I'm forced into a computer upgrade. Same story for musical tastes. What if I'm into a particular genre of music? If the group isn't a chart-topping million-seller, I'm going to have a difficult time finding their music. Even if I know someone who has a copy of the music, I can't make a copy of their music for myself legally, even if the group has been dead for 20 years. I need to stay inside the lines drawn for me by record companies.
One result of this over-protection is that most new works are often not all that great. They often don't represent great advances on any axis -- instead they're careful extensions of what's known to work. New software titles often seem to be the same as the old title, only with more useless eye-candy thrown in. (I probably use 1% of the new features in Word97 vs. Word95. Why should I need to upgrade?) Same with other media -- you end up with the vapid top-40s hits we have today, as well as uninspired movies and TV shows. (Exactly what percentage of sitcoms can be described as "put N quirky people into X awkward situation and wackiness ensues"?)
Another problem with the current copyright protections are that they prevent society from building on its past works to create new interpretations / derivations. This is an important creative avenue that one can only travel if one's pockets are deep enough. This again takes a measure of control out of the individual artists' hands and puts it in the "property" holder's hands. If I want to write a piece of fan-fiction, or write a new feature in a word-processor, or sample an existing song in a new song I'm making, I can only do this if I work for the right people, or can buy the rights to do so.
With shorter copyright protection, the emphasis shifts from "reproducing what works according to time tested formulas" to "let's do something new, because we no longer can keep selling the same old stuff." The very few new things we get these days are total crap-shoots (such as South Park). Where current copyright protections keep old works from competing with new, lesser copyright protections would add new competition in these markets. (Recall, as many have pointed out, Microsoft's largest competitor is itself. The same is true in all media, actually.) Now, companies would have to do more than just add a little more bloat in order to justify making a new version of software. Rather, they would actually have to add something truly useful and valuable to entice people onto the new platform. Disney might actually have to come up with something other than Mickey or one of their formulaic "Take characters from ancient story, write our own feel-good story around them, insert some talking animals for comic relief and sell to the masses." Creativity might actually return to media!
In a different vein, genres such as hip-hop / rap that were built on sampling and reusing old works as a substrate for new composition could return to their roots and sample once again. This flavor of music deserves special attention, actually, since it builds on sounds and samples which are familiar, but adds new lyrics and interpretations that truly are creative. After some landmark copyright lawsuits in the late 80s/early 90s (forget exactly when), this entire genre has been stifled. Albums such as the Beastie Boys Paul's Boutique aren't even possible nowadays, because, in the band's own words, it'd be too expensive to make. More limited copyright protections would enable these sorts of creative works (which, incidentally, bear only minimal resemblance to the originals and truly are new creative works) to be made once again.
Think about it. How many modern works incorporate various classical works, ranging from paintings such as the Mona Lisa, to songs (such as the Epson radio commercial which features music by Mozart), to sculptures (such as The David)?
Now considehr ow many modern works will be able to incorporate anything since World War II. Not many, unless you're doing under the auspices of Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch, or a handful of other media moguls.
Where does software fit in, and why would sitting on code be less important, then?
In much the same manner as General Motors provides detailed repair instructions for classic cars (largely to keep customers from bugging them I'm sure) and doesn't prevent people from sharing these with each other, software houses would have a vested interest in reducing their support burden for old versions of their software. Since old versions of their software would persist, one easy avenue would be to open-source it and say "We're not supporting this, but anyone who wants to may tinker with it." They would and should be too busy working on actual innovations to worry about the old software. This is the model that idSoftware follows with their software. They're busy making the next big game engine innovation (even if they're not changing gameplay much), such that the new game is quite a step forward from the one they've just open-sourced.
You mention dongles and other mechanisms (either legal or physical) for locking down software. Those mechanisms will certainly exist, but their scope will remain small as non-restricted software will always catch up. And if it doesn't, that's fine too -- the state of software has advanced rather than stagnated, and we're in good shape. At any rate, customers will find these restricted solutions less appealing than non-restricted counterparts, and the restricted versions will die a natural death unless they consistently deliver significant value over non-restricted versions. (How many people switched from Lotus 1-2-3 to Excel or Quattro Pro just to get around stupid interactions between COPYHARD.COM and disk defragmenters / backup-restore utilities?) Lack of planned / forced obsolesence becomes a selling point for software in such a market, as customers become accustomed to preserving their investment. They already do this today with in-house packages. (My employer, for instance, used the same internal email system for about 20 years, since they controlled it -- in contrast, since we use MS-Word for word processing, we have to upgrade whenever Microsoft tells us to, since it's nearly impossible not to. If solutions that offered more control were widely available, I'm sure we'd shift towards them over time.)
We're starting to see some of this with open-source software already, with companies and countries going with open source solutions in order to keep control in their own hands rather than in someone else's. With lesser copyright controls, you've removed some of this artificial control from the copyright holder's hands, and you've made having your own control a selling point.
Anyways, I've rambled enough on this point. Let me address one more:
As with all good jokes, all good trolls are built around a kernel of truth. However, trolls are constructed in such a way to incite rather than to inform or persuade. The original post is a troll. It does not seek to discuss the issue in a positive manner. I didn't feel the need to feed the troll all that heavily so I keep my original reply short and sweet.
So anyways, that's my reasoning. Not necessarily an irrefutable tower of formal logic, but not necessarily a complete morass of unsubstantiated bunk. I'd like to think I am advancing the discussion at least a little bit.
--Joe--
Re:GPLNet - the GNU freedom (Score:1)
This is neat, I've seen this same post on two different articles, and both times it's gotten mod'd up as (+1 Insightful). We have ourselves a new troll, the GPLNet troll. It's Saturday, I'm bored, I'll bite.
It definitely comes across as a "witty retort" to the GPL flag-wavers that also enjoy getting their music and pr0n for free off the net. What you're failing to realize, of course, is that if the copyright system weren't so overly biased towards Big Business and the general trend was towards sharing rather than hiding information, then licenses such as GPL wouldn't be necessary, and something like "GPLNet" would just be silly.
--Joe--
Re:IANAL (Score:1)
I Am Not A Lawyer
The one I haven't been able to figure out is HTH. In my best Ben Stein voice: Anyone? Anyone?
--Joe--
distributed networking (Score:1)
There is no threat.. there's thousands of geeks out there who won't let such brain-damaged behavior occur. This is our playground - I'll be damned if I'm going to let the toys I'm used to playing with be outlawed or sectioned off by any force, public or private. They can kiss my curvy butt, because there will always be atleast one of us out here who will fight to keep the 'net open.
So chill, ok? The imminent death of the 'net has been predicted since the early 80's.. it hasn't happened yet, it won't happen anytime soon.
Legislation, Bleh! (Score:1)
The only thing that can crush these services is the lack of internet bandwidth. If they get too popular, then they will become irrelevant under their own loads.
Re:Yes and no. (Score:1)
As for not for profit activities (a la Gnutella)... that's all fine and dandy, in my eyes. I just wish that people would have more respect for other peoples creations. Regardless, though, as long as no one but the creator or owner of a work is making money, it should be okay. but the moment that money changes hands, no matter how detatched it is from the transaction (advertising on a website offering mp3's for download, for instance) the first hand in line should be that of the creator or owner of a given work...
Now tell me, am I really a troll? Or just someone that you disagree with?
Re:Yes and no. (Score:1)
Movies would be made by studios paying producers totake writers scripts and making cinematic productions. Once their screen time ran out, they'ed be rented on these things called "Video cassettes" and "DVD's".
Companys' like Napster and lets say... "Videoster" would have no business creating software that enambed people to trade these files... they'ed get sued out of existance, and the memmbers of their boards of directors tortured for eons...
BUT if personal file sharing was going on, there would be no penalty. I just wish that we as a race would advance the the point of realizeing that yes, trading with your triends might not be legal, but it's okay, rather than the current "yes, i can trade whith all 30 million of my pas... how can you prove they aren't my friends"...
Cowardice hiding behind a wall of technology...
I kind of suspect that we're o n the same side of this argument, but you just misunderstood me...
Clarify?
Yes and no. (Score:1)
So far as personal sharing of files, though... There shouldn't be any laws prohibiting that either... Otherwise, we'd face a draconian existance, where police could get search warrants based on IP addresesses that appeared in say... Gnutella...
Napster bad.
Gnutella, not all bad... I just wish that people would use the service in order to distribute things that they're authorized to distribute rather than just as a means of pirating other peoples intellectual property...
It's just sad that we've reached such an impasse as a society that only a small fraction of us bother to create works of art, instead prefering to be consumers rather than creators, hiding behind the shroud of "evil corporations run our lives" and stealing because of it rather than trying to create a means of circumventing it...
Corporations will rule your lives as long as you let them... no longer than that, though...
Re:what do they have against napster? (Score:1)
Re:what do they have against napster? (Score:1)
Re:Copyrights violations (Score:1)
Tried out KDE2 lately?
Re:The Morality of it... (Score:1)
Don't make me laugh...
It can take hours to find an entire album (I just finished ripping my entire CD collection, and I couldn't rip any of some CDs because they were too damaged). I probably would have just bought it again for $0.20/song.
Re:sadly piracy will always exist (Score:1)
Oh, and that would be same period when the record companies were operating an illegal price control scheme to control CD prices! Jesus, if you are going to make a point, its better if you read what has *ACTUALLY* been going on.
Your argument makes no sense, tapes used to be a lot cheaper than CD's, the production costs have lowered and the prices have still risen. In fact I remember a record company exec in an interview saying how cd prices would fall when volume reached that of tape sales, what a lieing shit, volume increased and so did the size of his wallet.
Actually using napster has made me buy a lot more music that I ever bought berfore, just by bringing an interest to the fore, but while the back catalog remains un-available, while record companies operate outside the law, while CD prices are kept high, I will remain a "Pirate"
F
Re:they can never be stopped (Score:1)
Don't forget the bread, fish and wine you shared with 300 people instead of making them buy it and respecting the intellectual property of the sea and the local food industry.
Re:Try stiffening the penalties... (Score:1)
No, why should it? There are lots of things that the government can do that others can't. Collect taxes, for example.. or declare war.
Re:sadly piracy will always exist (Score:1)
Re:what do they have against napster? (Score:1)
Comedy routines, political speeches and sound effects can all be copyrighted. (Thankfully)
Re:Try stiffening the penalties... (Score:1)
If you want to make an omelette, sometimes you have to break a few eggs.
Re:Try stiffening the penalties... (Score:1)
The odds of it happening to you are so slim its not even worth thinking about...
Re:Try stiffening the penalties... (Score:1)
Well, they ARE mutants (Score:1)
So if some enzyme change makes you smarter, it stands a good chance of screwing with something else. It is only through evolution that your new advantage (lamda calculus in your head!) gets ironed out into something that is safe, because the genius can out compete most normals, but the SANE genius can out compete the genius.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
You are Wrong. (Score:1)
Flight or Flight happens FIRST in ALL responses. It is basic nurology. You cannot escape it (with out brain surgery) and you wouldn't want to. (You'd get hit by a car inside a week)
This is not 'determinism', it is how you are wired together. Fight or Flight is a demonstrable as the fact that most people have feet.
I cant stand all these people that spend so much time trying to be 'something more than an animal', if they aren't going to take the time to learn just how cool the 'animal' is. It's deliberate ignorance, and it really burns me.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
Re:GPLNet - the GNU freedom (Score:1)
Re:Make Piracy the vendors problem (Score:1)
The Piracy of Bits (Score:1)
What I foresee is that the sequence of bits you pay for will be tailored to the particular players that you own. That is, each player has it own cryptographic key for recovering the information. At best this will make copying difficult though not impossible. However, it will take some time and marketing savvy for this kind of information player to get a big enough market to matter.
Re:You got it backwards... (Score:1)
-jpowers
I repeat (Score:1)
And if your logic about owning/using was the law, why the hell do people keep getting arrested for drug "possesion"? I agree with your last sentence 100%, but the reason we don't focus just on the crimes themselves is because we've moved away from our original criminal justice model, which was reactive(ie you do something bad, we put you in jail). Now it's preventive, or "people who do this bad thing usually do that thing first, so let's make it illegal, too." And because the last vestiges of the original system remain in place, like trying to run Norton 4 on Windows 2000, nothing works right.
Oh well, no country's perfect, I guess. Maybe some nice company will buy our country and take all our rights away so we don't have to worry about them anymore. Then I could just sit and watch TV.
-jpowers
Re:Outlaw this... (Score:1)
Yes. That's OK with you, right?
never been mugged for coming out of a "wrong" club or feared for your life because of the color of your skin?
No, but since correlation does not prove causation, I'm going to have to ask you to fill in the blank in your implied logic, there. When was the last time a website mugged you (for something other than your e-mail address)? The problem with your logic is one shared by many people, which is this: you assume that external ideas lead directly to action, which they do not. The real process of demagoguery works like this:
External Ideas--[Y/N]->Internal Reason--[Y/N]->Externalized Action
See the yes/no, there? That's where the individual determines whether or not he's going to accept the external ideas as his own and then deciding whether or not he's going to act on them. That's why we call it free will, see?
So whoever is worried about being mugged coming out of the Rumper Room or wherever needs to find a way to inject something into the hate-crime type individual's internal discussion.
Here's how things are now, under your prototype violent homophobe's process:
http://allqueersmustdie.com---> [Accept?Y/N=Y]---> Drinkbeerkillqueers---> [Act?Y/N=Y]---> Brutality commences.
So you need to inject something into this process, because limiting the website is a moral wrong. I've always liked fear, myself, so we'll say you counter with an illusion. Make a bunch of buttons that say "I'm queer and I'm the fucking NRA." Then you have your own website. Ready?
{http://allqueersmustdie.com + http://queerNRA.org---> [Accept?Y/N=Y]---> Drinkbeerkillqueersbuttheyhaveguns---> [Act?Y/N=N]--->Brutality deterred.
You can do that without buying a gun or censoring anyone. Of course, I'm not much for thinking outside the box, though, so don't go by me.
-jpowers
No shit ;) (Score:2)
Let them sell their CDs for $5.99 too, and maybe I would buy one. Their artists get LESS than I do per CD. Their production values are worse than what I'm able to put out (in particular, see some of my very recent work like 'B17 Flying Fortress'- you don't get that kind of lushness and fullness out of pop CDs anymore, they are compressed to _death_). Nothing about what they're offering merits prices two and three times what I sell for- it's grotesque. I totally support anybody fighting these creeps by whatever means. And if you want to 'pirate' my mp3s too- *waves* have fun! You have my permission, not that you can't download them from me for free anyhow, and give me the page hit :)
Re:what do they have against napster? (Score:2)
That's not entirely true. Their business plan is intimately tied to the free availability of musical works. You are not required to pirate your CD collection (or someone else's, for that matter). I've used napster to download MP3 copies of parts of albums I only have on vinyl (old Strangler's stuff mainly) - I could have made those MP3s myself, given enough time to sort out the turntable and so on. My understanding is that this use is the 'personal backup copy' part of the copyright legislation.
All that said, I wouldn't doubt someone who claimed that x% of the material is illegally copied (where x tends to 100). I do doubt that all those violations are food stolen from the mouths of record company executive's children though.
IP: Having your cake and eating it too? (Score:2)
I don't think that's going to work out.
The whole apparatus of IP, copyrights, patents and trademarks is proving to be less and less viable as worldwide networking becomes all-pervasive, as available bandwidths rise and as the media converge with the Internet to provide everyone with access to everything without legal nor corporate controls.
That won't stop (short of a global police state), so we might as well bite the bullet: so-called "Intellectual Property" is dead, at least in the sense of being a commercial asset with a price tag, and destined for burial along with it are all the other bits of legal nonsense invented by lawyers with excess time on their hands. We're well on our way down the road towards global recognition that once information of any kind enters the public arena, it is thereafter totally public with no strings attached. The supporters of yesterday's worldview will just have to adjust.
As for the GPL, it wouldn't make much sense without copyright law, but I don't really think that would matter much. Our commmunity is bound together with informal bonds that are much stronger than the legal bonds of the GPL, which really is just symbolic for us. The community has strength in depth within itself, not merely strength because of the luke-warm support of lawyers and judges. I venture that the community will survive the loss of IP and copyrights and the other related nonsenses regardless of what happens on the legal front.
Re:Smoking, guns (Score:2)
BUT we should and do have every right to sue the tobacco companies. You think the entertainment industry is insidious and sneaky and without morals when it comes to MP3/screwing artists/etc? You ain't seen nothing - nothing - yet. In terms of morals, tobacco companies make RIAA and the MPAA look like they were sanctified by the pope himself.
You take for granted the fact that smoking is addictive, but people didn't always know that. Tobacco companies knew that for about 60 years and never told anyone because it was such a great way to make money. The jacked up the levels of nicotine in cigarettes to hook more smokers. They advertised to kids (Joe Camel?! Hullo?). They are just complete scumbags and slimeballs and the simple truth is that they've done everything short of forcing cigarettes into people's mouths. One wonders how many smokers took up the habit just because they were smoking cigarettes that were engineered to be more addictive - that figure has got to be in the millions. As far as I'm concerned RJR, B&W, and all the rest of the tobacco companies can rot in hell for all of eternity and no one would really be worse off.
--
Re:Copyrights violations (Score:2)
Without copyright, those licenses wouldn't be needed.
Assuming copyright laws were repealed tomorrow, how would I make sure source follows binaries? Everything created would be in the public domain. Some person could distribute a version of Linux with all kinds of proprietary modifications they've made, but keep their modified source a secret. Since they didn't have Linux licensed to them under the GPL, this would be perfectly legit. I guess we could hire thugs to kick down this person's door and seize their source code modifications, so maybe we wouldn't technically need copyright licensing to enforce the terms of the GPL... =^) Anyway, this is why you see rms wanting to legislate enforced-sharing terms similar to the GNU GPL rather than just abolishing copyright.
Re:Generation Gap (Score:2)
> mp3s in a spate of feeling guilty about breaking > his old turntable. He is really glad to have the
> music back
I take this to mean that he owns the records
of everything you've put on the CD.
What people don't seem to understand, and one
of the main points about the whole debate is
that it's LEGAL for him to have and use this CD
made from the MP3's of the songs he has a right
to use because he OWNS THE RECORDS. The royalties
were paid, and he's exercising his explicitly granted right to fair use by listening to the CD
you made.
Re:wrong. (Score:2)
You're wrong, or at least your statement is misleading. The user can make any modifications they like, as long as they don't give modified binaries to anyone else. If you distribute your modifications to others, then you have to give them the source code if they ask. However, if you're writing and (presumably) selling modifications that you wish to keep private, you're not just a user, are you?
As for RMS and IP, I've heard him talk on the subject, and (IIRC, and to paraphrase) he feels that the whole concept of IP is wrong-headed. Rather than attempting to paraphrase him, go read some of his writings.
Re:Generation Gap (Score:2)
In a nutshell -- yes, there are a lot of clueless people over 30. But the majority of people under are also clueless. Remember this when you decide to change the world. It just might help you to suceed.
Geoff
Slightly wrong in wording, but right in spirit. (Score:2)
The GPL explicitly extends beyond the mere lack copyright protection on that code, and even on the whole world in general. Put it this way: If I were to use a piece of GPL code in an IP-less society for a product that I sell, I would be required to distribute that source code. There is nothing inherent in the lack of IP that naturally incorporates the idealistic sharing that RMS envisioned. Afterall, well before formal intectually property rights really existed, many craftsman and artists relied on a variety of trade secrets.
I suggest that you go look at the intentions of both the original poster and RMS.
And if napster were offering guns for hire? (Score:2)
Many still argue, that, although they are a service, they have legitimate uses and should be left alone. Let us be honest here. Today, something like 99.99% napster traffic is used for downloading materials illegally. While many of napster's supporters talk about all the supposed benefits of napster to the "indy" artist, they remain extremely vague. Just how is napster supposed to help in this department?
Napster is certainly not a promotion vehicle. All you can do on napster is text searches. These searches are only good if you know what you're looking for. What then is their substantial contribution to society? Distribution? One cannot honestly claim this is a decent method, let alone a superior method, of distribution for the "indy" artist. There is no hardly any shortage of alternative means. There are hundreds of websites and services which would be all too happy to get this "indy" business. Mp3.com? Certainly. Geocities, certainly...there remain many others. What's more they can PROMOTE and MARKET material. These alternatives means can deliver the "right" material to the "right" person and faster than napster could ever hope to.
For those who pine for a napster-like, dumbed down interface, where you might get "random" (but still legitimate) music, napster themselves could offer it (RIAA has even stated that they'd drop the lawsuit if napster just got rid of the infringing material) if they weren't afraid to kill their sacred jaurez cash cow to-be. For one, they could offer a proof-positive service, where artists can register their materials as being "legit". If that seems too draconian, napster could employ other methods to simply be more responsive to complaints by the artists, and assure prompt removal of all discovered materials. Napster might even, if they actually desired and were intelligent enough (a big IF), employ some sort of checksumming scheme to atleast filter GUARANTEED copyrighted music out.
But napster does none of that. Why? Because they're not a non-profit organization who is out there to help the "indy" artist or any other cause, napster is a for-profit corporation that simply wants to profit. Napster profits whether or not the materials are illegal. While all they want is eyeballs (so they can be used as a marketing platform), the means to deliver those eyeballs is in providing the one thing that these more acceptable services do not provide, pirated music in large and accessible quantities. It is simply not in their interest to do anything other than continuing to facilate the piracy of music.
The question for the courts and society comes down to cost versus benefit. While there still may remain one scintilla of benefit outside the scope of the alternatives, weigh them against the costs--or atleast their illegality if you don't agree with "big music", copyright law, or what have you.
...to drag this out a bit more. A more realistic comparison for napster is if they offered to be a directory of...well let's say guns for hire--hitmen. Only this service costs a lot, far more than the yellow pages. What's more, it's generally a pain in the ass to use for any legitimate uses, say, for bodyguards. The one thing the service does provide is a degree of anonymity where law enforcement cannot reach it effectively. If this services has indirectly contributed to the murders of hundreds of people, and has virtually never been used by anyone other than a thugs, would you still support it even if all they do is push information around? Why should society shoulder these immense costs when the benefits are between slim and none?
PS: Minor detail: Bomb making instructions are not published in the encyclopedia, at least not in any major one. It's covered loosely and conceptually--not enough to actually build one. However, it is covered extensively elsewhere, much of it may well be available in your local library. Certainly any competent student of electrical engineering could build one if they had the materials.
But.... (Score:2)
Many still argue, that, although they are a service, they have legitimate uses and should be left alone. Let us be honest here. Today, something like 99.99% napster traffic is used for downloading materials illegally. While many of napster's supporters talk about all the supposed benefits of napster to the "indy" artist, they remain extremely vague. Just how is napster supposed to help in this department?
Napster is certainly not a promotion vehicle. All you can do on napster is text searches. These searches are only good if you know what you're looking for. What then is their substantial contribution to society? Distribution? One cannot honestly claim this is a decent method, let alone a superior method, of distribution for the "indy" artist. There is no hardly any shortage of alternative means. There are hundreds of websites and services which would be all too happy to get this "indy" business. Mp3.com? Certainly. Geocities, certainly...there remain many others. What's more they can PROMOTE and MARKET material. These alternatives means can deliver the "right" material to the "right" person and faster than napster could ever hope to.
For those who pine for a napster-like, dumbed down interface, where you might get "random" (but still legitimate) music, napster themselves could offer it (RIAA has even stated that they'd drop the lawsuit if napster just got rid of the infringing material) if they weren't afraid to kill their sacred jaurez cash cow to-be. For one, they could offer a proof-positive service, where artists can register their materials as being "legit". If that seems too draconian, napster could employ other methods to simply be more responsive to complaints by the artists, and assure prompt removal of all discovered materials. Napster might even, if they actually desired and were intelligent enough (a big IF), employ some sort of checksumming scheme to atleast filter GUARANTEED copyrighted music out.
But napster does none of that. Why? Because they're not a non-profit organization who is out there to help the "indy" artist or any other cause, napster is a for-profit corporation that simply wants to profit. Napster profits whether or not the materials are illegal. While all they want is eyeballs (so they can be used as a marketing platform), the means to deliver those eyeballs is in providing the one thing that these more acceptable services do not provide, pirated music in large and accessible quantities. It is simply not in their interest to do anything other than continuing to facilate the piracy of music.
The question for the courts and society comes down to cost versus benefit. While there still may remain one scintilla of benefit outside the scope of the alternatives, weigh them against the costs--or atleast their illegality if you don't agree with "big music", copyright law, or what have you.
...to drag this out a bit more. A more realistic comparison for napster is if they offered to be a directory of...well let's say guns for hire--hitmen. Only this service costs a lot, far more than the yellow pages. What's more, it's generally a pain in the ass to use for any legitimate uses, say, for bodyguards. The one thing the service does provide is a degree of anonymity where law enforcement cannot reach it effectively. If this services has indirectly contributed to the murders of hundreds of people, and has virtually never been used by anyone other than a thugs, would you still support it even if all they do is push information around? Why should society shoulder these immense costs when the benefits are between slim and none?
wrong. (Score:2)
So yes, RMS might very well disagree with you here.
Perhaps, but does it really matter? (Score:2)
However, even if that number is entirely accurate, that does not necessarily mean napster offers a 13% compelling benefit for society. i.e., It's possible that the vast majority of the 13% are people who come to napster for pirated songs, but while they're there download legitimate items on impulse or simply because it's more convenient than using an alternative method at THAT instant. Much in the same sense that a beer store that sells booze to minors may make 20% of their revenues selling snacks and other munchies, heh.
Re:Neither -- Big Business May Win in All Ways (Score:2)
Personally, I do not see why people, in the free software community especially, are so willing to just let mainstream media and business characterize all users of Gnutella, etc. as thieves and pirates (not to say that a large amount of those people are not on Napster, etc. though).
It is true that the free software movement is different in many ways from the free music debate. Free software supporters do not advocate piracy as a means to fight the big software companies; instead, free software supporters say essentially "make it yourself" and then the "it will be better" part includes both "free (as in speech)" and usually develops the "quality" aspect as well.
But how does a listener (i.e., user) of music (you can argue if this is information until you are blue in the face, but that is not the main point here) make his or her own music to replace that of the music industry? In this, the free music debate cannot be solved in the same way the free software debate can.
Like it or not, piracy is a more integral part of the "civil disobedience" aspect of the free music debate. Or at least it is at the moment.
Piracy can be replaced by the alternatives being proposed by sites like fairtunes.com. But that cannot happen if services like Gnutella are somehow outlawed.
So, we have to make our voices heard to support the continuance of services like Gnutella; as I see it, Napster has helped to draw attention to the free music debate but in all the wrong ways. There are very legitimate uses of the technology, but we cannot simply allow the terms such as "piracy" and "stealing" to continue in use since that undermines the entire host of alternatives to the RIAA.
If Gnutella, etc. are made illegal, then how exactly are these alternatives ever supposed to get off the ground?
SB
Editor, DigitalRenegades [digitalrenegades.org] -- Give your opinions a permanence on the web; submit and make your voice heard.
File sharing is a lot like dynamite... (Score:2)
Personally, I'm an avid try-before-you buy kinda consumer. I own a copy of every single thing I've ever pirated. And I believe that the biggest problem with the market today is the high prices that are charges for most things. I know this has been hashed over before, but that doesn't make it any less true. High prices mean less choice for the consumer, and are a big incentive for black markets (or their equivilent -- in this case, free piracy). This is not to say that lowering the prices with fix everything; there are always people who won't even pay a dollar if they can steal it instead -- even if the time they invest in stealing it cost them more than a dollar.
Anyway, my point is that data piracy will always exist as long as it has a reason to exist (high prices, national restrictions, and egos). And killing any number of methods of delivery can't destroy them all. (You can always have stuff FedEx'ed to you. What are they gonna do? Outlaw mail?)
--
Re:what do they have against napster? (Score:2)
THey knew that their service would become popular because people would use napster for illegal purposes. This is illegal.
And you know what? I agree with this.
On a purely technical level, though, napster should *not* be illegal... it's just software.
REmember, though. If napster gets smacked, lots of *cool* free napster-like things will spring up (look at gnotella now, it rocks). Napster was 'just enough' to pacify people, and only gained it's popularity through the network effect. Why be complacent with napster when we can do so much better?
Re:what do they have against napster? (Score:2)
The point is that the *company*, napster Inc, is *making money* (or attempting to do so) by facilitating piracy.
It's not the software that is on trial, it's the COMPANY.
Do I think software should be banned because it has potential illegal uses? of course. As I said, on technical grounds, the napster software is fine.
But as a COMPANY, napster is succeessfull only due to piracy.
Now, as for the comparison to bongs, etc... the fact is, these things all had original, legal uses, and the companies that make zigzags did not go into business sayhing 'hey, let's make these rolling papaers because people need somethign to smoke their grass in'.
Should bongs be illegal because they can be used to smoke dope? Nope.
Shoudl a company that goes into business selling just bongs because they know people will use it for somethign illegal? Yes. They are facilitating crime, knowingly. The only reason they don't get sued is because of today's lax attitudes towards marijuana.
'
Re:what do they have against napster? (Score:2)
Regardless of what people feel, those artists, adn record companies, etc, *DO* have legal copyright over what napster is helping people pirate. Over what napster is *in business* to help people pirate. So obviously they have a beef with napster, the company.
The point is, it's not about the tool, it's about the company. The tool is irrelevant, the company is on trial because the company is trying to make money off other people's copyrights in a slightly roundabout way.
Re:sadly piracy will always exist (Score:2)
Ah, nothing I love more than the Napster has cuased me to buy MORE CDs lie. I mean, that must be why there were huge lines outside of every record store in the country a few weeks ago when everyone thought Napster was going to be shut down and people went through on their mad orgy of downloading... right?
Oh, how silly of me. (Score:2)
Go hang out with the gender studies people, the behavioural sciences people, the biology people, and the psych people for a bit, and you will be trully suprised at how much behaviour is based upon Sexual/Fight-Flight/Phermonal/Primate Group interactions.
Put simply, thats it. Everything 'else' that makes us 'different' is just a result of scaleing the intelligence up in the system (and simillar traits can be found in the cetaceans, so we aren't all that different, we just have hands, something they must find terribly amusing)
And if you think there is a differance between force and cooperation, you don't understand behaviour.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
And it wouldn't be necessary either... (Score:2)
Without copyright, you dont NEED protection from copyright, so your argument does not hold.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
?? The 'Entire' Basis ?? (Score:2)
>respecting the desires of others _without_
>coercion.
And silly me, I thought that civilisation was an emergent property of each individual's attempts to maximize their scarce resource allocation and genetic proliferation.
Hate to tell you this, but force is, and always has been, and probably always will, be part of this system.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
Re:The Morality of it... (Score:2)
There is no hassle. People who download GB's of music without paying for it will always have ways to actually find stuff. Why should they start paying? Not that I support that idea, but why should they suddenly change their mind?
There is no way to easily find out where downloads are illegal and where not. As long as that does not change police will not be able to fight piracy. Hence, no hassle.
Re:so when does it become wrong... (Score:2)
what about a place like Recycle Records here in Denver? I can go up to them, and sell my CD to them for, say $6. I can also buy CD's that other people have sold to them. The artists aren't making any money off these transactions. If all i'm doing is paying for a "site license" for my music, why am i allowed this particular courtesy?
You're selling your license to listen to that music. In much the same way, you can do the same with software. Or books.
Simon
Re:so when does it become wrong... (Score:2)
You're paying for the right to listen to it. That's all. That's how IP works - without an explicit contract assigning copyright to you, all you can do legally is read/listen/use that material - you can't redistribute it.
Everything get's convoluded with IP...and it's just crap. Pay the artist for a service, not for an idea.
So presumably, if an idea takes months to come to fruition, it's not worth anything to you? Say you spent two years coming up with a novel? Is it then worthless? (in the material, monetary sense). How do you provide a "service" then?
Would you care to suggest what "services" an artist/writer could provide as an alternative to the current model?
Simon
Re:so when does it become wrong... (Score:2)
redistributing credit card numbers == redistribution of stolen goods.
... and then you wrote
I think it's fair use to distribute copyrighted material for non-commercial purposes. Why does a larger scale make bootlegging any diferent?
Don't you feel at least a little hypocritical putting both of these sentences together in the same post?
Believe it or not, but the redistribution of copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright owner is THEFT. Therefore you are dealing in stolen goods.
Simon
Re:Outlaw this... (Score:2)
Actually, taking your example one step further... I fit the description above, and have feared for my life because of the color of my skin.
Though I must admit to feeling ambivalent about the concept of tearing down hate sites -- there's freedom of speech on the one hand, and then there's the fact that they're completely warped and fucked up on the other.
Simon
Re:so when does it become wrong... (Score:2)
Naspter is being shut down BECAUSE it *is* doing something illegal, regardless if you feel it is not. Knowingly trafficing copyrighted materials over your network is a crime. Even ISPs are liable if copyright violations are pointed out on their resources and they STILL do not remove them. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom to break the law or aide and abet those who are breaking the law.
The argument that MP3s are "information" will fail miserably in court which is why Napster's attorneys haven't even bothered to pursue it.
Suggesting that each violation be considered on a case by case basis is ludicrous. We have copyright law in place so that artists, publishers, or whomever owns the copyright is PROTECTED from the get-go. They should NOT have to track down each infringing action to have it removed especially when it's proven in court that Napster's only viable use is a criminal one (which will happen in the coming months, you can be sure of that.)
The Morality of it... (Score:2)
What we need is a site where we can download MP3s for reasonable micropayments ($.20 - $1.00), with half the cash going to the artists. Piracy will die down because it's not worth the hassle to save $.20. People also don't really want to rip off artists, and it will be a lot harder to rationalize when you know every pirated MP3 is money out of the artists' pockets.
same old, same old (Score:2)
--
Copyright (Score:2)
Copyright violation is (at least in my experience) and *should* be stigmatized. Just as stealing and murder. But as such, there are mitigating circumstances (stealing food because your family is starving, killing in self defense). To my knowledge there are a lot of people who like the flexibility of MP3 and are only using it because there *is* no way to legally buy the ones they want. Of course there is a majority of lamers who say they're doing it for the same purposes but just want warez. In any case, MP3 needs to be legitimized and business models incentivized so people don't *have* to steal/copy/copyright infringe.
The coming societal singularity (Score:2)
With communication technology practically nullifying all concepts of ownership of information, if we already aren't in a societal singularity, we soon will be.
Re:they can never be stopped (Score:2)
they can never be stopped (Score:2)
Now, I know that last statment might have set a few of you off. But hear me out. The CHURCH is against pornography, not me. I hung out with a whore on my first go-around, for My sake. Sex is pretty okay, if you ask me, and I understand that you are not full of Devine Grace, such as myself, and cannot readily get a date with whom you choose. And like the true son of god, I forgive you for that. So thus I have provided pornography and lubricants, such that you might be satisfied until that time when you might "socialize" again.
Do not berate your fellow man, if he chooses his own loving over the loving of others, for there is wisdom to be found therein. But lose respect for the man who does not share his pornography, his music and his software. This is my word.
Re:Entitlement society (Score:2)
One man's education is another man's propoganda.
Re:Try stiffening the penalties... (Score:2)
Either that, or the show Oz is wrong
I saw it on TV..it has to be true!
Re:?? The 'Entire' Basis ?? (Score:2)
Our co-operative civilization has evolved because it has worked so well... democratic-style systems have constantly outperformed despotic-style systems -- at "maximiz[ing] their scarce resource allocation and genetic proliferation "
-rt-
Re:Corporations are effective (Score:2)
Re:what do they have against napster? (Score:2)
Let's draw an analogy. Suppose someone set up a search engine where the main purpose was to track down kiddie porn. Now even if some legitimate pornography (I've always wanted to use that phrase) slipped through the cracks, the majority of the content is still kiddie porn. I know that yes, I'd want the individual sites taken down, but I'd also really want the search engine gone as well.
Now, the way that you and I feel about kiddie porn is the same way that the RIAA feels about people trading music that it currently owns the copyright for.
What Will The Media Think? We are freeloaders (Score:2)
Eventually there will be several different ways to get music online and pay for it. Similar to the way that the MPAA fought VCRs and now there are many places we can rent videos. Currently people who watch movies for free (i.e. movie pirates, har har har) are considered freeloaders and criminals. It is not hard to conceive then that Gnutella users will become the w4rez d00ds of the music industry.
Re:?? The 'Entire' Basis ?? (Score:2)
I suppose I can agree with that :) My point is that most animal species _do_ behave that way, because there is a limitation in most of their cognitive abilities to realize that sometimes you have to go around the fence to get the bone.
Yes, you can argue that everything still boils down to selfishness, but there is all the difference in the world between being selfish & considerate and selfish & inconsiderate. A society that weighs heavier on the former is more productive than a society that weighs heavier on the latter. Check out "The Prisoner's Dillema" for a nice succinct take on this logic.
To bring this back on topic: People want media. The quickest way to get media is to take it, however this is not cooperative and therefore not sustainable. Like it or not, respecting a media producer's desires is actually the best way to get media. It's just like having to go around the fence to get the bone.
Re:?? The 'Entire' Basis ?? (Score:2)
If that were true, then our society wouldn't be any different from those of the animal kingdom. If you don't think it is, I ask you to explain how perfect strangers sit together on the bus without attacking each other or running away.
What makes human civilzation different is that people are willing to cooperate; to respect others for the intangible and unguaranteed benefit that they will do the same for you. That is responsible for nearly all of the benefits you enjoy in modern society.
Hate to tell you this, but force is, and always has been, and probably always will, be part of this system.
There will always be force. But please look around at the current state of the world and note whether it's the more forceful or more cooperative societies that do better.
Clout (Score:2)
Napster already has a write-to-Congress page. [napster.com] Gnutilla probably should have one, too.
In the end, popular music will probably be free, but it will have ads. Look for big growth in product placement.
Smoking, guns (Score:2)
Re:actually (OT) (Score:2)
This might explain religion... ;-)
Re:So, lets see if I have this right... (Score:2)
Okay, good point... =) Seriously, though, our servers were fine (the "crushed" was metaphorical, and meant to show how I thought it was nifty-neato that the unwashed masses can still act of their own volition, without an actual /. link). The main thing was bandwidth, and the people here did a great job getting the connection upped. I wasn't really involved in that, but I did get to look at pretty network load graphs.
I [quadium.net] have nothing to do with Gnutella. My employer has nothing to do with it, either, except that we host it. And most of the employees know the people involved (I don't really, since I'm kinda new there).
I hate this sort of thing, but I might as well point out that I am speaking personally and not as an agent of my employer, that my employer is merely hosting the data and not supporting it, cigarettes cause cancer, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
See above. And I posted it because I am genuinely interested... The only MP3s I have are ripped from my own CDs or from MP3.com [mp3.com], and I have never used Napster or Gnutella. But it's interesting, and I think the social effects could be far-reaching. Or not.
Make Piracy the vendors problem (Score:2)
Creative destruction (Score:2)
Whatever emerges, the world of intellectual property has changed irreversibly.
Dang! (Score:2)
Re:so when does it become wrong... (Score:2)
1. Napster is not shut down.
2. Your logic has a flaw. Posting bomb making instructions, credit card numbers, etc. is illegal; most will agree on that. But many will argue that such distribution of songs is not. At least it hasn't been proven yet. There are legal, fair uses to copyrighted material, and other laws that will be tried in court. You are assuming that this case has already been decided against Napster and equating it with other criminal offenses.
Assumptions are your worst enemy.
Re:So? (Score:2)
Copyright is not a binary thing -- either on or off. There is a lot of gray area as to what constitutes fair use, and what rights copyright holders can restrict the public from having. It's not about whether copyright is good or bad -- it's about where the copyright holder's rights end and fair use begins.
This distinction is not trivial. It is probably one of the most important issues that we have to resolve as we enter the networked world.
The question of what constitutes fair use will not be answered until it is asked -- i.e., until it is raised by events on the ground. Napster raises these issues in ways that were probably inevitable. Is it legal for me to have friends over to listen to my new Metallica CD (leaving aside for the moment whether doing so will allow me to keep my friends)? I think most of us would say yes. So how does that right translate to "virtual" space? Can I let them listen to a copy of it? Can I stream it? Maybe I can and maybe I can't, but the question will not be answered until I try and someone else challenges me on it.
Also, Napster does have legitmate, lawful uses. Should it be shut down or otherwise hindered to prevent the unlawful uses it also enables? Again, this issue is not just restricted to Napster; it applies to many other technologies that have emerged in the last few years and will emerge in those to come. Remember: RIAA tried to prevent Diamond Multimedia from selling the Rio for similar reasons.
It's not about being "for" or "against" copyright law, though the RIAA would probably like the issue framed that way. It's about what kind of copyright law we want to have, and what kind of solutions we can come up with to resolve the fuzzy bits. The Napster case is part of the national conversation that we are having to try to settle the issue.
-
Hello, my name is... (Score:2)
If a Napster shutdown is mandated, I will use Gnutella. If Gnutella is forced down, I will use the next flavor of the month to get music for free. For those of you who are wealthy enough to get financially raped by the RIAA, I encourage you to continue doing so. I am not, and thus, I will not relent in my search for stolen music. I do not encourage anyone else to follow my lead, but do encourage you to consider exactly who is profiting each time you choose to purchase a CD, as it is certainly not the musician to any notable degree.
This is a world where each individual must look out for number one, which is why I simply don't give a shit about any of the anti-pirating sentiment. If artists, in the process of looking out for themselves, decide to quit making music due to people like myself, I truly feel sorry, but that does not move me any closer to justifying the price of legitimate media. I was thoroughly screwed on the 100 CDs I purchased, some for as much as $30, before pirating became as simple as it currently is, so I have absolutely no regrets over performing the same sexual act on the recording industry. The RIAA, due to the disgusting percentage paid to the artists themselves, are essentially a pimp in this situation, and I can't remember the last time anyone was chastised for financially jerking a pimp around. I do not fault the RIAA for their ongoing attempts to curtail my activity, as it is a sound business move, but there is simply no way to stop people like me now that the word is out. I will never go back to paying inflated prices for music.
I am so tremendously sick of this moral and legal debate. Go ahead, call me part of the problem, because it may be true, but I can't afford to care. Ideally, I would love to walk to the music store and purchase several CDs at two bucks a piece, but that will never happen, so I will steal it until I simply can steal no more. I will be happy to send a buck to the artists themselves, should they ask that I do so, because I appreciate their art. In that situation, I will be paying for the priveledge of enjoying their creation. The buck that I send is far more than they would receive from their pimp if I had purchased the music legitimately. I seriously doubt that any role the RIAA actually plays in the production or marketing of an album is worthy of a 99.5% cut into the profit.
To summarize, screw the RIAA because they screw everyone else first. How would you sheep respond if big, bad Microsoft paid one slave laborer $0.10 an hour to code product they then sell for $100? You'd hit the roof, yet portions of the same group suddenly get all high-and-mighty in a situation like this. To that segment of the Slashdot population, I say to hell with you. This is the wrong place for anyone to be taking a moral highground.
Re:yup, like natural selection (Score:2)
Piracy=Drugs (Score:2)
Whenever the Government "cracks down" on something that is illegal that a huge subculture practices, bad things result. What it gives them is the tool to control everything that almost everyone does. It will be a war that the Government doesn't want to win. By criminilizing the acts of large groups of people, it gives them the tools they need to supress the members of the group that speak out against the Government.
It isn't even about copyright anymore. It's more about the government and control of individual rights. Think about it.
-----------------------------
Re:Who will pay? (Score:2)
Slashdot is a good example. They make money (well at least a little), and yet their site can be set up on anyone's server that wants it. The value is not in the easily copied parts of the site, the value is in the content, and the ongoing work of the editors.
Does this mean the end of IP? I say probably not. I think the paradigm will just be much different from what we are used to. The economic theories that state "When there are no barriers to entry, profitability will fall to zero" will rule. All we had before was an artificial protected market, through technological supression (DAT) and legislation.
-----------------------------
Re:so when does it become wrong... (Score:2)
Neither (Score:3)
We're unlikely to get favorable public opinion in the near future. Big business will win this battle, stigmatize the whole process of "free music" downloading, and it'll continue essentially as it is now. I don't think it's comparable to smoking...it's comparable to smoking pot. It's illegal, that doesn't slow down anyone that wants to do it.
My two cents at least...
Copyrights in the digital era (Score:3)
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
This was initially interpreted fairly narrowly, and the time of copyright monopoly was comparably short. In the last 100 years, the copyright monopoly period has been extended and extended, primarily on the behalf of large corporations like Disney (who wants to continue monopolizing original Mickey Mouse films).
The original intent of copyright law - to PROMOTE the release of material for eventual public domain status - has been corrupted. Copyrights no longer expire. Technically they do expire, but copyright law has been extending copyright periods faster than they can expire. Thus, the copyrights no longer pass into the public domain at all.
The digital technology can change all of that. Copyright holders of a medium amenable to digitization, such as movies and music, are scared. Previously, I could copy a CD to a tape and give it to my brother. These actions are essentially unprosecutable and unpreventable in a society with some privacy rights.
Now, in a digital age, I can rip a CD and email it to my brother. This action is also unprosecutable and unpreventable (assume I use PGP on the email). This underscores the movement of a digital copyright into public domain. It is unstoppable on technical grounds.
Napster and Gnutella facilitate the same actions - but on a much broader level. So they raise the issue - how does copyright law apply ??? And how should it apply ??
A bigger issue still is the record companies. They provide almost no digital internet distribution even though there is a market of more than 20 million consumers. How scared must they be of digital distribution to do that ??
They will eventually adopt a small pay per download market. They have to. It will largely calm down the napster commerce. And napster/gnutella can still be used on uncopyrighed materials like concert tapes, or copyrighted and approved materials like band demo songs.
Fundamentally, sharing music or moveies with one's neighbor is not something you ought to be prosecuted for.
The Endless Debate (Score:3)
Every single person who reads this post has probably been in a situation where someone else took advantage of them. It doesn't matter if it hurts directly or not (witness the Slashdot/Hellmouth debacle), people don't like it when their things are used in a way they don't like. Upsetting other people because you can get away with it is the enemy of civilization.
So, from a societal standpoint, it is important that it be made as difficult and stigmatized as possible. Of course it can't be stopped; what can? Nonetheless, this is just social darwinism. Get used to it.
What is really at stake? (Score:3)
If a Usenet reader that decodes binaries is a violation of copyright, how much longer before other apps fall prey? FTP? HTTP? If it's found that the means by which binaries are distributed on the Internet is itself a copyright violation, how long before the Internet itself is the target of this kind of lawsuit.
This is a war folks. This war is about who controls the keys to the gates of information. MP3's are nothing more than the initial battleground. The music industry is scared as hell right now over possibly losing the 50 year absolute control they've enjoyed over this art form, with the movie industry also bringing up the rear guard. They have the legal, monetary, and political backing to turn that fear into something destructive against anything that threatens them.
If Napster falls to these gate keepers, you can damn well be assured that they are only to be the first. For those of you in the "I don't collect MP3's, so I don't give a crap" I guess we'll just wait for you to jump on board when something that does concern you eventually does fall under attack. Of course, by then it'll most likely be too damn late.
Generation Gap (Score:3)
Entitlement society (Score:3)
The key here is education. The recording industry and/or artists need to find a way to explain to people that through their actions, they are indeed stealing. Intellectual property has real value, and when it's copied around with no compensation for the creator of that work, it's value is decreased.
-S
Copyrights violations (Score:4)
Without copyrights, tools such as the BSD license and Gnu Public License, which allow open source development to happen with some modicrum of protection and safety, would not be possible.
I think it's possible to have both copyrights and relative freedom of information, and we need both. While information may "want to be free", we need a more developed sense of ethics online if we want other beneficial aspects of copyright to remain.
So? (Score:4)
If you think copyright law is a bad thing (Disclaimer: I don't), then try to get the law changed. Don't just break the law and wait for someone else to change it for you.
so when does it become wrong... (Score:4)
to freely distribute information? So many of us balk at the shutdown of Napster; what if Napster had been distributing bomb-making instructions?
Would it have been okay to shut them down then? No? What if it were used to distribute the names and locations of people in the Witness Protection Program (That's in America, I don't know if other countries have something similar)?
or, while we're at it, what if Napster was being used to distribute your credit card number?
Napster wasn't shut down because it did anything illegal, it was shut down because in fervantly protection free speech, it failed to provide a reasonable system through which someone could request the removal of material that was harmful to them. True, the only people that were "harmed" were big and rich and greedy, but that doesn't mean that only BRG people *can* be hurt. If you had awakened one morning to find your name, address, phone number, cc #, and photos of you and your wife in bed being distributed through Napster, how would you have gotten them removed? Who would you have contacted? You would have had no options to solve the problem.
Systems like Napster are great, and the freedom they provide is an unarguably nessecary component, but there has to be some system to address the objections raised on a case by case basis.
Try using the service b4 you comment (Score:4)
Sorry, that just isn't true. If it were, then email, irc, usenet and the web would all have to be shut down. To go to your example, I could post bombmaking instructions to any of them without being permanently removed. I could be using an anonymous remailer for three of them and for irc, they could ban my IP from the server but I would probably be at the library and could just go to one of the other myriad libraries in the area. Or I could take advantage of the fact that my ISP uses dynamic IPs and use a diff. username each time, but then I risk getting reported and tracked so I would prob. do the library thing. Napster was actually the
BTW photos can't be put up on Napster. have you ever even used the fscking service on which you are commenting? You can put mp3's in your directory for d/l and there are chat channels where you can type stuff. That's it. IRC is 100x more dangerous. Also if you didn't notice large numbers of ppl w/ mettalica songs were systematically removed from the system at one point. How hard would it be to do that to people doling out credit card numbers, as well as logging their IP to report to their provider? You can't hide behind a wall of anonymity with napster, at least not without being seriously being traceable, the way you can with other protocols. So then the law tracks them down and prosecutes them. Whereas we know of people distributing credit card numbers elsewhere online who haven't been caught.
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?