Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

RIAA Trains Legal Sights On Aimster 275

Posted by timothy from the all-we-want-is-some-special-protection- dept.
AdventureExtreme writes: "The recording industry filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Aimster on Thursday. The suit was filed in federal court in Manhattan on behalf of major record labels including Universal Music, Sony Music , EMI Group and Bertelsmann's BMG. " An RIAA lawyer is quoted as saying that they plan to seek a Napster-like injunction to bar Aimster users from trading in copyrighted materials. (FAT32 file systems are widely used for copyright violation too; are they next?)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Trains Legal Sights On Aimster More

RIAA Trains Legal Sights On Aimster

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Skipped over Gnutella (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Posting A/C because I do a little of this at work.

    You hardly have to stop everything! (Not that you possibly could, of course.) The reason why file trading is going on at such a rate is that the potential cost of file serving is cheap - if you have unlimited service, you don't gain an incremental charge by allowing part of it to be used to d/l stuff, especially if all it entails is leaving a server running while you go to work/sleep/whatever. All you have to pay is the power costs.

    The risk of getting caught and having your broadband shot (perhaps leaving you without other alternatives!) is an additional cost. Right now, the risk is incredibly low. However, spending some time and effort, shutting down some servers, getting some poor people (well, poor pirates) dropped, and publicizing the results... All of the sudden, the perception changes. The benefit of serving the pirated material is low, and if this cost is significant to you, you're not likely to serve. At the very least, you're going to be a lot less likely to serve those properties that are held by zealous enforcers, which to the enforcer is good enough, right?

    Don't expect support from your ISP. People who run servers are using WAY more bandwidth than the norm! If you're moving 50k of data every second, 24/7, that's a lot more than a dozen Joe Averages. So, by dropping you, the ISP frees up network resources that it can sell to other people (or just improve the performance for everybody already using it, either way is good for them). As a side benefit, all the work is done for them, and all the blame goes to the enforcer and not the ISP. And they're not obligated to refund money! Remember, folks, people who run file servers are TOS abusers, not valued customers. ;p

    Nailing individual servers won't stop piracy, no. But if you can reduce it by a few percent (or more!) without too much effort, while NOT trampling on the rights of the innocent in the process, why not?
  • You know, there's a real simple way to deal with this kind of thing. On the day that Aimster gets shut down, everybody who's ever used Napster, Gnutella, Aimster, etc. should STOP BUYING CD'S FOR A MONTH! Just start making a list of the CD's you WOULD have bought, and get them a month later.

    Or, even better, if you want to buy a cd, go to a used CD store and buy it there. You'll get your CD, the RIAA won't get any of your money, and you'll help support your local businesses.
  • Silly. It is in the RIAA's interests that the public in general is listening to the Artiste of the Week rather than the old stuff. Harder to get used stuff for new bands (..unless they *really* suck..) which would cut into the RIAA's profits. Also it justifies their marketing investment for new talent. And that's not counting the whole copyright expiration thing.

    their life's work will be merely "product," to be disposed of immediately upon consumption.

    Which means we're ready to buy more! .. (in all honestly, most works really don't deserve to be remembered. I think my granddaughter digging out a scratchy MC^H^H Hammer tape might be a scarring experience. For me anyway. Be careful what you wish for.)

  • Start a trust-based community for CD swapping.

    Ain't nothing illegal about sharing a CD with a friend, right?

    --
  • Or just as good as STOP BUYING CDs is to start buying them second-hand. Yah, sure, RIAA is still getting their cut on the original sale, but every sale after that fucks 'em over.

    If you want to do it ethically, send the artists a buck. Hell, that's more than twice what RIAA would give 'em...

    --
  • This equates to swapping dust covers on a book.

    The content is still exactly the same, but the packaging is a bit different. It's still copyrighted.

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • Re:This is bullshit (Score:5)

    by Accipiter ( 8228 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @06:45PM (#199437)
    Look, all these file sharing services were not created with the purpose to share copyrighted music -- they were created to share files in general: to share whatever kind of files they were capbable of.

    Okay then. Fire up Napster or Aimster, and search for a High Quality JPEG reproduction of the Mona Lisa. How about a file which describes the inner workings of a Floppy drive? Or perhaps the entire text of 'Macbeth'?

    Disappointed? Now search for an mp3 audio file of 'It's gonna be me' by N*Sync.

    See a pattern?

    Just because M$, the MPAA, and the RIAA are losing money because *some* people use the internet and file sharing services to distribute copyrighted materials doesn't mean they can restrict MY rights in any way.

    WELL. I mean shit, why should we put our bags on the belt and walk through metal detectors at the airport because *some* people use bombs to blow up airplanes? They're stomping all over my right to privacy! Just because the FAA, the airlines, and the airports are losing money doesn't mean they can restrict MY rights in any way.

    There may be a problem with the distribution of copyrighted material on the internet -- but that doesn't give organizations like [Microsoft], the [RIAA], the [MPAA], or the [BSA] the right to violate MY rights. (l33t-speak edits are mine)

    There may be a problem? Where have you been sitting for the past two years? Regardless of what you may think or what blind eye you choose to turn to the situation, the RIAA isn't going to pounce on something with no justification. Sure they love to overcharge for albums. Sure they rape the artist on profits by keeping the majority of it for their own greedy bank accounts. But I dislike the RIAA for the same reason I dislike Napster and its friends - they all screw the artists. Go ahead and say "Oh, well, they make enough money as it is!" Should they be condemned for cashing in on their talents? Every one of you would do the exact same thing given the chance. I see nobody stopping you from climbing into a studio and putting out an album.

    They can't say "we're going to force services like Napster to filter out anything that has the digital music contents of X" -- that violates my right to distribute parodies

    Why not? You write a book and decide to sell it for $12.95. I steal the manuscript from your desk, make a shitload of photocopies, and give them away. Are you as an author not going to attempt to regulate that?

    And last I checked, parodies differ greatly from the content they parody. Name a parody that is an exact duplicate of the original, and I will withdraw this argument.

    they now have to make their product inferior via unnecessary bloat.

    Companies have the right to make their software as inferior and as bloated as they damn well please. Consumer reaction will determine whether they continue that process.

    They can't say "we're going to keep tabs on every log of the internet," and log IP's, and request that ISP's give us the personal information of IP's that distribute "copyrighted files" -- that's a violation of the right to privacy.

    I don't recall anyone ever stating that they were going to attempt to "keep tabs on every log of the internet." And guess what, bucko? Once you're assigned an IP on the internet, your privacy is all but gone. DoS a major government website from your IP, and you'll see how private your connection really is.

    In other words, they are free to protect their rights, so long as they do not in any way violate my rights, or anyone elses.

    Oh, I see. So they're perfectly within their freedom to protect themselves, just so long as it doesn't inconvenience you, right? Because all of the 'rights' you are arguing about aren't rights. You're merely pandering to popular opinion hoping to score a bit of brownie points. That stack of pirated CDs in your closet is inconsequential, because if they get seized, they're invading your right to privacy.

    Aww. It pains me so.

    You want to fight something? Fight the RIAA. Fight Napster. Fight the Napster clones. Fight for the rights of the artists. Get out there and spread the word of what's happening, and how the RIAA and all of the file sharing services are ripping off the artists. Do something. Do anything!

    Why aren't you doing anything? Oh. That's right. You're only interested in free music. That being the case, you probably just "Pshhh'd" and "Bah'd" your way through my post, because your mind is still too busy trying to justify your actions.

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • An analogy is not an argument.

    Actually, refutation by analogy is very much a valid method for refuting someone else's argument. If you present a syllogistic argument, and I present an analogous argument of the same form that is clearly invalid, then I have refuted your argument - since in deductive logic, if one argument of a given form is invalid, all arguments of the same form are also invalid. Logically invalid, that is - the particulars of the argument do not matter from a logical standpoint.

    ;)
  • Okay, fine, make me dig out my logic texts...

    From Introduction to Logic [amazon.com], by Copi and Cohen, section 10.4, pages 367-368:

    A. Refutation by Logical Analogy


    In this section, we specify more precisely what is meant by the term "valid." We relate our formal definition to more familiar and intuitive notions by considering the method of refutation by logical analogy. Presented with the argument

    If Bacon wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare, then Bacon was a great writer.
    Bacon was a great writer.
    Therefore Bacon wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare.

    we may agree with the premisses but disagree with the conclusion, judging the argument to be invalid. One way of proving invalidity is by the method of logical analogy. "You might as well argue," we could retort, "that

    If Washington was assassinated, then Washington is dead.
    Washington is dead.
    Therefore Washington was asassinated.

    and you cannot seriously defend this argument," we should continue, "because here the premisses are known to be true and the conclusion known to be false. This argument is obviously invalid; your argument is of the same form: so yours is invalid also." This type of refutation is very effective.

    Let us examine more closely the method of refutation by logical analogy, for it points the way to an excellent general technique for testing arguments. To prove the invalidity of an argument, it suffices to formulate another argument that (1) has exactly the same form as the first and (2) has true premisses and a false conclusion. This method is based upon the fact that validity and invalidity are purely formal characteristics of arguments, which is to say that any two arguments having exactly the same form are either both valid or both invalid, regardless of any differences in the subject matter with which they are concerned.


    Actually, I'm surprised I remember it as well as I do. Shall I continue? No?

    Here endeth the lesson...;)
  • Ahh, see, I should have checked back before posting my screed below ;)

    Anyway, it may not be effective in the context of arguing the law, but it doesn't, I think, reflect well on us or our laws to have a legal system that actively resists logical argument...

  • FAT32 (Score:5)

    by Syberghost ( 10557 ) <syberghost@syber ... S.com minus poet> on Thursday May 24, 2001 @04:22PM (#199441)
    Actually, if they could manage to ban FAT32, that'd be the first good thing to come out of these lawsuits.

    Maybe we can convince them to ban NetBIOS while they're at it.

    -
  • Several years ago, a case out of (I believe California) called MAI vs. Peak Electronics wound up being granted review by the Supreme Court of the United States. MAI's claim against Peak was that Peak violated MAI's copyright because the act of turning MAI's computer on made a copy of data contained into ROM, and that making this copy without a license was a violation of MAI's copyright. Never mind that the copy was required for the operation of the computer -- the whole point was to squash an independent service provider and force repairs to go only to MAI-approved repair outfits. Customers had a license to make a copy, and authorized repair centers had that same right ... but Peak, as an unauthorized repair center (read competition), did not.

    That was an appallingly bad decision, and Congress added a new section to the copyright code to prevent this from happening again. It's a classic example of a law being written as a specific response to a specific court ruling:

    17 USC 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

    (c) Machine Maintenance or Repair. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or repair of that machine, if -

    (1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and

    (2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine.

    (d) Definitions. - For purposes of this section -

    (1) the ''maintenance'' of a machine is the servicing of the machine in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine; and

    (2) the ''repair'' of a machine is the restoring of the machine to the state of working in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine.
  • Start a trust-based community for CD swapping.

    Ain't nothing illegal about sharing a CD with a friend, right?

    That, along with the suggestion to STOP BUYING CDs for a month, are the best ideas I've heard in a while. For those to weak to give up their CD/DVD habits (as I have done, and believe me, it wasn't easy ... I was used to spending several thousand dollars a year on movies in particular, first on LaserDisk, then later DVD), is one of the smaratest ideas I've heard yet.

    Another possibility: donate DVD collections to local libraries, and use the library as your conduit for sharing media. Nothing illegal about that, and you have 200 years of precedent and a large institution backing you up.

  • What about IRC? (Score:3)

    by Zarchon ( 12168 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @04:55PM (#199444)
    Based on a quick perusal of the aimster website, it appears that it's just a filesharing system tacked onto a chat program. My question is, if they can ban aimster, what will stop them from attacking good old IRC?

    Think about it. Files can easily be transferred via dcc, and it'd be trivial to set up a bot to distribute the contents of selected directories to selected nicks, just like aimster.

    Where will it end? They (the RIAA lawyers) can't possibly win until the whole of the net has been shut down. And then how will they reap the profits from their online sales?

    Feh.

    Zarchon
  • FAT32 file systems are widely used for copyright violation too; are they next?

    Shh! Don't give them any ideas!
  • You all notice of course the RIAA is only trying to take down popular MP3 trading networks right? They're doing this because they want to stop Jonny and Susie teenager from downloading Britney's newest single rather than buy the album which was released amid much fanfare. They don't give a fuck about us fucking geeks who have uber libraries of music. They're trying to stop the easy trading from happening whcih got MP3 into the public spotlight in the first place. They knew legally they couldn't go after people releasing MP3 encoders because MPEG is an open standard and layer 3 audio is merely a function or a larger system. Because they didn't capitalize on network transmission of music they're trying to get MP3 trading shut down so they can replace it with their illtimed system. I'm willing to bet they want to plan to open a subscription or pay-per-play online service to deliver music. They'll offer limited play singles that can only be downloaded by their software or by people who license their codec and encryption method from them. So you could listen to and download lots of music using say..AOL because it would be part of the client. You'll then be able to download entire albums and burn them to a CD using RIAA software. This would work because its easy. People who run AOL or Earthlink or MSN (which comprise most residential internet users) would get all the "legal" music they wanted and others could download a licensed player in order to jam to tunes while on the net.
    For slashdot folk this is horseshit. We're going to get fucked over by the RIAA but theres little we can do about it. Voting and whining have never and will never help. You could also conduct peaceful protests and non-militant terrorist actions against the RIAA in public forums. Don't attack any artists or anything, they're doing what they need to make some cash and get their music heard. For every band that goes platinum there's twenty bands who're lucky as hell to sell ten thousand albums. Send all your RIAA artist cds to some dudes and have them dropped off in the lobby of the various RIAA studios; buy CDs used and from swapmeats; start a CD sharing club locally and copy music within the bounds of the HMRA. There is alot of shit you can do to circumvent the RIAA. Shit how about a realtime version of oth.net using LDAP. All you have to do is run a little FTP deamon and directory client on your PC and blamo instant trading network. The RIAA is a pretty big easy fucking target; the problem hitting them is they're hiding behind their signed artists and the FCC, DOJ, and radio broadcasters are all running interference for them.
  • You can't mean that! FDISK is the most useful troubleshooting tool available for Windows! Case in point:

    "Now enter C:\FDISK. Say yes for large filesystems. Now hit 4. Hit ENTER. Hit ENTER. Hit Enter. Hit Y. Hit Enter. Hit ESC. Hit CTRL+ALT+DEL. What, you Don't have a C:\> prompt? That sounds like a PC problem, you'll need to contact the people who sold it to you."

    Works like a charm.

    --
  • One problem with Napster's EULA, however, is that Napster's EULA was anti-copyrighted material in name only. Napster not only failed to discourage the trading of copyrighted material, they found gobs of emails and correspondence from its founders about, basically, how useful the service would be for trading copyrighted material (as well as statements about how much music the founders had gotten off the service!).

    On another hand, considering that Aimster "transactions" are also encrypted, and Napster trades were not, it's probably a much easier argument to make for Aimster that they can't govern/filter/control the material that flows through their servers (or the materials the users trade).

    Plus, given that Napster was music only, and Aimster is a generic file trading service, it can also be a much stronger argument that people are trading material to which those people own the copyright to. Not everybody can be a musician, but everybody can write crappy haikus, take pictures of their cats at a distance of two inches, or share the "Hello, world" programs they wrote.

    --

  • Simple solution (Score:4)

    by Checkered Daemon ( 20214 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @05:05PM (#199452)
    You know, there's a real simple way to deal with this kind of thing. On the day that Aimster gets shut down, everybody who's ever used Napster, Gnutella, Aimster, etc. should STOP BUYING CD'S FOR A MONTH! Just start making a list of the CD's you WOULD have bought, and get them a month later.

    Hell, you've got how many CD's? And how many gigs of mp3's? You can put off new CD's for a month, can't you?

    Don't think it won't be noticed. These suckers keep REAL careful track. A sudden drop is gonna be noticed BIGTIME.

    It's all about the money. Vote with yours.

  • .... when he listened to an intricate 12 parts (IIRC) vocal composition performed in the Sistine Chapel and transcribed it down perfectly from memory.

    You see, the Vatican wanted the exclusive on that piece, but Mozart had a really good memory (sore understatement) and threw a wrench in their plans.

    Nowadays probably they would cite the DMCA and burn him at the stake...
  • Copyright infringement is not piracy, nor is it theft. Theft is defined as depriving someone from the use of something that's rightfully theirs. Piracy is that thing you do where you don an eyepatch and a cutlass and get to sail around the world and rape the land and pillage the women. I believe there are parrots involved two, but frankly, that's just a little too disturbing for me to imagine. Needless to say, neither of these terms have anything to do with copying intellectual property.

  • Skipped over Gnutella (Score:3)

    by miahrogers ( 34176 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @04:04PM (#199460) Homepage
    I was always under the impression that when they went to the lawyers these would be the first to die:
    1. Napster
    2. Gnutella
    3. Aimster
    4. AudioGalaxy
    5. (other stuff)

    Of course that's mainly based on volume of mp3s traded. Stil it's interesting that everyone has always been talking about how gnutella can avoid punishment because it has no central servers, and it seems that's working! I guess going after individual Gnutella software companies would take more time/megabyte of "pirated" music than aimster(which I assume only has one real producer and therefore more volume per producer).
  • I know similar suggestions have been made but I haven't seen anyone suggest this one just yet. I propose the RIAA and MPAA join forces to sue Bob Metcalf for his immense part in creating what eventually became the Ethernet standards we use today. It's used in every dorm room and is the major factor of the media that carries copyrighted works. How dare he not rewrite the standards to incorporate facist copy-protections schemes at the beckoning of the RIAA and MPAA. Shame on dear Bob. BTW, Ethernet had its 29th birthday on teh 22nd of May. Oh, and did I forget the smartjack makers? What about the cable producing companies? Surely could implement copy-protection schemes directly into their wiring and jacks. They are just too lazy to do it. I am really getting sick of the RIAA and MPAA. Honestly if I was a foreign country training terrorist and having a hard time finding buildings to practice on, might I suggest whatever buildings encompass the RIAA and MPAA? I don't think there is any down to earth American that would miss those bastards one bit. Oh wait, now I can be like that poor guy that posted to a newsgroup about picketing in front of some building and his comments were taken so far out of context that they are barely legible. Kudos to that judge for allowing that fsckup. FYI, this post is meant to be taken with a large block of salt, 4 whiskey shots, and a big chunk of sarcasm.

    --

  • The state of copyright in the 21st Century (Score:5)

    by darylp ( 41915 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @04:06PM (#199465)
    Current copyright laws are, in my opinion, going to put the 20th century's greatest artistic outpourings into a legally mandated black hole. Most artists and authors have an expectation that their work will immortalize them. Otherwise we wouldn't have such things as the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame (as biased and political an organization as it is) or the Grammys, or the Oscars, or any other prizes and awards for great contributions to the field.

    The problem with this expectation is that in order for your work to be immortalized, it has to survive beyond the first generation of its fans. Just because the Baby Boomers put down in their book that Bob Dylan was somebody fuckin' great, doesn't mean that I will. And it is my generation that will be responsible for ensuring the longevity of art created by my parents' generation. In order for a work to survive past a generation, copies have to be made. Lots of them. Vinyl albums are incredibly fragile, and are easily scratched by careless children, and left on radiators or in attics and warp. CD's get dropped behind the sofa. Cassette tapes are left on the dashboard and melt. Boo.

    Since copying all of these media is now illegal, I won't be making any copies of them. The only entity authorised to copy the media is the record company. They only make copies when they think they'll get a sale. Now, as the generation who popularized the work starts dropping off, sales of the work drop off as well. Fewer copies are made. But the copyright term still stands. Before the copyright expires, virtually every "consumer" of his work will have expired as well. Their collections will be sold at estate sales, thrown in the trash, or left in the attic to decay.

    Finally, the copyright expires and people are now free to distribute their own copies of the work. But who cares anymore? The first generation that will be legally able to make free and clear copies of Bob Dylan's work, as I understand it, will be my own grandchildren, who will not be born for another twenty years.

    The possibility exists that there will be few private copies after 75 years. The company that owns them may clear them out to make more room in their vault.

    Put that in the wayforward machine and imagine any type of bleak orwellian culture you like. The results are in the long-term detrimental to that which most artists crave: their continued adulation by a rapt audience. It is the cheer of the crowd that keeps them going. Knowing that the cheer goes on after their funeral has to be a significant part of what they expect as their legacy. Over-restrictive copyright laws will cut that legacy short, and their life's work will be merely "product," to be disposed of immediately upon consumption.
  • I don't see the problem with what you're saying. Basically, the RIAA/MPAA goes after the actual users trading their copyrighted content, and leaves law-abiding people alone. I fail to see how this is anything other than a good solution to the problem at hand.
  • FAT32 file systems are widely used for copyright violation too; are they next?
    Really, if you have nothing intelligent to say.. It sure makes a lot of sense. Take down the big one and then every other one after that. They *are* breaking the law, it's just that the law sux (or at least we think so). Will they go after the Opennap meta server next?
  • pfft. Their empire is protected by the law, why shouldn't they excersize their rights? If you are really sick of it, go to congress, get the law changed.
  • they said it was illegal.
  • cause you wont be using fat32 under winXP.
  • Learn not
    to press
    enter randomly
    as you're typing
    stuff in, for
    fuck sake.
  • No lawyer can give you a straight answer, exactly how do you string out a law suit? How do you make a court case cost a lot of money? If I can get myself a free lawyer or (shock) I defend myself, where does the money go? Don't say "court fees" like it is some all encompassing answer. Tell me, exactly where does the money go? I'm tempted to get myself sued just so I can find out and write up a FAQ.

  • indeed. (Score:4)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Thursday May 24, 2001 @04:35PM (#199494) Homepage Journal
    This is also the justification for EULA's and reverse engineering laws. After all, if you're not copying anything what does it have to do with copyright? Here is the relevant paragraph:

    In MAI Systems Corp v Peak Computer Inc 991 F2d 511 (9th Cir 1993) the United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit held that "copying" for the purposes of US copyright law occurs when a computer program is transferred from a permanent storage device to a computer's RAM. At 518 of its reasons the Court said: "After reviewing the record we find no specific facts ... which indicate that the copy created in the RAM is not fixed. ... The law also supports the conclusion that [the defendant's] loading of copyrighted software into RAM creates a `copy' of that software in violation of the Copyright Act."
  • Correct. Emacs is for email.

    Until the someone inevitably creates a package for Emacs that does something RIAA decides violates copyright, and they have it banned.
  • I used the word "illegal" to refer to ruling that Napster was prohibited by contributory copyright law.

    No, you simply made a point of fact (including your subject line: "noone said it was wrong/they said it was illegal") that someone had used the word "illegal" to describe Napster.

    Yes, some people have said that, or at least I've seen them quoted as saying that. Never did you state that this was your opinion nor that you were referring to anything but what some unstated person said. And you ask me to "clearly define what I think" and admonish me that "We're not mind readers"? I was merely pointing out the definition of the word "illegal" that you noted some one had used was not fixed, and can mean the law does not mention or take account of something (Obviously it is a useless term to use in debate).

    I have not in any way stated that because copyright law doesn't say this is ok it must be prohibited.
    Nor did I say you did. Why are you taking this so personally?

    To answer your numbered questions:

    1. "illegal" means "not according to or authorized by law".

    2. "unlawful", means "actually contrary to law".

    3. The difference between "not according to or authorized by law" and actually contrary to law".

    4 & 5 You didn't state these as answerable questions.

  • Laws of nature: cause those outside the legal system to pay little attention to the court case, other than maybe to discuss the case and snicker at its disjunction from our world, then go on and flaunt the law until some legislator notices that having a widely ignored law reduces respect for the law and takes it off the books.

    Wrong. Some legislator notices that the law is being widely ignored, and introduces a new law that increases the penalties for violating the old law.

  • DMCA Violation? (Score:3)

    by sconeu ( 64226 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @04:35PM (#199505) Homepage Journal
    Didn't an earlier article on Aimster point out that it used a form of encryption as an access control, and that the RIAA would be in violation of the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA if they snooped?

    What happened to that?
  • I reckon that they'll have Gnutella declared a copyright circumvention device (whatever that really means) and then send out the C&D letters to everyone that offers it for download, a la DeCSS. Since Gnutella was originally written by our llamma-whipping friends at Nullsoft, which is now owned by AOL-Time-Warner, it's yet another instance where, as one poster has already put it, AOLTW should be sueing themselves out of existance. Interestingly, they seem to be going not in the order of the volume of MP3s traded, as you (miahrogers) proposes. But instead, they seem to be going in order of usability & familiarity. So I reckon AudioGalaxy is next before Gnutella. This seems to point to the fact that the people turning the wheels in the RIAA aren't too technically saavy (as if we didn't already know that).

  • I had thought... (Score:3)

    by Gerad ( 86818 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @04:16PM (#199515)
    ...that the RIAA was only going after SERVICE providers that helped people trade mp3s. AIMster, to my knowledge, is only software that doesn't rely upon a central server (being based on gnutella and all). So how exactly are they going to get an injunction? The whole point with Napster was that Napster provided a SERVICE, NOT software, to help people trade mp3s. Therefore, it wasn't quite like suing someone for using FAT32 for piracy. I think the approprate analogy would be free disk-space type providers that used FAT32 to allow people to store and distribute mp3s =).
  • Microsoft has RIAA and MPAA dick in its ass. Really. Microsoft stands to benefit greatly if the only way to view all future media files is with Windows. They're in with the DVD consortium, too. Do you think that was a mistake? Come on.

    How long before the RIAA starts going after the open encoders for Ogg Vorbis and MP3? I bet they'll be a lot more effective in shutting them down than the Frauhauf Institute.

  • Ok. (Score:2)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 )
    Everyone at /. agree to vote the way I tell you to, and I'll go to Congress and tell them I control a block of 100,000 votes (Or however many /. users there are) and that if something doesn't get done to rein in the corporations, we'll start voting to remove people from office.
  • It doesn't even take a lot. Every garage band I've ever seen covers some popular songs, which they pretty much learned to play by ear. It's pretty easy -- I was getting to the point where I could figure out what a band was playing and I'm a totally left-brained computer geek with very little musical talent whatsoever.

    Of course, doing this also involves absolutely NO creativity -- Working out how to play that cool guitar solo is completely missing the point of the guitar solo, but that's another issue entirely.

  • Re:It all goes back ... (Score:3)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @06:40PM (#199522) Homepage Journal
    They only have the money because we gave it to them. Personally, I haven't bought a CD in months, don't plan on buying a DVD player and probably won't buy a TV when the room mate moves out. Also haven't been to and don't intend to go to see movies on the big screen either. There's nothing but crap on the big screen anymore, and the theater wants to charge me $8 (It's probably more now) for the privilidge of seeing half an hour of commercials before the movie starts. These days if any of these organizations get any money from me, it's mostly by accident.

    It's a pity about MP3.com but I really don't like mp3 as a format anyway due to the patent encumberance things. I'd really like to see a company start up with MP3.com's original business plan, using the .ogg file format and pushing mainly indie groups. Anyone could have seen that my.mp3.com shit getting ready to hit the fan as soon as they suggested it.

  • Stop making fun of fat people, they are humans too. Maybe you can run away from 1 fat guy, but 32 fats guys are sure to catch you no matter how fast you can run. Then who will be laughing?
  • There is definitely some confusion here.

    The reason Aimster is being sued is because they are a service. The reason Aimster is being sued, and the reason they are almost certainly going to be found liable for facilitation of copyright infringement, is because they run a service which helps people illegally trade copyrighted materials. The reason Cisco and Microsoft will not be found liable is because they sell products, which are out of the control of the manufacturer after the customers get them (as opposed to Napster and Aimster which require constant maintenance and supervision to operate). The analogy is that Cisco and Microsoft are gun manufacturers, but Aimster and Napster are professional hit men. It is actually quite a black and white distinction, and there is little legal ambiguity about it.

  • Re:my hand (Score:4)

    by Winged Cat ( 101773 ) <atymes AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday May 24, 2001 @04:06PM (#199535)
    No. They'll just revive the old punishment of chopping it off. After all, they say you are a thief.
  • Audiogalaxies software is only for windows AFAIK, which means that microsoft works with the RIAA to make sure that it doesnt work properly with all future versions of windows, and the RIAA is happy. Don't you remember the plot to limit mp3 quality to "ween users off mp3 and onto realmedia"?
  • How can you say that copyright infringement isn't theft? The Word it's self, "copyRIGHT", describes a right that is given to you be law. Copyright is the right to decide when, and how something you write is distributed. When you copy and distribute someone elses work without thier permission you took away thier right to distribute that work in the manner they wanted. By your own deffinition "Theft is defined as depriving someone from the use of something that's rightfully theirs.", you are depriving someone the use of thier rights as defined by the law.
    =\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\ =\=\=\
  • "When I make an unauthorized copy, you haven't lost anything real."

    Are you saying that if you copy software you haven't taken away the author's right to distribute the software the way he wants?
    =\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\ =\=\=\=\
  • Actually RIAA works like a shark in still water. It ensures the quality of best of breed products. They already downed the technically inferior Napster and they are going after poor design in Aimster next. After they will be done, only the best and most distributed and thus also best networking solutions will survive. They will maybe even help us unite on a general standard for file exchange. I think that one day in near future we will thank them!

  • Next Cisco will be sued (Score:4)

    by Kamran ( 109309 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @03:57PM (#199544)
    This is getting stupid. Next thing you know, you'll be hearing about a lawsuit against Cisco, for routing the packets which are infringing copyright.
  • One of the biggest problems, however, is that Napster, for the majority of users, is like a 'free' version of that NOW compilation we've seen top the charts for a few years now. The people the RIAA really wants to target aren't educated consumers like you, or me, or most of the Slashdot community, but the people who just want 'that song from the radio.'

    The RIAA makes a great deal of profit off of one-hit-wonders, and artists that don't precisely put out full albums of good music. They don't give the proverbial shit about people downloading Frank Zappa; they're concerned about people downloading La Vida Loca and then not needing to buy the CD.

    I agree with you - Napster is a great tool for 'getting into' artists. Because I got the wrong song when I searched for 'Without You' I ended up buying the entire Stevie Ray Vaughan catalog. I agree that napster is a powerful tool.

    We aren't the ones they're after.

    (Unless I've horribly misjudged the slashdot crowd and they're actually all into J.Lo and Eagle Eye Cherry!)

  • making fun of fat32: (Score:4)

    by Argylengineotis ( 118734 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @04:00PM (#199548)
    You poke fun at the idea that fat32 is used to facilitate piracy of IP, but what about AIM itself? after all, isn't Aimster a plugin-like program to use the AOL Instant Messenger software to trade music? Not to mention that you can just trade files directly with AIM...

    AOL/Time Warner are in the uncomfortable position of needing to sue themselves into oblivion.
  • that would be good. in the meantime, DON'T buy from labels that belong to the RIAA!

    -------

  • WELL. I mean shit, why should we put our bags on the belt and walk through metal detectors at the airport because *some* people use bombs to blow up airplanes? They're stomping all over my right to privacy! Just because the FAA, the airlines, and the airports are losing money doesn't mean they can restrict MY rights in any way.

    No reason at all. And if they want to close down all the airports, and ground all the planes too, as a precaution, presumably you would happily go along with that.

  • Remedy? (Score:4)

    by e_lehman ( 143896 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @05:47PM (#199561)

    He added that the legal action in New York will seek a Napster-like injunction to bar Aimster users from trading in copyrighted materials.

    Does this remedy make sense? Without a central sever, how could AIMster bar trading of copyrighted materials?

    Incidentally, why is AIMster incorporated? Is it to provide the individuals with a legal umbrella? (It is hard to believe that they have get-rich plans. They seem pretty clued.)

    And, hey, wasn't AIMster already suing for a declaratory judgement on its service?

  • What evidence will they have? (Score:3)

    by startled ( 144833 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @04:15PM (#199564)
    With Napster, it was easy to say, "look, we did a bunch of searches, and we got 99% copyrighted material.". What are they going to do with Aimster, I wonder? The link didn't give any details, but I know that the RIAA isn't on my buddy list. Think they'll try to subpoena a lot of the information?

  • Re:Next Cisco will be sued (Score:3)

    by Ig0r ( 154739 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @06:03PM (#199566)
    Or the fact that just because it's an MP3 or a DivX doesn't mean that it isn't your copyright, or that the copyright owner hasn't given you permission to distribute it.

    --

  • Re:I had thought... (Score:3)

    by AntiNorm ( 155641 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @04:27PM (#199567)
    Thought of something as I was reading your post: AOL is going after Aimster because of the AIM in their name (which IMO is a bunch of BS), and some record labels that are controlled by AOLTW are now going after Aimster for another reason. So what you essentially have is one company fighting another on multiple fronts.

    This is bad. Legal issues aside, this demonstrates what is wrong with having large, bloated corporations such as AOLTW -- they can pretty much squash out any company they feel like for whatever reason they feel like. Yes, I know -- it sounds like Microsoft. Personally, I'm wondering how in the hell the US government approved the AOL-TW merger in the first place.

    ---
    Check in...(OK!) Check out...(OK!)

  • Re:Next Cisco will be sued (Score:3)

    by Kragma ( 160238 ) <kragma.alltel@net> on Thursday May 24, 2001 @04:22PM (#199569)
    The scary thing is, with the new "media type filtering" on the new routers mentioned a couple days ago, I could see the MPAA and RIAA suing to have all MP3s and DivX movies filtered out at the router level.

    I remeber maybe a year ago a Sony exec hinting at exactly this. It's certainly their plan; to bring the entire Internet to heel.

  • And then what? (Score:3)

    by TeknoHog ( 164938 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @05:49PM (#199572) Homepage Journal
    Human memory? Any form of information transfer between people?

    Consider this: If a person has an excellent memory and a diverse musical talent, s/he can to some extent reproduce a piece of music to someone else without violating any copyright laws (not considering public performance, of course). Well, most of us are not that talented, so why cannot we use technology to augment our limited physical and mental capacity? I know it's not exactly like Braille terminals for the blind, but where do you draw the line?

    As to the outlawing of TCP/IP, there will be other ways. New protocols, new physical systems for communication. The geeks will find their way somehow.. By the time this happens, let us hope that the law regains its original idea as something organized by the people, for the people. Until then, let's really screw RIAA and practice our Jedi skills in the telepathic trading of mp3z.

    --
    I hit the karma cap, now do I gain enlightenment?

  • Re:This is bullshit (Score:4)

    by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Friday May 25, 2001 @04:42AM (#199574)
    And last I checked, parodies differ greatly from the content they parody. Name a parody that is an exact duplicate of the original, and I will withdraw this argument.

    The Backstreet Boys. QED.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • FAT32 file systems are widely used for copyright violation too

    Actually, since MS makes most of the systems used to do the actual copying, why don't they do something sensible and sue Microsoft?

    Or is it easier to sue somebody who doesn't have a lot of money?

    Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip

  • Re:One after the other.. (Score:3)

    by SubtleNuance ( 184325 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @06:09PM (#199581) Journal
    They *are* breaking the law

    They are *NOT* breaking the law.

    This is a simple case of a misguided, ignorant, and corrupt system. There is no law that says 'you may not potentially provide a means that someone may use to violate copyright law.'

    If there *was* such a law cars (used to transport illegal copies of works), houses (used to store illegal copies of works), and pencils (used to make illegal copies of works) would be targeted.

    This matches the simple 'hammer as a B&E tool' model. Aimster may be used to aid in an illegal activity by a third party. It may also be used for legal activity. Banning something because it *may* be used illegally is dangerous - it violates presumption of innocence... and it is a *VERY* slippery slope America is descending. You are making things illegal based on their function with regards to enterprise - not based on humanistic moral concepts. Laws should not restrict individuals for the sake of profit. Ever.

    200 years from now America is going to be a perverse place; one described in countless cyberpunk novels where cyberspace is a world where good guys use illegal tech and run from the authorities.

  • In no particular order or categorization:

    NFS, HTTP, FTP, scp, rcp, ext2, reiserfs, XFS, JFS, BeFS, UFS, rfc1149 [faqs.org], Network Neighbourhood, SmbFS, TCP/IP, UDP, paper, any form of analog or digital storage medium, any form of hardware or software, telephones, cellphones, speakers, sterios, radios, radio stations, television, human voice, music itself, humans themselves?

    And the list goes on....

    --
    Garett

  • Re:Injunction against FAT32 filesystem (Score:3)

    by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @06:40PM (#199590) Journal
    It was rejected last fall. IOMEGA and IBM were the only huge players in favor for it anyway. HP, Apple and other computer makers who make systems for multimedia rejected it because it would piss off there customers. Just do not buy a Ioemga or an IBM drive and you will be fine. SO relax. Also Dvd's and the new SCSI standard already have cprm or a cprm-like mechanism for the dvd drives. This is why you can't copy .vob files with the drives. The new SCSI and dvd drives obviously work fine under linux. Linus doesn't have to write a cprm driver to get the devices to work. The area of the disk in question needs special software to write to it and its not manditory to use the sectors for proper use. Linux can just just ignore the sectors. Unless your a pirate or use sdmi files there is nothing to worry about. You can still download mp3's to the drive under linux with cprm, assuming it was passed by tha ATA commitee.

  • my hand (Score:3)

    by edwarddes ( 199284 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @03:56PM (#199591)
    oh darn! I used my hand to copy a protected work. does this mean an injunction will be filed against me using my hand?
  • Your grandchildren, if they are ever born, will never see the Dylan albums because the Sonny Bono III Copyright Extension act will keep them locked up with Mickey and Goofy in a perpetual string of "limited time"'s, as the constitution allows.

    Bryguy

  • Thats because gnutella sucks.. (Score:3)

    by Dragonshed ( 206590 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @04:42PM (#199596)
    They skipped gnutella because, as far as peer to peer systems go, it sucks. Research papers such as Free Riding on Gnutella [firstmonday.dk] and Why Gnutella Can't Scale, No, Really [darkridge.com] articulate this much better than I can. The success rate of pirating music via Gnutella is much less than those of napster, aimster, and community-based hotline [bigredh.com] servers.

    The RIAA admitted [cnet.com] this, if you remember :)
  • Guns, knives, pointy sticks = contributory murder.

    Err... I like your example, but a lot of people already pretty much accept this one as stone cold fact. Probably not the best argument to try to make to the public (or even around here, considering some threads I've seen).

  • It's going to be tough for the RIAA.

    Real tough. Look at what Aimster has going for itself:

    The phrase "Can't touch this!" is prominently displayed on Aimster's home page. I don't know about you, but I doubt that the RIAA can counter such a profound statment.

    "The servers are UP!" Ouch! Are the RIAA's servers up? If they are, they don't say they are!!

    The woman [aimster.com] on the website sure has some politcal clout right there. Take that RIAA!

  • The RIAA and Microsoft may not have the world's most impressive understanding of technology, but what they do know is how to make money.

    The RIAA doesn't want a sensible approach to ensuring its materials aren't illegally distributed, not per se; that's just one approach that they believe will make them more money.

    It wouldn't surprise me at all to see the two become close bedfellows, given how much they both want to control the data we access.

    You want to share files? We've got that .NET service right here, for a nominal fee.

  • Aimster's real problem was in "branching out" - I remember when Aimster was first making news, and how the pundits speculated on whether or not it was legal...a decent case can be made for (the original) Aimster being allowed under the Audio Home Recording Act, which essentially allows you to make copies of copyrighted stuff and share with your friends, but also has some stern language about digital copies - in all likelihood, it would be something for an appeals court to decide. But it would be interesting.

    And, of course, if it's found that Aimster is breaking the law, then I'll have to record something, copyright it, share via Aimster or AIM file transfer, then send AOL/Time Warner nasty cease-and-desist letters - after all, that would make AIM an infringer, an aid to hackers and pirates, and (worst of all) a circumvention device...and guess who distributes it?

    And oddly enough, AIM's "Get File" operation is exactly the sort of thing you do with Napster - you view files on someone els'es computer that they've agreed to share, and download what you want...sounds clear-cut, who's bringing suit?



  • Re:Skipped over Gnutella (Score:3)

    by hillct ( 230132 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @04:21PM (#199606) Homepage Journal
    They skipped over Gnutella because they couldn't figure out how to go after it. How do you destroy a decentralized system? You can't crush it head beneath your boot like they did with Napster. BTW: I just started up napster again this evening and found that it has tread marks from the jackboots of the RIAA lawyers all over it now. They're promoting the hell out of their beta trial of the subscription service. I love how this is supposed to brovide a 'better quality service' to users. I don't know weather to laugh or cry.

    --CTH

    --

  • Injunction against FAT32 filesystem (Score:5)

    by hillct ( 230132 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @04:12PM (#199607) Homepage Journal
    Timorhy refers to CPRM, the Content Protection for Recordable Media [theregister.co.uk] standards initiative. This would in effect prevent the transfer of certain content on particular media. The proposal it to implement the 'protection' in hardware with a software interupt, which means probably software could simply bypass the system. It's not entirely clear, as the spec isn't fully defined. This is a vary scary deal which hasn't gotten much press in the United States. Read up. This is important stuff.

    --CTH

    --
  • I understand that legal precedents in the Napster case have been set, and I understand that the RIAA is using current laws to argue their case. I further understand that they are in business and have a right to extract profits for their efforts. But boy, they way they go about their business, refusing to embrace new technology but stomping out of existence anything that threatens to interfere with their current distribution methods, the RIAA is acting like the mob. "Do what we say and no one gets hurt," is the message they keep sending over and over again. How sad that the law is allowing these bullies to do whatever they want, and their propaganda is causing many persons (even here) to defend their actions. It may be legal, but it's morally wrong.
    ________________
  • *sarcasm* You'll deny them profits in July, and then double their profits in August. *end sarcasm*

    I think the better way is to do what someone was recently proposing to do to the oil companies: Target just one company. Get a boycott organized against that one company an send it into the toilet. Make them an example to the rest of the RIAA. Let the RIAA members know that anyone of them could be next.
  • Still going to be trading like mad...

    Audiogalaxy has rolled over... I don't know how much "illegal" music I've distributed. And that's not counting how much I've done on napster pre-metallica-ban, and scour pre-shutdown.

    At the rate the RIAA is going, I hope they keep shutting down trading systems. Every one they've shut down, I've moved to a better one immediatly thereafter. It's evolution amongst the file-sharing services!

    Honestly, they're doing the file-traders a great service by shutting down all the crappy ones:

    Napster: Took me almost as long to find and retrive a good copy as to listen to it.

    Scour: Fewer bad copies, more media to choose from...

    Audiogalaxy: I just downloaded 1.5 GB last night!

    Took me 10 min of clicking file names...
    Now I have over 15 _HOURS_ of music to which I shall listen (royalty free) as many times as I wish.

    What comes next? Is it going to download what I want before I want it? Going to grab good house/breakbeat before I need more?

    Here, prior art for ya!: I push play in winamp, and it goes and finds good music straight off the net... No maintenance!

  • Why am I not surprised? (Score:4)

    by man_ls ( 248470 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @04:00PM (#199616)

    In a world where the organizations with the most money get to tell the other organizaitons what to do, the fact that the RIAA and MPAA are actively attacking anything that allows people to share their music/movies doesn't surprise me. The quality of most MP3s / DivX movies is nowhere near that you'd find on a CD or DVD, and the mediums aren't that big of a threat to the companies producing the media.

    As a result of Napster, record companies actually INCREASED their profits, because people were less reserved about buying a CD if they knew that they would like some of the songs on it before hand. I would -never- but CDs, because I didn't know if I'd like them, but by being able to try it out before I buy it, I purchased an entire CD of music that I downloaded off of Napster.

    I have DivX movies on CD - but also a DVD-ROM drive and DVD movies, legally purchased, because I want the higher quality for some things. A $3 burned DivX of a movie is like an MP3 of a song - it's a good trial, and if I like it, I go out and buy the real thing.

    The major entertainment associations feel threatened by the new technologies that make it more difficult for them to keep tabs on distrubution. This doesn't mean that the file-sharing is wrong; it means that the RIAA's rules need to be adapted to the Internet age. The best thing they could do that would increase their sales would be to stop policing swapping of MP3s. Then, people like me would go out and buy CDs again, instead of going through the hassal of using Gnutella to find MP3s and burn them onto CDs.

    My $.02 and a few killobytes.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Actually, you are right on. Someone or a group of someones should pull together a case of civil rights violations where business interests are blocking and removing our private rights to share our materials.

    While I am sure there might be some copyright material being shared, I am definitely certain there are non-infringing activities also being carried on using these P-2-P services.

    It is simply inappropriate logic to destroy and remove services based on a portion of its uses. The "obvious" argument that if there are any non-infringing uses that they should be DILLIGENTLY protected by law is just as, if not more important than protecting the copyrights of big organizations. We need to cry for help from civil rights organizations and make this thing happen. I'll be sending my money to support any groups that will aid in quashing these efforts by RIAA and MPAA.
  • "FAT32 file systems are widely used for copyright violation too; are they next?"

    WHEW! I use EXT2, so I'm safe?! ;)
  • Okay then. Fire up Napster or Aimster, and search for a High Quality JPEG reproduction of the Mona Lisa. How about a file which describes the inner workings of a Floppy drive? Or perhaps the entire text of 'Macbeth'?
    Funny, I just searched gnutella for the three of those and was successful at getting two of them. Floppy drive manuals must be hard to come by. Sure, I did find about 5000 copies of songs by N*Sync too, but the data available through these networks is more extensive than you think.
  • Ehh. No. Aimster is an independent company. The Aimster software does piggyback on AIM to create it's networks, but that's their only connection.

  • Re:Next Cisco will be sued (Score:4)

    by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @05:28PM (#199639)
    That's actually pretty unlikely. Why? Simple: Cisco has big money and therefore big lawyers. The RIAA likes these small suits, easy to beat up on someone without a good lawyer. However Cisco has a crack legal team, and lots and lots of money to fight. You also have to remember that Cisco could go and play dirty if they liked. The RIAA companies make use of Cisco equipment. What would happened if Cisco refused to provide support or decided to give them a taste of their own scumy-licsesing game and forbid them from using the equipment, etc.

    Basically, don't look to see the RIAA/MPAA going after any large companies anytime in the forseeable future. The last thing they want is for someone to bite back hard, and them to loose all these laws they've worked so hard to buy.

  • Re:Skipped over Gnutella (Score:4)

    by BlueTurnip ( 314915 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @04:52PM (#199640)
    Actually they could do the same thing the MPAA is doing to stop movies being distributed on Gnutella: they could send letters of complaint to the ISPs whose users are providing the content.

    Back in the days when people had dial-up access, that wouldn't have been such a big deal. If your ISP drops you, you just sign up with one of the dozens of other ones in your town. But today, with DSL businesses dropping like flies, and many homes that can't get DSL due to the length of their local loop, many people have just one choice for broadband access: cable modems. Now cable modems are great, but in almost all locations, there is a monopoly. (In my case it's the @HOME service.) So if you get kicked off, you're screwed big time!

    This is a big stick the MPAA or RIAA can wave at infringers. They get one warning letter from their ISP and if they offer any more infringing materials subsequent to the warning, they get the boot. It's one thing to lose your Napster account, but quite another to be forced to spend the rest of your days at 56K!

    To make matters worse, the MPAA or RIAA doesn't need to prove anything in court. All they have to do is convince your ISP (and @HOME has very strict usage policies) and you're toast.

    Roughly the same argument applies for college students with campus access. They could lose their accounts just as easily.

    So, Gnutella might not be so invulnerable after all.

    I'm not saying whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but something to think about before you conclude that Gnutella can't possibly be touched.

  • If you defend yourself, chances are they've already won.

  • copyright? (Score:3)

    by underpaidISPtech ( 409395 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @05:53PM (#199648) Homepage
    The other day a poster mentioned that he/she and his/her friends tried to go a weekend without mentioning anything they had heard in mass media.
    No whazzup comments or humming tunes used to sell cars and the like.
    I have to wonder if we are infringing copyright everytime we whistle *The Simpsons* on the john?

    I thought the whole point of advertising was to build brand-awareness, and is that not what the majority of music is these days? Building brand loyalty and awareness? I hate TV, therefore (for me) Napster and friends have become the media advertising machines that replaced TV. I think the media conglomerates are alienating an entire generation of potential revenue.

  • Our anger (Score:3)

    by Supa Mentat ( 415750 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @06:40PM (#199652)
    We are misplacing our hate and anger. The RIAA is made up of corporations, the sole point of a corp is to make money for its shareholders. If they think that they're losing money because of something and figure out a way that they could stop it from happening they're going to try it. If their method of halting this loss of money violates the rights that individuals (should) have that won't mean a thing to them. The only responsibility that they really have is to shareholders; they are not beholden to us in any way except sales, and I don't see a boycott of all music published by corps in the RIAA on the horizon. We do have a recourse though (did you really think this was going to be a pro RIAA post?), politicians. (a horrible recourse but one nonetheless) They *are* dependent on us for jobs, and don't tell me that the companies have enough money to keep the politicians on their side. Votes get a candidate elected, not money. If enough people became educated about the cancer that is the DMCA it would be thrown out of the books. As people who know about the DMCA and other such injustices it is your duty as well as to your benefit to let people know what's going on. When was the last time you dismissed a question from a non /. type person about this stuff because you decided they were too stupid to be bothered with? Or even got out from in front of your computer to tell people about this stuff? I did it today, but I can't be the only one. Stop flaming corporations for trying to squeeze every last drop of money out of the consumer; it's what they do. Instead start sending mail to your congressmen and telling regular people about what's going on. If you won't do that than you don't have a leg to stand on in this issue. Politicians (sadly) are the key to getting our rights back. Oh by the way, I'm downloading copyrighted music off of Aimster as I type this :)

  • I've got a friend who composes music, mostly for distribution among his friends. He of course encodes his music in MP3 format and then sends them to us over ICQ. When I go on Napster (which I still do -- much of what I look for is not licensed in the United States, though it's still getting blocked by the "filters"), I share his music (with his permission). It's rarely (if ever) downloaded, but still shutting down P2P file sharing software is taking away his rights to share his own music! Why hasn't a group gotten together to sue the MPAA and RIAA under these grounds? Surely the ACLU would help with this!!


    ---

  • Oh dear... (Score:3)

    by gnovos ( 447128 ) <gnovos@ c h i p p e d . net> on Thursday May 24, 2001 @04:01PM (#199661) Homepage Journal
    Pretty soon the RIAA will realize that the entire internet is nothing but a huge conspicacy to steal thier money. I'm pretty sure a few of the bytes that I sent in my last few Quake packets are exactly identical to those found in copywrited MP3's.

    Seriously though, I think there is a GREAT case to be made by AMATUER ROCK STAR LAW STUDENTS (if there are any out there) who are looking for a project to do. Sue the RIAA for anti-competitive practices (after all, they are taking away YOUR right to disturibute YOUR music. Imagine how shrill the cries would be if you told them they couldn't sell CDs at blockbuster anymore...)

  • It all goes back ... (Score:5)

    by RWarrior(fobw) ( 448405 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @04:20PM (#199662)
    It all goes back to the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

    In this case, it's the RIAA and MPAA. Napster is most likely to wither and die in their fight not because the RIAA may or may not have a better legal case, but because the money will run out. 2600's fight against the MPAA may fall victim to the same problem, even with the support of the EFF.

    This is not new.

    Several years ago, a case out of (I believe California) called MAI vs. Peak Electronics wound up being granted review by the Supreme Court of the United States.

    MAI's claim against Peak was that Peak violated MAI's copyright because the act of turning MAI's computer on made a copy of data contained into ROM, and that making this copy without a license was a violation of MAI's copyright. Never mind that the copy was required for the operation of the computer -- the whole point was to squash an independent service provider and force repairs to go only to MAI-approved repair outfits. Customers had a license to make a copy, and authorized repair centers had that same right ... but Peak, as an unauthorized repair center (read competition), did not.

    Peak had to settle (they lost, essentially) because the money ran out. They couldn't file the necessary briefs with the Supreme Court because they didn't have the cash to pay the lawyers.

    It's the Golden Rule. It doesn't matter that the law is a bad law, or that the copyright owners are money-grubbing b*st*rds whose only interest is in lining their own pockets. It's that they have the money, and we do not.

  • You may joke, but the legal precedents are being established that people CAN be sued for creating a legitimate tool that gets used in the commission of a crime.

    Smith and Wesson signed an agreement with the Clinton justice department to gaim immunity from future lawsuits for the criminal misuse of their legal products.

    How long until the RIAA grows the cajones to go after Microsoft? Force microsoft to build License Management into Window 2005? I doubt it, but if the trend continues, they would have the legal foundation to build that arguement upon.

    I don't know if the tide can be turned.

  • >>Which is why it fucking BAFFLES me why the computer industry is bowing to 'intellectual' property owners' every demand.</I>

    1. Because they don't want to spend the money fighting off the lawsuits.

    2. Because they are IP owners themselves. Microsoft would collectively shit a brick if there were a service like Napster for software(Gnutella excluded).

  • Re:my hand (Score:3)

    by Xeleema ( 453073 ) on Thursday May 24, 2001 @04:43PM (#199674) Homepage Journal
    Wouldn't that suck royal...if your a man... ;)
  • MAI's claim against Peak was that Peak violated MAI's copyright because the act of turning MAI's computer on made a copy of data contained into ROM, and that making this copy without a license was a violation of MAI's copyright. Never mind that the copy was required for the operation of the computer -- the whole point was to squash an independent service provider and force repairs to go only to MAI-approved repair outfits. Customers had a license to make a copy, and authorized repair centers had that same right ... but Peak, as an unauthorized repair center (read competition), did not. Not that I'm doubting the validity of what you said, but I would imagine this has to go QUITE a ways back. Like more than 20 years. The reason I say that is the Software Act of 1980 would have made MAI's claim totally moot. The Software Act basically states that any copies made of a software program that are required to be made in order to use the program are not a violation of copyright -- they fall under fair use exemptions, essentially.
  • Computers don't violate copyrights people violate copyrights
  • Aimster is a seperate program that piggybacks on the Aim network, but does not incorporate the AIM software.
  • From a legal point of view, the RIAA has a point. No, this is not flamebait, but the Napster case did set a legal precedent for saying that any service that can be used to transfer copyrighted materials can be challenged and.or shut down. After all, Aimster is capable of fulfilling the same functions as Napster, to an extent, which makes the precedent very "on point".

    The only hope for Aimster, as I see it, is to argue that there is a difference in emphasis between the two services. Napster was intended for sharing hard-to-find media files on the internet, and distributing them easily. The naturally leads to ease in distributing copywritten materials.

    What Aimster could argue is that the emphasis of Aimster is not on large-scale copywritten file sharing as with Napster, but on providing users a way to share files between each other on a smaller scale, as with email or ICQ. Aimster can be used to distribute copywritten works, but it lacks the file-searching ability of Napster, among other things, that made it an ideal medium for distributing copywritten works. It's also less easy for a person to give everyone on the service a given file - each potential recipient has to be approved by the person distributing the file.

    In other words, Aimster is more akin to an instant messaging client that a large-scale file-sharing network, and that is the only hope it has for survival. Unless, of course, the judge in this case is smarter than the one for napster.

  • As far as rights online go, this is what we are. Most people are oblivious to what the RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft and others are doing, so it's up to us to get the word out and help turn the tide. A lot of posters have suggested we write representatives, boycott CDs & DVDs, or educate the non-technical people around us. I think we should do all these things. But for all our numbers, relative affluence, and intelligence I can't help but feel we could be much more effective. Writing new file sharing programs and supporting the EFF are a start; We should also be doing what every other successful movement has had to do: showing up, in numbers. I went to the recent 2600 hearing in Manhattan and was glad to see others wearing DeCSS t-shirts. But there was only a handful of us. After all the furor on Slashdot I was hoping there'd be an overflow crowd. Justices are supposed to ignore such things, but they would have taken note of a crowd of 2600 supporters, guaranteed. Now, a million geek march on Washington singing "We Shall Overcome" is beyond the realm of fantasy (how's that for an image ;-). But showing up in force for the town meetings politicians love to hold now and such would get noticed. Yeah it's very 60's, but I'm tired of complaining and reading complaints without anyone doing anything about it. I'm certain this is the only way we can really be heard.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like `Psychic Wins Lottery.'" -- Comedian Jay Leno

Close