Freenet Creator Debates RIAA 806
smd4985 writes "Over at CNET News.com, there's a good coverage of a debate between Ian Clarke of Freenet and Matt Oppenheim of the RIAA." In discussing whether it's "legal and moral to create and use Freenet", which is "a radically decentralized network of file-sharing nodes tied together with strong encryption", the RIAA's Oppenheim suggests: "Other than the fact that most infringers do not like to use Freenet because it is too clunky for them to get their quick hit of free music, it is no more of a threat than any of the popular P2P services."
Really, Mr. Oppenheimer? (Score:5, Informative)
Really, Mr. Oppenheim? I don't think you understand exactly *how well* Freenet preserves anonymity. It is *impossible* to tell where any given file is coming from over Freenet, due to the fact that data is scattered and encyrpted across the network.
With Freenet, you *can't* go after filesharers, because you don't know who the filesharers are? What are you going to to do? Take every single freenet node to court?
You'd most certainly lose that battle, Mr. Oppenheim. Just like the courts ruled that Kazaa could not be taken down because it has legimitate, uses, so to does this apply to Freenet.
And if you succeed in scaring people off the gnutella and kazaa, this is just where the hard core will turn: Freenet and distributed systems like it.
Give it up, Mr. Oppenheim. Your days of controlling music distribution are numbered.
We, the citizens of the Internet, will prevail.
Re:Shady dealings (Score:5, Informative)
I doubt it. An anlagous case involving the Tec-9 gun (hard to get fingerprints from and some other features which were allegedly used to promote sales to questionable people) was tossed:
CBS News - Gun Lawsuit Misses Target [cbsnews.com]
GF.
Re:Speaking of rights. (Score:5, Informative)
From the article (Score:1, Informative)
Corporations are getting filthy rich from the artists' will to express themselves. Remember that Napster's website spewed random quotes from popular artists who not only thought that music file-sharing was a great idea, but it helped the artists, rather than hinder them.
Re:Propaganda over rationality. (Score:5, Informative)
Your use of the word "fucking" doesn't make your point any more relevant. Why should the RIAA get to demand proof that you've paid them whenever they desire, but the clothing store not be granted the same right? If they catch you sharing files, obviously you're breaking the law and they should go after you. Other than that the only thing they should be allowed to do is to go crying to their mommies. They should have the same rights as everybody else, and that's it.
Re:Propaganda over rationality. (Score:5, Informative)
The bogus concept of software EULAs has confused you.
Copyright has nothing to do with a "licence" to own or use a copy of a work. Copyright involves a licence to copy a work - a right to copy, thus the name.
When there's no copying involved, there is no copyright issue. There's no copying and no licence involved when you purchase a CD from your local record store. (Software EULAs are based on the ridiculous notion that loading a program into memory is "copying". I don't think this has ever been upheld.)
You have it backwards (Score:5, Informative)
They could care less what you are buying or if you bought it or not, they only care when you are claiming it towards your taxes.
They can use a visual inspection of your home as an attempt to prove that you may be underdeclaring your income (say you report an income of $25,000/year but have two Ferrari's in your front driveway that are registered in your name) but they can't simply order you to produce a receipt on any old purchase that you may have made.
DRM does NOT protect copyrights. DRM protects copy restrictions. Why? Well look at CSS as the case of DRM-light. It keeps the normal person from viewing out-of-region material or using non-approved viewers. It doesn't do a thing to stop the technically savvy copier/user.
Re:The RIAA is in over its head (Score:3, Informative)
-uso.
Another Sign that the RIAA is Lacking Intelligence (Score:3, Informative)
Ah I can tell someone has never used Freenet. The majority of content in Freenet is not really searchable, it's more of a blog-based environment. Freenet won't even release a tool to search it. A 3rd party had to. I think Matt has been using a bit too much KazAa if he thinks every P2P network has a little search bar on the side, with options for Audio and Video...
Re:Speaking of rights. (Score:5, Informative)
But that's because you are buying a license when you buy software. You can read the terms of the license and decide whether or not you agree with the license. With CDs, there is no license. You buy a CD and you receive the contents of the CD. You have fair use rights to create personal copies, but are otherwise limited in your ability to distribute, perform publicly, create derivative works, and copy. The limitations are in the copyright statutes.
Incorrect... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Shady dealings (Score:3, Informative)
I remember that case. One of the things that is *rarely* mentioned in all the coverage is that selling a gun as "fingerprint resistant" is viable. Fingerprints on guns cause rust. A fingerprint resistant gun is less prone to rusting than other guns.
Re:Propaganda over rationality. (Score:3, Informative)
It is a tort, and it is copyright infringement -- not theft, and not going to result in jail time or anything other than civil penalties. Of course, if you're sharing a file to the whole world, they could easily claim >$6,000 in damages.
Unfortunately, the RI/MPAA intentionally wish to blur the lines, because fear of prosecution helps prevent copyright infringement. But making copies of copyrighted works doesn't make you a thief or a criminal -- it makes you an infringer.
This is similar to how speeding doesn't make you a federal fugitive, or taking a piss in the bushes doesn't make you an arsonist.
Re:The RIAA is in over its head (Score:2, Informative)
Ever do your girl-friend in the poop-shoot? BAM! you just broke the law.
Actually, that's legal now in every state. (Assuming you live in the US)
Re:Speaking of rights. (Score:3, Informative)
Nonsense. There is no such thing as a licence to use. If you buy a CD there is no license of any sort involved. It is a plain old sale of an object, and you have the right to stick that object in a CD player and listen to it all you like.
US legal code TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 106. - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
The owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: [cornell.edu]
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) 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;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission
Those are the ONLY exclusive rights a copyright holder has. They are therefore the only rights he has to license to someone. Without the grant of one or more of those rights (above and beyond existing fair use rights) a license does not exist. Basic contract law - a contract does not exist if they do not give you something of value. And those 6 rights are the only thing a copyright holder has to offer,
-