RIAA Responds to Napster - Raises Serious Questions

Cosimo Leipold writes "The RIAA has placed a reply to Napster's now infamous Motion for Stay. The points they raise are very good and well worth a read. It is very interesting to see the claims Napster made in its early days -- including that you would never find a no-name artist on their search (which they now claim is what they are all about!) -- claims that they can't stop pirated music (though it is explained how it could be done) -- claims they can't ask for copyright priviliges from artists (though they already do -- from "new" artists! -- if they can ask "Joe Blow" they can ask Metallica no?) -- etc. It is a damaging read for Napster. Acrobat Reader required: RIAA PDF"

Re:Sick of RIAA and Napster

[MindStalker]

That is absolutly not true.
Fact: Sales in record stores near colleges are down.
This also is not a direct cause effect relationship. As you cannot prove that record sales by college students themselves are down unless a seperate study is done on that matter. There are two important facts to remember when considering the previous fact.

Fact: more and more college students are living farther distances from college (it would be interesting to see a graph over a long period of time of college record sales to see if there has been a steady decline in the amount it increased every year previous to this years decreasement.)

Fact: College students tend to buy many things online, CDs included. If all the major online record sales companies could look in their database to see all the 20 somethings in college towns and include say 80% of that figure into the total college record sales. Would be another interesting figure.

So anyways, anyone up for another study??

Re:Speaking of logical arguments...

[ajs]

you deride the argument constructing abilities of others by posting web pages

Before you start constructing arguments, you must begin by constructing phrases. What did you mean by this?

This would be like Kodak advertising special, enhanced "Kiddie Porn friendly film" or Sony releasing a dual-tape deck VCR under the advertising "This will really piss off Blockbuster!"

Then the suit should be focusing on the advertizing campaign and Napster's implicit concent, which is sort of the way that the RIAA is trying to go with their most recent documents. See,they've realized that their original grounds (which were entirely based on the idea that Napster was a pirating service) don't work, so now they're trying to point to the idea that Napster executives knew that their users were copying copyrighted material. I wish them luck, actually, but doubt that the judge will fall for the reversal.

You bring up some good points, but do not support the premise that I failed to complete my metaphor. Napster is a medium (regargless of another poster's illogical claim that a medium cannot be implimented on top of another medium, e.g. IP over phone lines) and all transport media should, IMHO, be treated the same. Laws of free speach and the responsibilities of the media owner apply. In that light, I think that Napster, Kodak and The Phone Company all have the same rights and obligations.

Re:But it IS Robin Hood and the Sherrif

[Big Jojo]

The public has overreacted, but the RIAA started the war.

In what way is this not a wholly reasonable response to the problem? Let's say this alleged overreaction causes half the RIAA companies to go bankrupt next year -- not that there's a snowball's chance of that happening. (Except as a legal shell game to transfer wealth.) Will they have lost more than the "Big Five" have stolen from the public in the last few years?

Remember what fraction of a dollar a CD costs to manufacture, how much you pay, and how little goes either to the artist or to the CD manufacturer. Integrate over time.

Would those RIAA companies' bankruptcy at the hands of Napster really make up for the way that industry has been jacking up prices ... forever?

We shouldn't let FTC's price-fixing decision against the recording industry go forgotten, either. They got off with a real wrist slap, but still paid most of a billion bucks ... to who? How? Lawyers I guess. Maybe a better judgement would have been that they have to let Napster work its future out unimpeded.

Re:Moral stand?

[ajs]

I did not state a non sequitur. You introduced a logical fallacy known as a straw man (which you can find on the site that I link to above). The specifics of your straw man are:

1. Pizza parlors were started by the mob (could be true, I don't know).
   
2. Lots of valid business at pizza parlors (true)
   
3. Money laundering is illegal (true)
   

Woefully, points 1 and 2 (which seemed to be going somewhere) do not lead to point 3. Neither does point 3 serve to tie the premise together. It is true, compelling and misleading. Thus, unless you can shed light on what you meant I cannot say that I see this as anything but a logical fallacy.

Again, please construct an argument. Napster is a filesystem over which users share files containing sound. It turns out that, given a filesystem, users will share copyrighted sounds. Really not Napster's problem any more than it's Kodak's problem that child pornographers use their film. I am strongly in the camp that says that the use of a medium where monitoring activity is possible should not lead to a mandate to monitor activity. Digital camaras should not be required to transmit their images to the FBI, phone switches should not have pre-installed taps and Napster should not have to monitor it's users file sharing transactions in order to prevent copyright infringement. These are all, as far as I can tell, the same issue: should the medium provider (profit-making or not) be required to sanitize and/or monitor it's usage?

You appear to believe half of the RIAA's answer (that shutting down services that don't sanitize or monitor is reasonable), but do you believe what I think is the logical conclusion: that sanitization and monitoring should be required? I'm not trying to say that the RIAA wants this (I think they do, but that's just my personal theory for which I have zero evidence). However, they have certainly taken a big first step.

If people start using Slashdot to share uuencoded MP3s, should Slashdot be shut down? What if they advertize that they're the hottest site for discussion forums full of MP3s? What if they say "fuck the RIAA, we have pirated MP3s on our site"? When does it become a problem of the media provider? Is Exodus (Andover.net's ISP) responsible for the MP3s? Should they be sanitizing the bits at the router? Monitoring for Brittany Spears patterns in the HTTP traffic?

You begin a long and slippery slide the way that the RIAA is going. The only thing I think they can justify is pressing charges against the people trading the music and getting a warrant for the logs on the Napster servers. If there's anything there that identifies users, then they could be busted. The problem is that that would mean directly going after thousands of mostly kids. Can you imagine how pissed their parents will be? How long before that turns into an anti-RIAA backlash that could cost the RIAA millions in legal fees? All for what? To punish fans who tend to be good customers in the first place? No, RIAA wants to shut Napster down so that they look like bad-guys only in the short-term and concentrate their legal guns on a single, easy target.

Welcome to copyright in THIS century.

Re:Enough is enough - The law is just that, the LA

[zerian1515]

YOU SAID: "Trading MP3's online is no different to recording a bunch of songs from the radio or TV shows/movies and letting your friends have copies of those recordings. Its illegal...." Hold on my friend.... You are incorrect. It is legal for you to share your recordings with friends and family. You can make digital mp3s or analog cassette tapes, but these recordings can not be apart of any commercial setting. Of course, the law was written back in 1989. In the year 2000, your friends live all over the world thanks to the Internet. So, is it any more wrong for you to share your digital recordings with a friend in Europe than it is with your friend next door? Of course not. That's the whole point of this. The law is outdated, ambiguous, and it is restricting the entire digital entertainment industry. The law must be changed in order for progress to be made. Look at MP3.com. They are slowly settling lawsuit after lawsuit from the big 5 record companies. 4 down and god only knows how many more will come in the end. The law was made in hopes of protecting the music and film industries from piracy, but it was not written to limit the growth of a new economic sector and to give monopoly-like powers to the RIAA. So write senator Hatch and tell him that he is the man!

Re:Cost of a CD (on RIAA's website)

[johnhead]

Check this [repeat-performance.co.uk] out...the bitches only cost 65p each! (minimum order 1000) , it's the same with concert tickets [backstreet.net], here it says 34% goes to the band, although this varies wildly depending on the source - some say up to 60%.

Did someone say "MP3 is giving greedy bastards their comeuppance?"

I did, just then ;)

jh

Napster founder is a genius!

[bridgette]

I finally get it!

I never understood why someone would try to leverage a "cute little file sharing app" into an empire - after all, most people would [free,share]ware it and maybe show it off at job interviews.

But now I realize that it was a brilliant plan to get gullible VC's to foot the bill for the inevitable legal battles! And get some cool servers and some marteking money for free concerts to boot!

Instead of being a small, independent software vendor getting legally reamed by the RIAA, this guy raised more dough than the EFF to fight this file sharing issue in court!

I thought he was petty, greedy and stupid, but now I realize that he has a buiness accumen and genius that I can only begin to comprehend.

RTFB (Read the brief)

[sethg]

The RIAA's brief responded to this argument. The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) doesn't save Napster, they say, because:

1. "Digital audio recording device" is narrowly defined by the law, and a computer with Napster doesn't qualify. (This, ironically, is the same argument that saved the Diamond Rio from being covered by the AHRA.)
2. People who distribute MP3s through Napster expect to get other MP3s through the same service. (If Napster subscribers could only send files through Napster and never receive, who would bother?) Even though no money is changing hands, there's something going on that, in legal terms, is commercial activity.
3. The authors of the AHRA, in authorizing noncommercial copying, were thinking of sharing music with one's family and circle of friends -- not with thousands of strangers who happen to subscribe to the same online service.

--

Re:RIAA's response well reasoned

[sethg]

there are some major flaws in their reasoning. Particularly when they essentially argue that fair use cannot apply to music. Read it carefully.

Ummm ... where do they say that? I saw them cite all of the legal considerations that go into a fair-use decision, and then say for each of them, "this doesn't apply for Napster." They didn't try to argue that fair use is inapplicable for music in general.
--

Consider this.

[mindstrm]

Napster, the application, is not on trial here. The service is not on trial.. the COMPANY is.
The COMPANY is attempting to make money using their serivce. The put up such service, *knowing* that it would be popular *only* because it would be used primarily to help joe average user share his pirated files with someone else. Something that joe average did *not know how to easily do*.

Therefore, napster is in business to help people pirate. Plain and simple.

Sure, people had FTP sites and such... but napster provided a forum.
Is the tool illegal? No. Is the company breaking the law? I'm starting to think so.

Re:Sick of RIAA and Napster

[Lord Kano]

The studies did NOTHING to prove a causation, ie: Napster usage CAUSED the people to buy more CDs. It just proved a correlation, ie: people who use Napster buy more CDs than those who don't.

http://www.jup.com/company/pressrelease.jsp?doc= pr000721

Thank you.

Re:Punk Rock vs. Napster

[mindstrm]

And.. if the public is not willing to pay for music anymore, and are just going to rip it off.. then there is *NO LONGER A MARKET FOR POP MUSICIANS*. SO your buddy might have to get another job.

You cannot force the public to pay.

Move to Sealand

[Millard Fillmore]

Napster should pull up stakes, move their machines to Sealand, and put up a big flag that says: "Down with the RIAA." I doubt the RIAA can muster the kind of military might it will take to defeat the indomitable Prince Roy!

Re:Sick of RIAA and Napster

[ToLu the Happy Furby]

This argument only holds up if Napster use CAUSES more sales. Really, all we know is that Napster users are also record buyers, but the arrow of causation could point the other way -- that record buyers are more likely to use Napster.

It could be shown that Napster users buy a more-than-average number of records in the first place, and that Napster is causing them to buy fewer than they would, although still more than average.

People buy more CD's after having used Napster than they did before, after controlling for all major demographic factors.

To quote from Jupiter Communications' press release [jup.com] detailing their report: "When we conducted our consumer survey, controlled for key music purchasing factors-such as existing spending level, age, income, gender, and online tenure-we still found that Napster usage is one of the strongest determinants of increased music buying." (emphasis added)

Meanwhile, the only study the RIAA can point to is one which shows that sales at "college record stores" are going down. Unfortunately, this brain-dead excuse for a study miraculously fails to take into account purchases made at online record stores like CDNow!! This despite the fact that college students are always at the leading-edge of adoption of online phenomena, including online shopping.

Oh yeah--and the RIAA's report shows that sales at "college record stores" dropped more in the year before Napster came out than the year since!

So basically, the available evidence if pretty conclusive that so far, Napster has increased CD sales over what they otherwise would have been.

Re:Sick of RIAA and Napster

[ToLu the Happy Furby]

But it still doesn't prove whether a persons CD buying goes up or down due to Napster...The studies are shit, basically. They don't prove a damn thing.

Wrong. [jup.com]

This has already been done.

[pen]

As the subject implies, this has already been done, and continues to be done... on AOL. Surprised? AOL's email system is perfectly suited for warez. When you send someone an email with an attached file, the file is stored on AOL's servers and the email that you send contains an internal link to that file. When you click the Download button, the file is requested from AOL's servers.

When you forward the email, all that is forwarded is the text and the link to the file. The file itself remains in the same one spot -- so you can forward the email to 100 different people (and BCC it as well). It's like a huge warez FTP, only you're forced to use a horrible interface.

When I was on AOL in 1996 (yes, there was such a time) there were automated "mail server" programs that would use the WinAPI to simulate clicks on AOL's buttons and forward lists of available files and the files themselves to anyone who asked for them in a chat room.

I'd wager that this hasn't changed much today.

--

Re:If the RIAA would offer a "legal" alternative..

[sethg]

...the stock values of all their member companies would drop like a rock.

The only digital-media distribution systems that make sense are RMS's tax-based proposal [gnu.org], the Street Performer Protocol [counterpane.com], and the electronic tip jar [x.com]. All of these schemes share two traits:

1. they don't prevent people from copying a digital work and not paying
2. over 90% of the money that the customer pays or gives in these schemes goes directly to the artist

The RIAA would rather have a scheme that:

1. includes some form of copy protection or watermarking
2. maximizes the baksheesh that record companies can get from the blockbusters they push

I think they're going after a chimera, but the people running the RIAA have a powerful incentive to believe otherwise.
--

Re:Getting what you want in America

[cryosis]

why not check the real audio or mp3 demo tracks on cdnow.com?

1. 30 seconds of a track usually dosn't help much. Listen to Orbital's Halcyon + on + on sometime. A 30 second cut isn't much of a representation.

why not call tower records and see if they have it in their listening stations?

2. I'm about am hour drive away from a record store with listening stations. Now what should I do?

why not go to a friend's house and listen to it

3. Easy, I have no friends.

gnutella might not have the sex appeal of Napster but gnutella is far more useful.

Re:Moral stand?

[SoftwareJanitor]

We already have a 'free as in beer' music distribution system, and have had for a long time, its called radio. The record companies fought radio back in the early days, until they realized that radio airplay actually increases record sales rather than decreasing it. Perhaps if Napster wants to exist as a commercial entity and be supported by advertising as radio is, then they should work out a system whereby artists are paid royalties similar to the way that ASCAP and BMI work.

As for most musicians being able to make a living, it is already true that most can't do it through music. Signed artists are the lucky few. Most musicians make their money by 'stealing' from signed musicians by playing cover versions of well known songs in bars, at parties, etc w/o paying royalties. Napster probably won't significantly change that one way or the other. A few non-signed artists may actually benefit from being able to do an end-run around the record company's AR men.

Flat Fee Licensing Model?

[CalmCoolCollected]

Napster? We all infringe! [cnn.com]

Crosland said hundreds of thousand of restaurants and bars pay ASCAP an annual fee - which varies widely but averages about $200 to $600 -- for permission to play any of the more than 4 million songs it has in its repertory.

Could there be flat fee licensing to consumers, say $20 to $60 per year, for digital access of 4 million songs?

Though this question is kindof off-topic, the article makes an interesting read on the interpretation of United States Copyright Law (Title 17, United States Code).

WARNING: unpopular opinion

[electricmonk]

I don't think I can really blame the RIAA for filing suit with Napster and all the other internet startups that distribute music in the Napster fashion (i.e. through a central server indexing all of the users' files). I mean, really, these companies are out there to make money, and they are making money off of other people's copyrighted work.

Wouldn't any Slashdotter be pissed if their favorite GPL software was downloaded by Microsoft, "extended", and released as a proprietary product, without the sourcecode or anything?

Maybe that is an imperfect analogy, but I can't think of a better one right now.

Re:Acrobat Reader: Ghostview

[generic-man]

Quit your whining and use the TOM Conversion Service [cmu.edu]. It'll let you read any "non-standard" format you want, including Word, PDF, and even LaTeX, in nice, comfortable HTML format. Of course, the formatting will likely be all fouled up because HTML doesn't support all the layout features of PDF, but that's okay because standards are more important than everything else.

Quick, stop the world because Joe Websurfer can't read our documents!

Napster is going down...

[sheldon]

Heh. Napster makes Microsoft executives look like Saints.

After reading this RIAA brief in it's entirety, they are pissed, and I would say rightfully so.

It's beyond a point where the music industry is going to be willing to work with Napster. This isn't a questionable offense against the business like mymp3.com, this is blatant abuse.

What Napster is doing is unethical, immoral and easily illegal. Napster knows this, and apparently doesn't care and has said so in it's internal documents.

I would have to predict that Napster is going down, they will be shut down and out of business in six months time.

Another important thing to keep in mind, is that alternatives such as gnutella are just going to make Internet regulation worse. If they become a problem, the music industry will come down on them hard as well. It won't be a namsy pansy court case like this DeCSS thing either, it will be a consorted effort.

And if you think it's difficult to do, all they have to do is lobby for Congressional legislation. Warrants for the arrest and confiscation of computers running napster like software will be next.

Don't think this will happen? You just watch.

Re:RIAA's response well reasoned

[The_egghead]

This is kind of backwards logic. The only reason the GPL needs to exist is _because_ of copyright. If copyright didn't exist, we wouldn't need to worry about someone taking a free work and making proprietary, becuase proprietary works would have no protection under the law. I'm not saying this would neccesarily be a good thing, but you can't justify copyright by saying it's neccessary for the GPL. That's like saying criminals are good, becuase without them we wouldn't need police.

--Matt

check the facts

[boarder]

The Napster guys aren't just kids. They are a bunch of suits and venture cap guys. The man who invented Napster is still a 19 year old, but he sold 70% to his uncle to start the business and then they sold most of their stake to get venture cap to get the company moving. The original kid only has 6% of the company and isn't even in any kind of administrative or executive position. They use him as their posterboy.

These guys are in it as a business and are trying to get money. I'm sure the original kid wanted something different, but too bad he gave ALL control over to the suits.

I don't have the exact facts as to what position the inventor has in the company (you can check a /. article from last week if you want it), but I know he has pretty much no control.

Re:Sick of RIAA and Napster

[Lord Kano]

Although I cannot stand the RIAA, the more I think about it something just seems wrong about Napster making a profit off of someone elses work.

Like, oh let's see, Amazon.com? Yahoo? Ebay?

If those studies about Napster users buying MORE music than the average consumer are true then there is nothing wrong with Napster making money on providing a service.

If Napster was not doing this is for profit, then it would be an easier case for me. But with Napster doing this as a business, it seems fair that the record companies should get a cut; even if they don't really deserve any more money.

If the information that I referred to earlier is accurate, then the RIAA and the individual record companies ARE getting a cut. They benefit fromNapster's use.

LK

Re:If the RIAA would offer a "legal" alternative..

[stevens]

It's been said before, but the RIAA is just shooting itself in the foot. They need to be working with Napster or creating their own on-line music distribution/sharing system.

It seems so obvious to /.'ers, but the RIAA still seems to miss this point. If I were in the recording industry, I'd be looking ahead as many years as I could to see which way the market is going. I'd be trying to anticipate the market and be an early adopter to collect the marvelous profits that accompany such adoption, done well.

There are now about 5 years of experience out there of moving retail sales to the internet. Electronic-format books and music are lagging because they're worried that the cat will be let out of the bag when they distribute online. But the cat is out already for the RIAA member companies! Every wasted minute is lost profit! You'd think that they'd see Napster's user stats as a potential market that turned to piracy because they were ignored, and act to supply that market.

Again, from the RIAA's perspective, having affordable digital distribution running when they sue Napster would also solve many of their PR problems. "See?" they could say, "you can get what you want for $x per song from us, you pirates!"

The RIAA are handling this in the wrong way, even from the perspective of their own self-interest.

Steve

Red Herring

[rho]

Here's a thought -- the RIAA's not staffed with fools, methinks. Even the most blinded sycophant would have to come to the realization that while Napster may go away, MP3s will not -- and neither will the method by which MP3s can be transmitted (i.e. the Internet)

The RIAA has been around long enough (and the record industry as well) to know how this will go. They'll fight, bitch and moan, but the end result will be the new technology catching on.

Napster's a red herring -- look for something more sinister than "Burn the Napster witch!" Napster fights for its survival, on whatever front that may appear. The RIAA is looking for something else from this.

I don't know what it is, but I suspect that they are looking for a definitive intellectual property ruling -- one that will make digital music more controllable. Remember silver certificates? You were supposed to turn those in back in the 60's, I believe. The government asked for you to return them, and in return, they give you paper money from the Federal Reserve -- no longer backed by silver.

Do I think the RIAA has something of that magnitude cooking on the back burner? No, but the concept I'm sure gives some of the top brass massive erections.

Watch this case carefully. RIAA hasn't tipped their hand yet -- don't get blinded by the piteous cries of Napster screaming "foul!" There will be more...

Re:Moral stand?

[La0tsu]

Guess what? Money laundering is still illegal.

Yes, but the Pizza Parlor is not.

Re:RIAA is wrong

[VAXman]

It would be trivial for Napster to prevent transferring illegally stolen music: simply prevent transferring any file with a valid MP3 header. This would give a few false positives, of course, but I think that's Judge Patel's (and the RIAA's) point: Napster created a monster (Patel's words), and now it is their burden to control it. If there is no effective way to filter out the illegaly stolen music (as there isn't with today's technology), then the only way Napster would not be guilty of contributory copyright infringement is to pull the plug on the services all together.

Re:RIAA Bad. Napster Bad. MPAA Bad. DeCSS Good.

[Booker]

Hmm... while I agree that Napster is technically not engaging in copyright infringement ("Napster...Nothing copyrighted EVER touches their servers"), it's pretty clear that they are set up for, and promote themselves as, a service to facilitate trading of copyrighted material. Where the law is on this, I don't know, but there's a big difference between a service like FTP ("Move files around the 'net") and Napster ("Move MP3 files between you and your friends, leaving no trace").

But yeah - there are copyright laws in place. There are remedies when copyright is infringed. Go after the infringers, and make BIG examples of them.

I do wonder if this is going to turn into the War on Drugs of the 21st century, though....

---

Re:Punk Rock vs. Napster

[Skapare]

The RIAA may be looking out for the interests of its musicians, but that is only a side effect, or a front, depending on how you look at it. What they are really looking out for is the interests of their corporate music publishing members, who take a much larger chunk of every dollar, peso, pound, mark, franc, or ruble spent on CDs.

Much of that pays for CD manufacturing, distribution, marketing, and so on, and the associated profits realized to the owners of that business. That in itself is not evil. But the internet is clearly going to make that aspect of music less important (if not eventually obsolete). We just won't need that in the future, but the RIAA and its members are indeed struggling to keep hold of their revenue sources amidst all this change.

One thing of interest to note is that a great deal of investment is made by the music industry to get an unknown name artist started. What the internet now does is make that cost virtually disappear.

mp3 not a "digital musical recording"

[rkanodia]

Anyone else find that highly bizarre? Apparently, under the Audio Home Recording Act, 'digital recordings' are protected but computers are not 'digital audio recording' devices. Furthermore, Diamond managed to beat RIAA by PT Barnuming the court into believing that mp3s are NOT "digital musical recordings".

RIAA now claims that, because mp3s are not "digital musical recordings", the AHRA does not protect mp3.

mp3 is obviously digital, or it couldn't be stored as bits on a CD. So, if mp3s aren't "musical recordings", how is the copyright being violated?

88

Re:Sick of RIAA and Napster

[blaine]

Those studies you refer to prove nothing. They simply state the obvious: many people who use Napster are music buffs, and are inclined to buy more CDs than non-music buffs.

The studies did NOTHING to prove a causation, ie: Napster usage CAUSED the people to buy more CDs. It just proved a correlation, ie: people who use Napster buy more CDs than those who don't.

Until a study is done proving that Napster is the CAUSE of this increase in CD sales, your argument there means jack shit. Perhaps you should read your own .sig again.

Getting what you want in America

[DunkPonch]

The Napster lawsuit is only one example of a disturbing trend in America -- that of "legislation by civil suit".

Basically, we have reached the point of law saturation. The average American cannot go through a day without breaking some sort of law. As a result, we no longer even try. Want to hear a bit of Metallica before deciding to buy the album? Fine -- download a song or two off Napster.

Of course, you've just broken the law. No matter how innocent your intentions, you are a criminal.

When we reach this point, people begin to have a lack of respect for the law. We KNOW not to commit murder. We KNOW not to steal. But when you tell me that I'm a crook for trying to be an informed consumer, well how am I supposed to respond?

This is where we are today. Laws no longer effectively control people's behavior. There are just too many to keep track of.

How do you control people's behavior now? Simple -- attack the people providing the means. Hit them in their pocketbooks. It doesn't matter that the providers are not directly responsible for breaking any law. The goal is to stop the behavior you don't like by any means necessary.

Want more examples than Napster? Look at the lawsuits against the tobacco industry. Look at lawsuits against ISPs for the actions of their clients. The ISP is just providing a service. The tobacco industry is just giving people their legal drug of choice.

Beware. This trend will continue. Napster is only a footnote in a brave new world of de facto legislation by corporate interests and politicians who can't get their pet laws passed the right way.

A different take: I think I finally get it

[dmccarty]

I've mostly steered clear of the whole Napster debate. As I see it, it's not really about "the future of music." Nor is it about "freedom from the tyranny of the labels." It's just about the RIAA protecting their rather sizeable assets.

I have my own small MP3 collection which I ripped from my own CD's, which I play on my own computer, and I'd always assumed that most Napster users were like my little brother, who wants to grab some popular, cool tunes so he can hear them on RealJukebox (which he also grabbed for free and doesn't necessarily care how Real, Inc. uses his personal information). So today I downloaded Napster and clicked through the regular encyclopaedic licenses.

Or, at least, I tried to. This time a message popped up that said, "You must read the entire license agreement before clicking OK!" So I did. After the regular legalese protecting Napster, Inc. should my lawn mower run over my neighbor, etc., there's this tidbit:

Unauthorized copying, distribution, modification, public display, or public performance of copyrighted works is an infringement of the copyright holders' rights. [...] As a condition to the license to use the SOFTWARE, you agree that you will not use the SOFTWARE or the Napster service to infringe the intellectual property rights of others in any way. (bold added)

So basically, if I'm to abide by the Napster license, I'm not supposed to download or distribute any copyrighted works over which I have no authorization. This seems straightforward enough. But does anyone take this seriously? Does anyone ACTUALLY believe that Napster users are NOT downloading or distributing works for which they don't have authorization? Apparently not the first 100 people that I got a hit for when I searched for a favorite song of mine.

So what this is really about, then, is 20 million people infringing on an entire industry by stealing that industry's copyrighted works. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if it's an evil industry. It doesn't matter whether Courtney Love can write a moving diatribe against it. This isn't Robin Hood vs. the Sherrif of Nottingham. This is nothing more than people convienently deluding themselves into the ethics of self-interest.

(Apologies for the excessive use of bold. Yes, I did mean it.)
--

telling sentence

[unicorn]

Napster is causing a vast number of consumers to believe that free music on the internet is an entitlement.

That seems to sum up the view of the Jon Katz contingent on /. fairly well.

I'll bet the judge side with Napster if...

[Mark A. Rhowe]

...they would just print those damn .mp3's onto a T-Shirt...

I cannot believe how many responses...

[Dirtside]

...are of the form, "It doesn't matter if you don't like it, it's still bad/wrong/illegal/piracy/etc."

Am I the only one who's noticed that, regardless of what happens to Napster, UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION OF COPYRIGHTED CONTENT IS NEVER GOING TO GO AWAY?

Jesus F. Christ! It's not going to go away no matter what happens! Why don't people figure out how to DEAL WITH IT instead of whining about morality and law? God, this is getting annoying.

And to forestall those of you who would demand an answer from me, here it is: Unauthorized distribution of copyrighted content (let's call it UDCC -- I have trouble equating murder and robbery on the high seas with downloading "Enter Sandman") is going to happen no matter what. So people who don't want it to happen should provide a reasonable alternative for the consumer. Ideally, it would be some kind of system where people can download compressed digital audio (MP3 or Ogg Vorbis or something) for something as cheap as 99 cents a pop. Heck, there already ARE lots of sites like this; what if ALL the big labels did it?

This is of course dependent on a few things:

1. There has to be an easy and secure way for people to pay for these things.
2. A large segment of all music has to be made available. If it's only 10% of what I can find at the local music store, then screw it! I'll go buy the CD.
3. It has to be easy to use, portable, and transmittable between devices. (If I download one of these songs, I had damn well better be able to copy it onto my Rio or other portable digital music player.) This pretty much throws out using any kind of encryption. (Digital watermarking or something like that, if it doesn't interfere with the music, is fine by me.)

"But," you say, "everyone will just download it once, copy it, and give it to all their friends!" You know what? No, they won't, for the same reason that all software sold in this country isn't pirated. (China is another matter.) Quite a lot of people buy software, because they want things like original CDs, manuals, and even the nice shiny box that gives you a warm feeling just to look at. Downloading an authorized copy of a song is always going to appeal to those with a certain sense of morality, or just the desire to support the artists they like. (Once nice benefit -- hopefully -- of a system like this is that the artists get a much larger share of the pie, as opposed to the RIAA, who can all shrivel and die for all I care.)

Seriously, would everyone quit bitching about how immoral/illegal it is? Just focus on what IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

They're obfuscating the issue...

[SvnLyrBrto]

They're obfuscating the issue by lieing about "internet culture". The choice quote being:

>"Napster is causing a vast number of consumers
>to believe that free music on the Internet is
>an entitlemant."

... which is a flat out lie. The notion of "if it's on the internet then you're free to use it" did *NOT* originate from Napster.

For the VAST majority of its existence (most of which predates Napster (and, for that matter, the web)), the "internet culture" has been one of shareing. If there was something on the net that was pretty nifty, and you saw a use for it, you were perfectly free to grab a copy and put it to (fair) use, or if it was GPL software, modify it and redistribute. Hell, I taught myself HTML and javascript by surfing the web, and if a page did something I thought was cool, viewing the source and shamelessly learning from the original. That was a much better way (for me) to learn than any HTML book I've run across. And there was never any real problem with this, because if you wanted any cred, you recriprocated by uploading anything YOU do, just in case someone else thinks it's nifty, and someone ELSE might like it.

And there was never any problem with that. The whole point of the net was to share data. (well, okay, originally the whole point was to survive a nuclear attack, but the most common (post DARPA(whose involvement in what is NOW known as the internet was rathar short))use was shareing of knowledge).

It wasn't until VERY recently that giant corperate monoliths such as the RIAA noticed the net, and decided to turn it into their own private playground. They want to destroy the old, free, permissive, sharing culture, impose a meatspace culture on it, and turn it into nothing more than one more marketing demographic.

OF COURSE there is going to be a culture clash.

But to claim that Napster just came along to a perfectly controlled, orderly, on-line marketplace, and just suddenly declared "if it's on the net it's free", is pure FUD, plain and simple. That culture was always there. It's the RIAA who is the uninvited interloper trying to destroy a culture, *NOT* Napster.

john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!

Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if

Re:Moral stand?

[vyesue]

if we boycott one but not the other, or neither, that makes US unethical.

however one (read: I) could argue that ethics arent' really useful.

Re:Punk Rock vs. Napster

[Weezul]

Copyright laws were originally created to prevent corperations from stealing musicians / authors /etc work without just compensation. This works well in book publiishing where copyrights revert back to the author after the first printing. Unfortunatly, the RIAA labels make musicians selll them the copyright outright. I think the only way that traditional music distribution could be fair to artists would be to make it illegal to transfer a copyright away from the original orner, i.e. the labels would only have the rights to a single printing of an album, then it would be the authors. Unfortunatly, the above legal reform seems impossible considering the RIAA's power in cogress.

Now, if you can not fix the laws legally then you should fix them illegally. Musicians like Courtney Love feal that they would make more money if they fans just donated money to them and ignored the record industry---Fairtunes and Upriser are ting to implement a system which allows exactly this. Ideally, people would stop buying CDs and start giving money to artists directly which would totally screw the RIAA labels, thus allowing the artists to broker more benificial deals with their labels.

I think Ms. Love's strategy is a good one. It might work or it might not work, but it seems to be the only real option available to today musicians.. when your getting fucked over bad enough by the establisment then it's time to set fire to the establishment and hope the new order is more to your liking.

BTW> Napster is very very bad since it wants to replace the RIAA's strangle hold on musicians by monopolising the distribution of online music, so we should all try to get people to use diffrent file sharing systems.

$cientology

[jheinen]

I'd be scared anytime someone invokes precedent from a $cientology case to back up their argument. Creepy.

-Vercingetorix

Paradigm

[chriscappuccio]

The RIAA's arguments here are really no different
then they were before. They are simply being
more elaborate. I expect Napster to do the same,
this is just a big game.

What some readers here don't realize is that this is a game which will determine the future for these technologies to some extent, at least for
US citizens. Both sides are lying and using underhanded tactics, although the RIAA tries
to appear to do so less then Napster, it is the
same thing.

Vote for the RIAA if you are part of their system. Vote for Napster if you like MP3s. That's about all there is to it. Everyone is lying to you,
Napster has their own commercial agendas which
if they were able to follow I bet would make them just as nasty as the RIAA.

The precedent that needs to be set is whether it is legal for people to share music. Well, is it legal ONLINE...... The Net is a new avenue for commerce, and the good 'ol boys are not going to let the control fall into the hands of the users....

Fight for what you think is right,
My opinion is that Napster should win, not out of any respect for the company, but rather for the ability to share music without breaking US law.

This law also sets precedent in other countries that follow international copyright treaties. Beware.

Re:RIAA Bad. Napster Bad. MPAA Bad. DeCSS Good.

[adimarco]

Regardless, Napster could just filter and stop transmission of copyrighted works via their system (unless they have permission to distribute the works).

er, and just exactly how would they go about doing such a thing? nothing differentiates a copyrighted string of bytes from a non-copyrighted string of bytes.

you couldn't even use the file name, because i can still misname them, or give them names like "m3t4ll1c4 - f4d3 t0 bl4ck.mp3"

not that easy.

anthony

Re:telling sentence

[SuperKendall]

Not an entitlement - a reality. That is what many are trying to get across.

Music from an artist is essentially free in that if they do not want people copying the music, they only way to really stop that at this point is to not play it, or keep it locked away from people entirely. By performaing the music at all, by placing that music in the public, they have implicitly stated that anyone can have it for the cost of duplication.

That's the problem they face now. Before MP3's and the internet, they could charge whatever they wanted for a CD because the cost of exact duplication and media was much higher than just buying CD's (computer/CD burner/blank CD's).

But now essentially perfect duplication of media (and in a more convienient form to boot) costs nothing. At this point, an intelligent person would cease to try and stop duplication - that is impossible. A smart person would try and figure out how to make money from it.

That means cheap (like $5) CD's with fun band pictures and extras. That means things like t-shirts and hats and Aquabat anti-negativity helmets, and user supported donations to the artists. There are a million ways to make money when giving music away, but really no way at all to stop widespread music copying.

Does that make it right? No! But that doesn't mean we can't ridicule people who deny reality and attempt to destroy themselves in the attempt to stop things. Even if you think copying MP3's is wrong (I do), you have to admit the reality of the situation and figure out how to work with it.

I personally have mixed feelings about Napster because they did try and make money on distrbuting well-known mp3's, but on the other hand they were acting as an independant distributer for other forms of music. You could almost argue that it was redistributing some of the funds RIAA gets from radio and blank tape sales into availiabilty of distribution to other musicians not part of "The System".

As a disclaimer, I'm not even a Napster user and I own all the CD's for music I have (when possible, the Chu Chu Rocket mp3 comes to mind as a counterexample). I think artists should be paid for work they do, but they should also realize the truth of whatever environment they release music into.

Re:Moral stand?

[ajs]

But you cannot shut down all pizza parlors because they can be used for money laundering.

Perhaps you meant to construct an argument [harvard.edu] instead of introducing a logical fallacy [infidels.org].

Re:Punk Rock vs. Napster

[AndyL]

How much is 'serious money'? I'd pay a small amount for each mp3 I downloaded. I'm just waiting for an efficiant way to do it.
Sure, without the media exposure the publishers can generate less musicions will become millioners but more of them will make a decent living. I'm all for flattening the money distribution curve a little bit.
Nowhere is it written that rock stars get to make millions of dolars.

Re:And if you wouldn't buy the CD anyway?

[jmv]

I agree with you, and I wonder whether you can push the reasoning further. If you can prove that the RIAA is losing less money than napster (and other MP3 sharing methods) is making them lose, then you might have a point in proving that it is in fact a malicious lawsuit against napster and not about money. The purpous of the lawsuit being to preserve its monopoly on music. BTW, aren't there laws in the US about cartels? AFAIK the RIAA is a cartel.

Selected comments from RIAA's response

[ChaosDiscord]

All in all, it's a fairly compelling document. I'm not terribly sure how ethically or legally right Napster is. Napster does maintain a database of copyright protected music with the intent to profit (in some nebulous way) from it. But the document still has some interesting thoughts from the RIAA. Some gems include:

The District Court enjoined Napster from infringing plaintiffs' copyrighted works after finding that Napster was actively trying to accomplish the goals laid out in its own early planning documents -- to "usurp" and "undermine" the record industry, "unhindered by cumbersome copyright schemes." Its declared goals also included the following: "[S]eize control of digital distribution. . . . Napster brings about death of the CD . . . Record stores (Tower Records) obsoleted."

Oh my, how dare anyone attempt to "usurp" or "undermine" the record industry and replace it with something else! How dare Napster view copyright schemes as combersome and avoid being hindered by them! How else will the RIAA enjoy it's God given right to make money. Feh. Anyone seriously attempting to change how music is distributed, even with great respect for copyright, will attempt to "usurp" the record industry. Such a company could quite reasonably view record stores as obsolete. This is in no way grounds to take Napster down.

The Court found Napster had no current substantial non- infringing use. Rather, the several purported non-infringing uses trumpeted by Napster -- all of which essentially boiled down to the same claim, that musical artists other than those whose copyrights plaintiffs own use Napster to promote their music -- were minimal, commercially insignificant, and pretextual.

It's nice to know that if you're an artist not involved in the case, you're "commercially insignificant" and as such not deserving of the right to use Napster to distribute your music.

All is not lost, since the RIAA the RIAA generously gives Napster a way to continue hosting files:

For example, Napster could compile a database of song titles and artist names that have been authorized by the copyright owners of those songs to be made available on the Napster service. . . .

(Don't be misled by the "For example", it's the only example they give. The only other options I can see are ineffective lists of prohibited titles or requirining "hindering" copyright protection technology.)

So, if you get a tape from a non-internet saavy friend musician who encourages you to make copies for anyone you want, you couldn't put it onto Napster without getting Napster some official form of authorization. If sending an email saying "I own this and I authorize it" is enough, it will be trivial to forge emails granting permission for the RIAA catalogs. If some sort of proof is required, it becomes an onerous burden for the copyright holder.

Re:Sick of RIAA and Napster

[emerson]

This argument only holds up if Napster use CAUSES more sales. Really, all we know is that Napster users are also record buyers, but the arrow of causation could point the other way -- that record buyers are more likely to use Napster.

It could be shown that Napster users buy a more-than-average number of records in the first place, and that Napster is causing them to buy fewer than they would, although still more than average. Then Napster would be hurting potential sales.

I don't at all know what the truth of the matter is, but the stat that Napster users buy more music than the average consumer is interesting, but really doesn't at all speak to whether Napster use causes more or fewer sales.
--

Re:RIAA Bad. Napster Bad. MPAA Bad. DeCSS Good.

[Rombuu]

My copy of the Oxford English Dictonary traces the use of the word piracy in the sense of presenting someone elses work as your own or as an unauthroized reporduction as dating back to the 17th century.

I know RMS has his own little agenda, but don't look foolish by saying that by properly using the term piracy you are equating something with kidnap and murder. Words can have multiple meanings, you know?

Re:A different take: I think I finally get it

[w3woody]

Does your VCR have a big red sign on it that says "you may not use this device to make copies of commercial movies"? No.

You're absolutely right. In fact, the sign is a piece of 8.5"x11" yellow paper which has the notice, and it came inserted into the VCR's instruction manual, rather than affixed to the VCR itself.

Does your photocopy machine have a big red sign on it that says "you may only photocopy copyrighted works for personal research use or archival as per the fair use clause of the Copyright Act"? No.

Actually, it's small and silver, not big and red. But the sign is there.

It is entirely irrelevant if the device is used for illegal purposes (and I have to agree with Mr. Boies that the AHRA permits the trading of copyrighted works in this manner). If it can be used for wholly legal purposes (and clearly it can be and is) then it's not illegal.

Regardless if it is irrelevant to you, legally it is relevant if the device's primary purpose is to break the law or not--that's the legal theory which makes having lock pick sets illegal in some states unless you are a licensed and bonded lock smith. Because the primary purpose for a non-licensed and non-bonded private citizen having a lock pick set is to break and enter--and it doesn't matter one whit how great the gray pick is at getting food dislogged from between your teeth.

One person is a criminal. Ten people are a gang. A thousand people are a movement. 20 million people are a law-making and unstoppable force.

And if those twenty million happen to be wearing army jackets, carrying guns and answer to Saddam over in Bagdad, it's still a law-making and unstoppable force? Or an illegal invasion?

Ethics are tricky. It's not about bullshitting the people around you into doing what you want them to do--it's about setting rules we all can live by. And just because everyone on the road speeds on the highways doesn't mean that speeding isn't illegal and dangerous...

Completely missing the point...

[sheldon]

You appear to have missed the point, perhaps because you didn't read the RIAA brief.

They make specific mention of this supposed benefit, and they point out correctly that it is irrelevant. The RIAA never asked Napster to advertise for them, they certainly never gave them permission to advertise in the way they have. What the RIAA is arguing is that if this form of theft is not stopped, it will impact financially those companies who are working to provide legitimate business plans because people will expect full copies of music for free.

The GPL has nothing to do with this. The GPL is something you buy into, you have a choice in what you do with your creation.

What Napster is doing, essentially, is saying "Hey wow, there is a whole lot of stuff out there people have created... Let's force them to make it public domain."

The rest of your argument seems to be a rather lame attempt to justify theft to yourself.

Re:Moral stand?

[Reality Master 101]

If you drive the getaway car, you're still responsible for the crime even though you didn't rob the bank.

"But Your Honor, I was just driving a car -- a perfectly legal activity! I had nothing to do with my passengers who just happened to rob a bank!

--

Re:RIAA's response well reasoned

[Wah]

They are right - using Napster harms the artist.

Napster harms them, they own the artist. That's the only way napster harms artists. This distintion is important since "they" have also helped make laws, that a)turn musical works into "works for hire" meaning the artist can never regain their copyright, b)remove the right of an artist to get out of a contract (which gave up their copyright) when declaring bankrupty, and c)extending copyright beyond the lifetime of your average person.

So yea, they are fighting for their life. Fuck'em. This is an issue of control. And they couldn't care less if Napster, Gnutella, whatever, is making money or not. They specifically amended copyright in '98, so that is not a consideration.
--

GPL *does* need copyright to exist

[Nugget94M]

This 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"?

Re:RIAA's response well reasoned

[jmv]

In many ways, the parrellel between the industries is perfect.

To this date, millions (is not hundred of millions, I don't have the numbers) of people have died from cigarettes. How many artists died from copyright infringements? They sure lost a couple bucks, but there is a huge difference between the two. Also, if you want to push the analogy, note that the cigarette companies are still in buisness, while napster might be out of buisness soon.

Now, I cannot predict the verdict, but let's assume that napster is illegal. It can mean two things: "napster is bad" or "the laws need to be changed". Sure the RIAA has the (legal) right to defend their copyright, but sometimes "legal right" != "moral right". What might have started with napster (actually, maybe even before) is a movement of civil disobeissance (OK, I'm french!). It's the equivalent of a small revolution against the RIAA dictatorchip (I'm talking musical dictatorship). You might be for or against napster, but ultimate point here is not "is napster legal", but about "what should be legal in the future".

At last, I'd like to add (though this is not new) that the "the artists are losing money" is not really valid, since most artists (all but the very popular/rich ones) make almost no mony from sold CD's anyway. For them CD's are not about direct money, but about being known and making money with their shows. The problem is that the RIAA is using its monopoly on CD's to "force" the artists to agree to their rules (giving up their copyright to the RIAA), because the RIAA controls the radios which are the only way artists get known.

the riaa's real motives

[Idolatre]

The RIAA completely ignores the argument that napster can be used for discovering new music because they don't want people to discover new music. They want people to buy their britney spears crap. They don't want people to know there are other kinds of music which are not produced by major labels

Why doesn't anyone seem to understand that? They perfectly know that no one steals from them and that napster helps them sell more CD, the problem is that they don't help only them, they also help all the "underground" labels.

Re:RIAA's response well reasoned

[Madoc]

The folks at the RIAA do know what they're doing, but that doesn't mean that what they are doing is right. They have not proven that Napster harms the artist. They say:

All copies are made by anonymous Napster users whose identities are protected by Napster, of innumerable works that Napster cannot (by design) identify. Copyright owners can never get back what they will have lost.

What the RIAA fail to note, however, is what the Copyright owners have gained. They have gained mindshare. They have gained fans. They have gained ticket sales and t-shirt sales, and yes, even CD sales through this added publicity. What they have lost is a presumed notion (maximum long term value? What the heck do they mean by that?), what they have gained can be easily quantified. Just count the number of downloads... each of those is a new listener.

Copyright is important, but most important is that the purpose to which copyright is put should be agreed upon. The GPL makes a perfect use of Copyright in order to force a particular work to remain free and allow sharing. This is a good use of a currently half-broken system. Using copyright as a reason to prevent people from sharing anything without paying a sum (any sum) to a large organization is not a good use of the system.

From my understanding (by no means complete), Copyright was created as a method to allow a creator to benefit from their work without being abused by various unscrupulous publishers. If that is the case, then it is not achieving that goal. In this case, it's being used by the (often unscrupulous) publishers to abuse the recipients of the work (that's us, the fans), forcing them at the same time to pay homage. If you really think this is right, then by all means stand up for the RIAA. If you think that creation, creativity, and sharing are more important than corporate profit, then seek action to correct the current copyright system. Become as informed as possible. Put in your voice and let those who make these decisions know what is right, and what you want them to do about it. You have the power to change things for better or for worse.

I hope you decide to change it for the better, or get the heck out of the way because a minor revolution is coming and if you stand for the wrong side you may just get trampled on.

Piracy began with the RIAA, not napster

[A nonymous Coward]

They began stealing from the public when they expanded copyright from anything reasonable, when they declared war on fair use copying, and when they have such a monopoly on distribution that artists have no choice but to sign over their rights

The guerrela warfare reaction is the public's response to corporate theft.

It might be technically illegal to break into my neighbor's house to steal something, but if that something was originally stolen from me, and the neighbor has bought off the police so I can't get it back, then technicalities be damned, I have the moral right to retrieve it.

The RIAA have stolen my public domain rights, and stolen artists' rights, and they are suffering the consequences.

Did you see the news about Louis Prima's estate and Disney? Disney says that even though they pay royalties for audio recordings of The Jungle Book, they don't owe royalties on video recordings, even though there is an audio track, because the contract didn't specifically mention the new technologies.

Do you *still* claim the congolmerates have any rights? Do you *still* claim they protect artists?

--

Re:RIAA's response well reasoned

[synx]

All I can say in response to that is a recent study found:

* 100% people who smoked - even for one day - have died or will die.

I'd say that's pretty damning if you ask me!

Re:It's called Gnutella...

[Kalak451]

The problem with Gnutella is the porn. Alot of Napster users are kids, and their parents dont really care if they are downloading illegal music, but you better believe they will flip when they see the porn adds next to the music listings on Gnutella. Napsters one saving grace was that it was only used for music. The more general utilities are going to be cursed by their openness

Re:A different take: I think I finally get it

[scowling]

So what this is really about, then, is 20 million people infringing on an entire industry by stealing that industry's copyrighted works. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if it's an evil industry. It doesn't matter whether Courtney Love can write a moving diatribe against it. This isn't Robin Hood vs. the Sherrif of Nottingham. This is nothing more than people convienently deluding themselves into the ethics of self-interest.

No, I don't think you do get it. Yes, Napster has that proviso in their license, but they don't need that proviso to make it a legal technology.

Does your VCR have a big red sign on it that says "you may not use this device to make copies of commercial movies"? No.

Does your photocopy machine have a big red sign on it that says "you may only photocopy copyrighted works for personal research use or archival as per the fair use clause of the Copyright Act"? No.

It is entirely irrelevant if the device is used for illegal purposes (and I have to agree with Mr. Boies that the AHRA permits the trading of copyrighted works in this manner). If it can be used for wholly legal purposes (and clearly it can be and is) then it's not illegal.

One person is a criminal. Ten people are a gang. A thousand people are a movement. 20 million people are a law-making and unstoppable force.
--

But it IS Robin Hood and the Sherrif

[A nonymous Coward]

The media conglomerates have abused the copyright system. They have stretched it far beyond any reasonable interpretation of being for the public good. It used to be 14 years plus a 14 year extension, now it's 75 years after the author dies. They want to stop fair use. If anyone proposed libraries today, they would scream about copyright infringement.

In other words, they are stealing from the public, using the force of the government to back them up. This has nothing to do with artists' rights and everything to do with theft from the public domain.

They have declared war on the public, and the public is fighting back in the only way possible. The public has overreacted, but the RIAA started the war. When the powerful push the weak too far, the weak fight back in the only way possible. Like the Brits prior to the American Revolution, there comes a time when the oppressed have had enough, and after all these years of overpriced overpadded CDs, the consumers are reacting.

The future involves priceless distribution. The RIAA can no more stop it than King Canute could stop the tide. The RIAA would be better off getting in bed with Napster than trying to kill them, but they are so short sighted they don't see it. They will die.

On another take, how much do you really think the conglomerates are actually losing? Your little brother -- how many of those tunes could he have actually bought? That's the only cost. You can't say he has 100 CD equivalents and that's how much they lost.

--

Re:The truth

[Luminous]

If you can't see the difference between downloading a song (i.e. copyright violation) and stealing from a store, then there are some significant problems at hand besides Napster. And unfortunately, I don't think you are alone in your opinion.

Trace the theft. At what point in my downloading a song an artist did not agree to did I deny someone property? My crime is copyright infringement which is not theft. If it was theft, then in the legal briefs filed, Napster would be accused of abetting in theft not in assisting piracy [dictionary.com] (using definition #2, not #1).

Re:Sick of RIAA and Napster

[yakfacts]

That is not the point. Napster is making money off of somebody else's product without providing any sort of payment for the use of that product. If I ran a site where people could download scans of textbooks--for which I made a profit--don't you think the publishers would be annoyed?

The RIAA might be making money out of the whole deal with increased sales of records, but if you don't protect your property, you might lose it. Napster is also guilty of some double-standards (thatr have been discussed on slashdot), so I have a hard time feeling sorry for them. Remember that lousy music group they sued for trademark infringement after the group started selling clothing with the Napster logo? Napster might get more visitors when people saw the illegal shirts, but Napster sent off their own cease-and-desist letter....

P.S. on the definition of theft

[A nonymous Coward]

I will probably be misunderstood :-( so I will amplify a bit.

I don't mean it's ok to download the mp3 instead of buying the CD, and I don't mean it;s ok to install AutoCAD in lieu of paying. For instance, if someone installs AutoCAD because they want the "best", instead of buying a cheaper competitor, then there is a real loss, although not to AutoCAD. If someone buys a harddisk and fills it with mp3 instead of buying the CDs, there is a real loss, and to the artist.

My point is that most of what the RIAA calls theft is no such thing because there is no monetary loss, or any loss whatsoever, because the hundreds of mp3s downloaded by starving college students are not in lieu of buying a CD. I doubt the actual monetary loss is more than 1%. I bet it is compensated for by people like me who use mp3s to find interesting music and buy the CD. I doubt the RIAA wants to bring either of these factors into the equation.

--

Re:You presume too much

[SuperKendall]

But then again it's not really that simple. Consider fair use - that means that if I buy a CD, then there is the understanding that I not only have bought the CD but also a copy for myself in whatever form I like.

That is a side argument though and not relevant to my point. I'll restate in a slightly different way what I was trying to get across - that by releasing a performance to the public (that includes live performances) an artist implicitly UNDERSTANDS that anyone can have it for the cost of duplication.

They may not AGREE with those who do not pay for it. They may not WANT it to be copied. All that is irrelivant however in that they KNOW it is possible to copy it, and therfore it CAN be had for the cost of duplication.

Again, I say that given what you know, you have to be an idiot to think you can keep making money that way and should be looking for viable alternitives. I'd like to see the artists get as much as possible for performances, to maximise profit for the performer - that does not happen under the current system.

Re:GPL *does* need copyright to exist

[mikpos]

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.

This is where things get confusing. Why would Microsoft want to take source code from Linux and keep things closed-source? Without copyright law, Microsoft would be unable to sell software per se. They could still print their own CDs and stuff, but there would be competition, since their software could be distributed without restriction, so their prices would remain low. The only reason I can think of for why Microsoft would not release the source code is so that they could have a monopoly on technical support. Judging on Microsoft's past behaviour, I guess this isn't too far fetched, though.

The point is, though, you can't just assume that if copyright were to be abolished, the software industry would carry on as it is. It's RMS's opinion that if there were no copyright (and thus there would be no market for software per se), then software developers would not want to keep their source code hidden: there would be no benefit. It's his opinion that software would be distributed in much the same way that GPL software is distributed today. That's why the GPL is designed the way it is.

Of course you can argue with him. Maybe if there were no copyright law, some people still would keep their code locked up. I can't see any benefit in that, but it's possible.

You presume too much

[unicorn]

Music from an artist is essentially free in that if they do not want people copying the music, they only way to really stop that at this point is to not play it, or keep it locked away from people entirely. By performaing the music at all, by placing that music in the public, they have implicitly stated that anyone can have it for the cost of duplication.

They have said no such thing. When an artist releases something on CD, it's with the impicit understanding that if you want to own a copy of that song, you will buy the CD.

Napster being used for piracy?

[Rombuu]

Quoting Claude Raines from Casablanca..

"I'm shocked... shocked..."

Not much more to say.

[Golias]

Over the last few months, we have been back and forth on this Napster issue so many times on /. that I can only express my feelings by stealing a lyric from The Beatles:

Nothing you can know that isn't known
Nothing you can see that isn't shown
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
It's easy
C'mon, everybody sing it with me now!
All you need is love
All you need is love
All you need is love, love
Love is all you need.

That about covers it. There is indeed nothing you can say, but you can learn how to play the game.

There isn't much here that's new . . .

[werdna]

Compare this to RIAA's reply to Napsters answer to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and other earlier documents. [findlaw.com] It has always been Napster's side of the story that the Supreme Court didn't mean what they wrote in Sony, and that Napster have been evil sly dogs.

It has always been Napster's view that the law is on their side. As a lawyer, I'm more likely to buy the hypertechnical defenses on behalf of Napster, but hey, that's just me. The District Court was moved by the "hey, they're taking everything for free" rhetoric, and the few cracks of light they could pull out of Sony.

Time will tell how the 9th Circuit feels about the matter. In the meanwhile, I didn't see anything really new in this brief at first glance.

Re:I cannot believe how many responses...

[Reality Master 101]

Jesus F. Christ! It's not going to go away no matter what happens! Why don't people figure out how to DEAL WITH IT instead of whining about morality and law? God, this is getting annoying.

Murder is not going to go away no matter what happens! Why don't people figure out how to DEAL WITH IT instead of whining about morality and law? God, this is getting annoying. [indeed]

--

This is insane...

[jbeast]

It's a pathetic display when companies and organizations go through what Napster and the RIAA are going through. A settlement will obviously never happen, which really makes me curious as to what 20 million pissed off ex-napster users are gonna do when the RIAA gets its way...

Uncle Toms missing the point. (Was:RIAA Bad.)

[theNAM666]

Look, I dislike the English as much as the next guy... but the fact is, clippers are used mostly (not exclusively) to pirate tea, and that's bad. Yes, the King needs to see the writing on the wall that representation is the way to go and that He can't gouge colonists. But that doesn't mean that John Paul and the rest of those pirates are a good thing! They're both in the wrong.

Cheap tea is not a right. The colonist's rights are not being stepped on. Maybe you buy more tea because you tried Jefferson's stuff first... so what? It's still not a right. King George is bone-headed, but He's not wrong on this issue.

It also alarms me that people get this issue confused with freedom of religion, housing militia, etc... these have nothing to do with what the pirates are doing. Religion and housing are about control, using your own property as you wish. Running clippers to get past the British is about making money for Jefferson and his friends, not freedom.

Moral stand?

[Refrag]

Regardless of Napster's motivations for creating Napster, the service itself is not illegal. There are legitimate purposes for Napster, therefore Napster should win.

RIAA is pulling a moral stand here, trying to assasinate Napster's character. If Napster is a greedy, corporate entity like RIAA says it is, I'm still going to root for them over the greedy, corporate entity of RIAA!


Refrag

A Modest Proposal

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so the RIAA claims to be very concerned about the affect of 'pirated music' on people who create music. They say that, if this 'piracy' is allowed to continue unchecked, there will be no incentive to create.

I therefore propose the following changes to our current system of copyrighting intellectual property:

1. Only the creator of the work can own the rights to the work. In other words, the creator cannot sell his rights to another person or company.

2. Upon the death of the creator of the work, the work will enter the public domain. If the creator has a legal spouse, the work will enter the public domain upon that person's death.

I believe that this proposal will have enormous benefits in terms of protecting the artist/creator of IP, because he or she can never lose the rights to their work. Sure, the artist can enter into a contract with a company to produce hard copies of the work, but the actual ownership of the work remains with the artist.

This system will also provide 'incentive to create'. Instead of the system we have now, where people who never created anything in their life live off the 'rights' to IP, we'll have a system that forces people to constantly produce new works. An older artist certainly has the right to live off the work he or she did in the past, by releasing 'greatest hits' compilations and such. But the artist's children have no rights over the IP. They will be forced to create their own works. Similarly, a company or corporation can never own the rights to IP. Only a human being can own IP.

Like I said, just a modest proposal...

Re:The truth

[ewhac]

Downloading copyrighted music via Napster isn't any different than stealing it from the music store.

Incorrect. But don't feel bad; Lars made the same error in reasoning in a new interview [sfgate.com] in the San Francisco Examiner.

Digital artifacts are not being transferred away from one party toward another. They are being duplicated, such that both parties now have the artifact.

I wish people would think about these facts more clearly and face the realities of digital media. Otherwise, we're not going to make any meaningful progress on the issue.

Schwab

*.mp3.zip

[yerricde]

It would be trivial for Napster to prevent transferring illegally stolen music: simply prevent transferring any file with a valid MP3 header.

It would be even more trivial to break this [winzip.com].

<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game! [8m.com]

xpdf as well

[Bill Currie]

xpdf works as well. I don't think I've ever had a problem using it over acroread (other than the lack of TOC tree). It does have some usability nits (like page numbers being absolute) but I find it preferable to acroread.

Also, you can select text from xpdf (though I don't know about the others, but I don't remember having much luck with acroread (solaris version, slightly fermented)).

Trying to figure that out myself

[Greyfox]

Best I can come up with is advertising. An Ad spot on Napster might be worh a few bucks. Just make the client display the advert while you download. In a float-to-top can't-be-minimized window. Having never actually used Napster (Or any of its open source derivatives) I'm totally guessing on how the process works, of course.

Punk Rock vs. Napster

[Eharley]

I had a talk with my musician friend, Phil R., yesterday about this whole Napster debacle. He thinks the Internet is great and is going to revolutionize music distribution. However, when he found someone posted the LP he and his high school buds were working on to the Internet he felt violated. "They" didn't ask, however if "they" did it would probably have been okay. But what I got from my chat was that a musician has certain rights. Those rights need to be protected if the musician is to live.

Sure the RIAA is evil, Phil will loudly attest to that. However, it is looking out for the interests of its musicians no matter how little money the musicians actually realize.

This case is not about illegal distribution...

[PromethiumInfrmation]

...it's about distribution without the RIAA's blessing. This is not about piracy. It's about control. By putting this case forward, they are opening a door by which they can sieze control of an established distribution method.

I think Napster's defense is intact

[jms]

The core of Napster's defense is, as the RIAA correctly points out, section 1008 of the AHRA.

From the brief:

The AHRA balances the interests of manufacturers, consumers, and copyright owners by plac[ing] restrictions only upon a specific type of recording device, specifically defined in the statute, requiring such devices to be equipped with copy protections and that royalty payments be made based on their sale, and exempting consumers from copyright infringement lawsuits for private uses of AHRA-covered devices:

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of

a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. 17 U.S.C. 1008

In RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc., 180 F.3d 1072, 1074-1075 (9th Cir. 1999), this Court squarely held that [u]nder the plain meaning of the [AHRA's] definition of digital audio recording devices, computers (and their hard drives) are not digital audio recording devices... Diamond also held that MP3 files contained on computer hard drives are not digital musical recordings. 180 F.3d at 1076-77. Thus, under Diamond, a computer is not a covered device, and a copy made by one Napster user of an MP3 file residing on another Napster user's computer hard drive is not a copy of a digital musical recording, and is not covered by Section 1008. 17 U.S.C. 1001(4)(A).

Here is the RIAA's bait and switch.

The bait:

The question being addressed in the Diamond Multimedia case was whether or not computers and MP3 files are "digital audio recording devices" and "digital musical recordings" for the purpose of determining whether those devices were required to implement SCMS.

The switch:

The RIAA is claiming that only activities using devices and media covered by the SCMS and royalty requirements are protected by 1008. Unfortunately for them, they have made this up out of thin air.

The appeals court directly addressed this argument in lifting the injunction. From the text of the stay:

The court reached its conclusion that Napster users were engaged in direct infringement in part because ...

o it ruled that 17 USC 1008's protections only applied to copying by specifically identified devices rather than, as this Court said in RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Syst., Inc., 180 F.3d 1072 (9 th Cir. 1999), to all noncommercial copying by consumers.1

1 The court relied on the fact that this Court in Diamond Multimedia had held (in the context of the AHRA's serial copying and royalty provisions) that digital audio recording device did not include computer hard-drives. The court below ignored, however, that 17 U.S.C. 1008 permits non-commercial copying by consumers using either analog or digital audio recording devices or "such a device"; that the legislative history makes clear that Congress intended by that language to immunize all non-commercial copying of music by consumers; that the same Diamond Multimedia Court expressly said that 17 U.S.C. 1008 "protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings" (180 F.3d at 1079); and that throughout the Diamond Multimedia opinion the Court discusses copying of music using computer hard-drives as AHRA protected activity.

The RIAA can of course continue to pursue their failed legal theory in this highly symphathetic lower court, but if the lower court finds in favor of the RIAA for this reason, the appeals court has all but said it will overturn a finding based on such a theory.

The other key point in Napster's defense is the argument that the activities of Napsters' users are non-commercial. The RIAA claims that Napsters are engaging in commercial activity:

See also 17 U.S.C. 101 (defining "financial gain" for purposes of criminal No Electronic Theft Act to include the "receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works")

The RIAA can argue this point all they want to, but I don't think that they can make the case. This law simply forbids "quota" or "ratio" requirements, nothing more. This is not how Napster works. When someone makes files available on Napster, there is no expectation that they will be rewarded for their contribution by being given subsequent access to other files. When someone downloads files from Napster, there is no expectation or requirement that they make files available in return. Napster is probably the only possible file sharing system that is absolutely, authentically non-commercial with respect to its users' activities.

The RIAA reply goes on to try and prove that users of Napster are not engaging in fair use. This is irrelevant because Section 1008 does not say:

A fair use defense may be raised against allegations of infringement of copyright based on ...

It says, instead,

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringment of copyright based on ...

If the activities of Napsters' users are protected by Section 1008, then the rest of the RIAA case disintegrates. If Napsters' users are not committing infringement, then fair use is not even an issue, and Napster cannot be liable for contributory infringement if there is no actual infringement.

In short, I don't think that the RIAA has made their case. Their counterargument is based on the exact legal theories that the Appeals court firmly rejected in overturning the injunction.

Re:Let's set things straight

[jheinen]

"It's the same thing as sueing Apache because people are using it to distribute mp3s."

No it's not. In the case of Apache, far more people use it as a legitimate web server than as a mechanism to distribute MP3s. The primary purpose apache is used for is NOT MP3 distribution. In the Napster case, the exact opposite is true. Napster is used almost exclusively to transfer copyrighted material. The primary purpose something is used for is very important when determining its legality. The only real defense Napster has is the Audio Home Recording Act, but even there they are standing on shaky ground.

That being said, I still think it's pointless to go after Napster. Winning won't change the status quo.

-Vercingetorix

Re:Moral stand?

[wnissen]

Later on in the document, they make a comparison between Napster and Sony producing VCR's. Sony argued ( apparently successfully) that their involvement ended the moment the VCR was sold, and they were not responsible for any copyright violations that were done with the VCR. However, Napster is providing an ongoing service, and obviously they need to preserve the supply of pirated music in order to keep their users coming back.
What I'm wondering about is what happens when 90% of the software I use resides on a network host. I already use calendaring and messaging over the Net, pretty soon all of the software I use will be "service" in the sense of having the ongoing support of the company that sold it to me. What if I use, say, hotmail to send out song lyrics to all my friends, or maybe to a whole mailing list of people that have signed up to get the lyrics from me. MS is providing a service to me that allows me to pirate lyrics; where does one draw the line between this and the Napster service. Obviously, Napster wasn't created with or used for pure goodness, but there will come a time when a pure site is used for bad things, and then we've got ourselves a distinction to make.

Walt

Nope, but the Benz has a real physical cost

[A nonymous Coward]

If the Mercedes could be produced for free, and your theft didn't prevent anyone else from buying one, I would have very little problem with your theft. But there is a very real physical cost. Just as there is a physical cost to an actual CD -- I would never condone stealing a CD from a store.

But bits? No cost there, other a few seconds of server time.

I see no theft in copying bits which you would never buy anyway. If you copy AutoCAd and play with it, but could never afford to buy your own copy, AutoCAD hasn't lost a cent. Where is the loss?

It used to be common for office workers to install Microsoft Office at home so they could work at home nights and weekends. No doubt they also wrote letters and recipies and resumes. Is there theft in any of this?

Here are counter examples. Suppose you are handing out coupons on a street corner. Suppose someone grabs one before you have a chance to give it out? Suppose someone takes two? Is either of those theft?

Suppose a store sale says "2 per customer" -- is it theft to go back several times and buy two each time?

How about contests "No purchase necessary" -- what if you enter a dozen times?

How about radio contests -- "12th caller wins!" -- is it theft to use a fast redial button? Is it theft to have your computer redial even faster?

--

Sick of RIAA and Napster

[yakfacts]

Although I cannot stand the RIAA, the more I think about it something just seems wrong about Napster making a profit off of someone elses work.

If Napster was not doing this is for profit, then it would be an easier case for me. But with Napster doing this as a business, it seems fair that the record companies should get a cut; even if they don't really deserve any more money.

The MPAA case is a lot easier; they (the MPAA) are clearly in the wrong. But the RIAA have some valid points, and they are sounding more valid all the time.

Gnutella, on the other hand, is not a business and is therefore exempt, IMHO.

Re:Moral stand?

[/dev/kev]

If someone robs a bank, and then gets away on a bus, does that put the bus driver at fault? I guess it depends on whether or not the bus driver knows the robber has just robbed a bank and is making his getaway. If he knows, he's legally and morally obliged to refuse the robber admission, to stop the bus, drive to the police station, whatever. But if he doesn't know the robber's identity, I fail to see how he could be guilty of aiding and abetting the robber.

On the other hand, you wouldn't want a bus service setup which has routes from banks to state lines avoiding police stations, and drivers who don't ask questions. So I guess it also depends on how well the service lends itself to helping the illegal activity, and the proprietor's knowledge of this.

To drag the analogy back into reality, whether or not Napster is guilty of aiding and abetting copyright infringement depends on whether or not they are aware their service is being used as such, and that it may lend itself well to copyright infringement. Based on what their current attitude appears to be, it seems as though they're aware that their system is being used for copyright infringement, despite their service agreement, and that they're not interested in fixing it.

RIAA's response well reasoned

[freebe]

You should be shocked. Those folks at the RIAA actually have a reason for what they are doing! They are right - using Napster harms the artist. Using cigarettes harms your health. Both industries (the pirated music industry and the tobacco industry) will attempt to deny it; or claim that their users are at fault. In many ways, the parrellel between the industries is perfect.

While the RIAA may not be the best model, it certainly stands for one thing - copyright protection. Even that Linux kernel which you find dear is protected under the same copyright. "My enemy's enemy..." and all that: the RIAA stands in defense of basic copyright. Not even software licensing or anything legally questionable, but simply the copy protection part of copyright that's been at the heart of copyright law for many many years.

While I don't like the RIAA's business decisions, it's the same as if Microsoft were forced to defend their copyright. Of course we would want them to win; our beloved GPL defense rests upon the same things that Microsoft's EULA rests upon. While we may not like Microsoft as a business, I'd find it hard to condemn Microsoft for defending its copyright. Same with the RIAA>

Napster's cards

[paTroll]

I hate to say it, but Napster has not played its cards well. It picked fights with people who are more equipped than it. Now, it's in court and in trouble, doing damage to personal autonomy and freedom of speech.

It should have played the "Microsoft Java" card - and done what Microsoft did with Java. Make partnerships. Pretend to play along. Pretend to be friendly - all the while dragging its feet, and ever-so-slightly pushing the bounds of that friendship.

Sure, Microsoft ended up in court over Java, too. But it was a diffent battle - it was a battle over standards, not a battle over freedom. Had napster "played friendly" with the record labels, instead of confronting them, they would be in less heat now, and still doing what they've been doing.

pt

RIAA Bad. Napster Bad. MPAA Bad. DeCSS Good.

[Chris Burke]

Look, I dislike big corporations as much as the next guy... but the fact is that Napster is used mostly (not exclusively) to pirate music, and that's bad. Yes, the RIAA needs to see the writing on the wall that digital distribution is the way to go and they can't gouge consumers... But that doesn't mean Napster is a good thing! They're both in the wrong.

Pirating music is not a right. You're rights are not being stepped on. Maybe you bought more music because you heard it on Napster first... so what? It's still not a right. RIAA is bone-headed, but they are not wrong on this issue.

It also alarms me that people get this issue confused with the DeCSS issue... DeCSS is demonstrably not used for pirating (and isn't necessary). DeCSS is about control, and using your own property as you wish. Napster is about making money for themselves and their stock holders, not freedom.

Making money

[MattLesko]

Could someone please explain to me Napster Inc.'s idea on how it makes money? All I remember was a memo from their offices a while back making one of their goals 'destruction of current CD distributors, e.g., Tower'. Is this company just so chock-full of idiocy that they jumped into a product with no viable method of making money? Or are they such megalomaniacs that they thought they would be the forefront of a music 'revolution' in which artists would require their services to be heard?
P.S. If you're on napster right now, go get the song 'Megalomaniac'. Pretty damn good.

You are more than the sum of what you consume.

RIAA is wrong

[idlmx]

RIAA quoted on page 28, how Napster can block unauthorized music. The flaw in this is that every music that has to be traded on napster has to be approved. if i wanted to share the mp3 of the trax i just rawked up 5 minutes ago, I have to go through process of having napster approve it. the other flaw in this is that the protection uses artist name and music title. what stops me from distributing metallica's song under a new free artists name? nothing! hence, napster is right in maintaing that they don't have the technology to block all unauthorized mp3s. i am very disgusted at the paper.

Re:Sick of RIAA and Napster

[dirk]

"Although I cannot stand the RIAA, the more I think about it something just seems wrong about Napster making a profit off of someone elses work.

If Napster was not doing this is for profit, then it would be an easier case for me. But with Napster doing this as a business, it seems fair that the record companies should get a cut; even if they don't really deserve any more money."

IMHO, they're not making a profit off other people's work. They're making a profit via investors for creating a useful and powerful tool.
Napster doesn't have any banners, doesn't charge, etc. Of course they need money! How else would they keep servers used by 20 million people up and at a decent speed?

They may not be making money currently, but do you think all these VC guys are throwing money into Napster because they think it's a worthy cause? Napster has a plan to make money. What they are doing right now is getting users "addicted" to it, so when they do put banner ads or charge for it, a good portion of the people who already use it will keep using it. There is a lot better chance people will keep using Napster when they add ads/charge for it if they have been using it for months for free. I feel sorry for you if you really think Napster is doing all this out of the kindness of it's heart.

Re:Moral stand?

[Reality Master 101]

Regardless of Napster's motivations for creating Napster, the service itself is not illegal. There are legitimate purposes for Napster, therefore Napster should win.

Regardless of The Mafia's motivations for creating the pizza parlor, the pizza itself is not illegal. There are legitimate purposes for pizza, therefore The Mafia should win.

Guess what? Money laundering is still illegal.

--

Re:Moral stand?

[Chiasmus_]

But character is important to the consumer.

I mean, most of us will openly admit that Napster is unethical, and we'll also openly insist that the RIAA is unethical.

So I sort of think that if we were doing the Right Thing, we'd boycott them both. Otherwise, we're boycotting an unethical organization because it's preventing us from doing something unethical.

I guess we're justified, but it doesn't exactly make us all saints.

Re:A different take: I think I finally get it

[Disco Stu]

Actually, the intstitution of speed limits in the 1970s was based more on a national oil shortage than anything else. It had very little to do with safety.

Here's my theory: speed limits create accidents. For example, if everyone drove at speed infinity, the avg. amount of time a car spent on the road would be 0. Therefore, the average amount of cars on the road at any given time would be 0. Therefore, the number of accidents occurring at any given time would be 0. As the speed decreases, cars spend more time on the road, and there are more accidents. You can call this one Stu's law.