Copyright.net Springs Into Action 259
Mynn writes "Tennesean.com is reporting that copyright.net is now operational." There's another story about copyright.net at siliconvalley.com. Supposedly they just banned 350,000 Napster users on the basis of title scans - obviously they didn't listen to one million mp3 files to make sure they were actually such-and-such a song, that would take years. Sure, this may be a little overbroad - you'll run into situations like the one described here (in German - use a translator), where a webpage offering mp3 files was attacked, except that the *.mp3 files were just text files with the cryptic letters "*aetsch*" in them - but who cares, they're just Napster users, they probably did something bad, right?
For those who are interested: (Score:5)
The board of directors of copyright.net appear to all have experience in the recording/publishing industry. Some of them were record label execs.
http://www.copyright.net/copyrightnet/cg_board.cf
I just thought that was interesting. Who's side are they on?
Banned based on title? (Score:5)
One of my friends [slashdot.org] wrote a techno song about, well, gerbiling [slashdot.org]. You know, the tube, the gerbil (named Raggot in one legend), the stuffing...
He renamed it "Metallica - One Gerbil Too Many", and put it up on Napster. He was banned. Not only does the banner bot not check the song itself or the id3 tags, it's pretty poor at figuring out song titles.
What do I do, when it seems I relate to Judas more than You?
Hard to find out what they are doing by visiting (Score:4)
None of the links from their home page lead anywhere which would clarify matters.
While I was not blocked by them, this policy of "taking names" at the front door sure scared me away from seeing what they propose to do for me.
Just admit you're breaking the law (Score:4)
Well, duh. 99.99% of Napster users use Napster to locate copyrighted information and download it in a fashion illegal under current copyright law. A very small minority of these people don't; they're either really honest, trying to make some political point that nobody'll ever care about or are doing something worthwhile like trying to get their own music out there.
It's one thing to think that you ought to be able to share music, but I tire quickly of Napster users trying to pretend like they're legally in the right on this one; the self-rightousness of it makes me gag. Face it: more than likely, you're sharing music illegally. If you can't deal with that, don't do it.
Disclaimer: I get my music illegally. I do it because it's convenient and I'm cheap.
----
In case you were banned.. (Score:3)
wierd ... (Score:2)
(somewhat) Seriously though .... maybe it's time to set up copyleft.net to send out lawyer's letters about GPL violations ..... :-)
Re:For those who are interested: (Score:2)
person->side = "evil";
}
// note: record company executives are always on the side of evil.
Re:In case you were banned.. (Score:2)
How truly ironic.
Appearances are important (Score:3)
But it's important not just to behave legally. It's important not to give the appearance that you're behaving illegally. Much of law is based solely on appearances: the whole issue of "probable cause" is based on the police's perception of criminal wrongdoing, not the actuality of those criminal act. Usually the matter gets sorted out eventually, but only after a period of invasion and confiscation.
If you're a little more careful, you can avoid these sorts of surveillance. If you're doing wrong by illegally sharing IP, then why are you doing it out in the open? What kind of example does that set? And what can you possibly expect others to do on your behalf when you finally get caught as these did?
Maybe some education is in order, here. Geeks need to learn from marketers and lawyers that appearances do count for something in this world--maybe it should be a required course in all engineering and computer-science majors. The only alternative is learning it at the hands of the police. And nobody wants that.
we need an encryption based OS for HD's (Score:3)
What we need is something that encrypts all data with an OS that works off the front end and decrypts within software. This is more practical now that Processors have hundreds of MHZ to waste. (unless you're like me and running distributed.net on the side) -
For example, you burn your favorite CD to your computer as MP3 (as I do) - then you encrypt the files (like PGP disk) - and the Winamp player decrypts them in memory and plays them out.
No HD copy protection can target it, cause they don't recognize it encrypted. Napster can't ban it, cause you can't identify the file (except by name....but hell, you can get around that) - No one can take your DeCSS away, cause they don't know what it is, and they can't ask you to take down something they can't identify. No one can suopena your HD and look for their stuff.
Screw distributed and Freenet...Let's find ways to secure what we have instead of tucking tail and spamming newsgroups.
Illegal search? (Score:3)
Isn't copyright.net violating the Napster rules? (Score:3)
Re:Just admit you're breaking the law (Score:2)
It's nice, but it's illegal.
German link (Score:3)
However, the files are raw text and contain the string "aetsch", which means "gotcha" / "serves you right" / "see". So someone had them on...
Re:we need an encryption based OS for HD's (Score:2)
Well, if your name is... (Score:2)
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
How is possessing an .mp3 a crime? (Score:4)
Re:Just admit you're breaking the law (Score:2)
So take you %99.9 crap and shove it- unless you have talked to every Napster user out there.
Yeah, I AM in the %0.1 (supposedly), but now I am getting screwed because you "get your music illegaly because you are lazy and cheap". Thanks, I appreciate you screwing my legal rights.
Re:Just admit you're breaking the law (Score:5)
Yeah I'm sure governments were quickly tired by the women trying to get the ability to vote (and illegal protests) or people who wanted to end aparthide. Copyright holders want to extend their rights I want to protect and extend mine (fair use). This is my form of protest. Sure it may not be as exciting or dramatic as the other causes cited above, but you know in the comming years it may become just as important. That is what is truly sad. The want gustapo tactics, they'll get a war waged in the press, at public hearings, at the ballot box and most importantly, at the register.
There's one small difference you seem to be forgetting, civil disobedience only works when people are prepared to accept the consequences. You didn't hear the civil rights protesters whining because they got arrested. They expected to be arrested, because they were breaking the law. Napster isn't a protest, it's a way around the law. If it was a protest, people would be trying to get arrested to get the world to see what's going on and that it's wrong. Instead they spend all their time being anonymous and trying not to be booted from Napster, so they can still get music for free.
Re:Just admit you're breaking the law (Score:5)
Copyright.net has not witnessed any mp3 file of copyrighted material being downloaded. They have only seen mp3 files with names similiar to copyrighted material available for sharing. The only other evidence they have is that those files are available on Napster, which everyone knows is a hotbed of piracy, just ask the RIAA. It seems to me that this is a frightening reduction in the standard used to convict and punish people of crimes.
Is it okay to do this because most people are violating copyright laws on Napster? We don't arrest people for walking through neighborhoods where drugs deals take place, even if "99.9%" of the people in the neighborhood are there for the drugs. They have to be seen exchanging money for drugs, the drugs have to be tested to determine that they are drugs and not something that looks similiar. The accused are entitled to a trial, etc. etc. Why is it different on the internet? Because this crime hurts an industry's bottom line more than drug deals do? Is that worth suspending constitutional protections?
Saving people the trouble: (Score:2)
[wakko@wakko] 8:59:55pm ~> nmap www.copyright.net
Starting nmap V. 2.12 by Fyodor (fyodor@dhp.com, www.insecure.org/nmap/)
Interesting ports on 83-216.205.94.dellhost.com (216.205.94.83):
Port State Protocol Service
13 open tcp daytime
21 open tcp ftp
25 open tcp smtp
37 open tcp time
80 open tcp http
111 open tcp sunrpc
135 open tcp loc-srv
199 open tcp smux
443 open tcp https
465 open tcp smtps
1032 open tcp iad3
1433 open tcp ms-sql-s
5631 open tcp pcanywhere
5800 open tcp vnc
6666 filtered tcp irc-serv
6667 filtered tcp irc
6668 filtered tcp irc
65301 open tcp pcanywhere
Have a blast.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
Re:Saving people the trouble: (Score:4)
once again... anonymous p2p proxies (Score:4)
Why hasn't anyone tried putting up anonymous p2p proxies yet? It would make it impossible for these snoop programs to find your IP address.
End of problem!
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
Translation to English (Score:5)
MP3-Removal mistake at the Swiss Music Association (sf: basically the Swiss form of the RIAA)
The Swiss International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI)has missed the joke on a web site when it issued a letter formed like a removal request.
According to this letter the website [astrum.ch] had offered MP3's for download. In the letter sent to the webmaster Matthias Leisi, the IFPI had demanded to have the MP3's removed and a notice ("This Site is closed by IFPI Switzerland...") to be added to each page on the website.
In addition he was asked to pay a penalty of 500 Franken (sf: approx 300 US dollars) plus an additional 200 Franken for the investigation costs.
Alas, it appears the people responsible for the "investigation" did not put in much effort. If they had, they would surely have found out that the offending music files were not in fact real MP3 files but text files containing the word "*aetsch*" (sf: Got'ya, psych).
--
This is translated to be accurate to content and "style" not necessarily sentence structure. There are likely to be a few grammatical errors and spellings mistakes in there.
--
Whose side are we on? (Score:5)
When company X goes after Napster, they complain that Napster isn't breaking any laws--only some of the users are. "Napster shouldn't be responsible for its users' actions," is the message we get.
When company Y goes after Napster users, they complain that they shouldn't be going after individual users, and should stick to the big fish to avoid pissing off consumers. "'Sharing' by individual users isn't a threat--it's commercial pirates the industry has to worry about," is what we hear in this case. These people also seem to think it's unfair to use technology to enforce copyright, but perfectly reasonable to use it to violate copyright.
So, which is it? Who should the RIAA prosecute: users or Napster? Or is the message that we should we get rid of copyright altogether? If so, what will replace it?
Let me rebut some common responses before they happen:
Most artists don't make money anyway!
Maybe so, but the possibility of "going big" motivates a lot of them. Then there's the fact that they need to eat and pay for recording studio time, etc. If they have to work a second job to support themselves, they'll have less time to produce music (which is clearly inefficient, if you know anything about economics).
The labels just produce crap like Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys
We think Britney and Backstreet are crap because we're not pre-teen girls. I bet they think our music sucks, too. You can get all snobish if you want, but the truth is that labels, being businesses, produce what consumers want. If consumers want crap, that's what they get, and lots of it. Sure, some good indie bands get missed, but a lot of others make it, and the ones that don't probably appeal to too small an audience to go big-time... If there were really this huge, untapped market for "good" music, then some new label would come along and clean up.
Music labels already rip off artists
True, the system is broken, but it at least gives some artists some money. It's better than nothing, and, until you come up with a better system, it's the only game in town.
But I do have a better system! It's the Street Performer Protocol
The SPP is flawed for many reasons. Even having payments held in escrow upon condition of delivery of the work doesn't solve most of them. The most obvious of these flaws is the free rider problem. Essentially, it's in your best interest to let others pay, and not pay yourself, since you'll thereby save money and gain the same benefit. It's all basic economics, but I'll rehash a bit of it here: People make decisions based on marginal gain and cost. If you "pay" under the SPP, you have only a very small chance of actually influencing the outcome, whereas you do have a significant cost (the amount paid). Fundamentally, without copyright and other forms of protection, intellectual property becomes a public good--it is neither excludable nor rival. Private industry nearly always underproduces public goods, without some form of intervention.
To see SPP failing in action, look at what happened to Stephen King. After the novelty wore off, not enough people paid. Fortunately, King released the next installment anyway.
As another example of a failure of SPP, why don't we all voluntarily donate money to the government to pay off the debt? We'd all benefit from it. Strangely, it's not happening. The only way the debt gets paid off is through taxes, which are a way of ensuring that everyone pays in some semi-fair fashion.
I'm not going to try to condense an entire economics course here, but I will recommend a book on the subject that's funny and happens also to be educational: Eat the Rich by P.J. O'Rourke.
I hope this provokes an intelligent debate, not a flame-fest. If you want to rebut my argument, please do, but please stay clear of ad hominem attacks. Obviously, I do have some bias, but I also recognize that the future of intellectual property poses a huge challenge, and one that nobody has solved. Any constructive input is welcome...
Re:Illegal search? (Score:5)
Re:Right-o (Score:3)
This is only half right (Score:4)
On the other side I'm kinda hoping that the RIAA shoots themselves in the foot (in the sense that napster probably boosts CD sales) and forces napster to filter out "illegal" mp3's - because then it will be a boon to the vastly under-rated unsigned artist community (who - if you know who you're looking for are really quite good)
Re:Double Standard (Score:2)
When appearance is important, cops are guilty (Score:2)
This is a distortion of the truth. While it is technically true, probable cause must be based on a specific fact which is not just consistent with criminal behavior, but indicates that a particular crime has occurred.
There are many court cases which have established, as one author colorfully put it, that you cannot define "grand theft auto" as "six Chicanos in a Cadillac".
Let's be clear about this: Probable cause does not consist of being in a place where criminals hang out, of driving the kind of car they do, of dressing like they do, or of talking like they do or being of their race. All these things have been very clearly established by court challenges.
By this standard, which the DMCA and RIAA both violate, using Napster does not make you a violator, and neither does having files with particular song titles on your hard drive. Really only some kind of evidence that you downloaded a particular song at a particular time would suffice. Which means that what copyright.net is doing is illegal, and the provisions supporting them in the DMCA are illegal. But good luck getting our current pack of Supreme Court justices to agree. Dred Scott would have been proud of 'em, based on some of their recent activities.
I used to drive a very old Cadillac, and once I moved to the white-bread suburbs I got pulled over at least once a year for "weaving" just past the same donut shop about a mile from my house. I finally got rid of the car after the last cop tried to pick a fight with me when he realized I wasn't the drug dealer he thought he'd tagged. I never pursued it but this was highly illegal, because driving an old Cadillac through Mandeville at 3:00 AM is not, repeat not, probable cause. Thus the lame "weaving" excuse. I could have probably got a settlement out of them but it wasn't worth the effort, and then it was just over the top.
Oh, the cop who tried to pick a fight with me eventually succeeded in picking a fight with someone else. About a week later he was fired, and word was the city shelled out 6 figures + to the guy he baited. These laws about police limits aren't exercised frequently because it's such a pain to do so, but they do exist. And it sounds like copyright.net just added several hundred thousand crimes of a more serious nature to the long list of likely copyright infringements surrounding Napster's servers.
Why this isn't a solution. (Score:4)
So... what can you do about that? First and foremost, join the EFF. [eff.org] Run, don't walk, to that website, and make out as big a chunk of cash as you can. Second, run like hell to a book store and pick up Code and Other Laws Of Cyberspace. [thinkgeek.com] It isn't the best book, but it does give some very cogent arguments as to why "the net will protect itself" just doesn't cut it anymore. After that... well, after that, keep coding, I guess, and write your congressman when the issues do come up. This is going to be a long and uphill battle, but until we all move to an island nation that isn't intimated by the US and has abundant bandwidth, we can't just bury our heads in the sand.
~luge
Too big for their britches (Score:2)
- Thanks to new software applications hitting the market, content providers are now able to track users that share music, movie and other media files across file-trading networks like Napster. Even Freenet -- the fiercely protective network -- appears to be vulnerable to the new programs.
So... they're claiming that they can find the IP of the Freenet computers that are hosting the MP3's, and ask that the files be removed?One service, Copyright Agent, allows content owners to provide ISPs with lists of files to remove and, in many cases, to have Internet access to certain users cut off completely.
"Our software all developed around the DMCA. We've Web-enabled the DMCA."
And in one of their officially attributed press releases [copyright.net]:
Poof, this lone company suddenly solves the whole P2P problem.
Yeah, that's it.
--
Re:Just admit you're breaking the law (Score:5)
Lets play devil's advocate then. Lets assume that if a vast majority of a group is doing something illegal, then all members of a group should be punished accordingly.
Using this logical, an extra tax on blank media (cassettes, cds) to compensate the record companies are justified. This is already in place. However, an extra tax on larger hard drives (say >10 gigs) would also be justified, as well as for broadband users, any cd player that can play mp3s, any mp3 player, as well as any cd burner. Moving away from computers, we should automatically fine people for speeding (after all, most people do drive over the speed limit), as well as start arresting kids for underage drinking and smoking, and all people for drug use.
Its rather absurd now, isn't it? Maybe its better to assume people are innocent unless proven guilty.
You also admit that you download mp3's illegally. Thanks for you honesty, unfortunately, I'm going to use your admission of guilt to further my own argument. The maximum penalties for copywrite infringement include a large fine and a bit of jail time. The penalties can be cumulative. By downloading mp3s, you either think that that you won't get caught and/or the judge won't take the law seriously, and your punishment will be a slap on the wrists. So, by admitting that you download mp3s, you are putting minor copywrite infringement for personal use into the same catagory as speeding, or breaking some other minor law that most people ignore.
Re:Just admit you're breaking the law (Score:3)
You can bet the RIAA or whoever wouldn't go to court with only the name of a song, as recorded by a bot. They would, at the very least, download and listen to the song.
What's happening here is more like arresting someone for wearing a ski mask while loitering outside a recently-robbed bank. 99% of the time, they're guilty, and, for that other 1%, they'll be found innocent in a trial (or charges may be dropped if they have a good excuse).
Re:Just admit you're breaking the law (Score:2)
Re:Whose side are we on? (Score:3)
Minor detail: The labels loan the artists some money--Every dollar spent on recording, packaging, promotion, distribution, plus all touring costs, comes out of the artist's pocket. However, since most artists don't start out rich, the label loans them money against future earnings (ie: royalties), earnings that don't appear when the artist's works are freely traded.
Once it's all said and done, the only people losing out due to MP3 trading are the very people who should be supported by their audience: The artists and creators of the music.
--
They may be liable if they falsely block someone (Score:5)
I wonder if there could be any legal response that could be sent to copyright.net which would cause them to spend more time per-user than would be economical...? Any lawers care to comment on this?
Even though I am slightly irritated that every discussion of legality must be accompanied by an IANAL disclaimer (you don't need to lay eggs to tell a bad one), IANAL.
--
Re:Whose side are we on? (Score:2)
If you secretly wish that copyrights didn't exist, then say so, don't skirt around the issue. If we express our ideas directly and discuss how we can influence society to move towards those goals, I think we would be more productive, rather than railing against somewhat perhipheral issues.
(The word "Slashdoters" can be optionally replaced with "CmdrTaco & friends")
--
Re:Whose side are we on? (Score:3)
Good point, but your average contract is more than that. Not only do the artists have to pay back the "loan", but they lose ownership of their works, and they only get a small cut of the profit. If labels just functioned as a combination of consultant/bank/recording studio, then artists would only have to pay back these costs (plus interest), and would keep all the rest of the profits. Unfortunately, that ain't how it works.
Re:From the radio... (Score:2)
Pretty Woman still makes quite a bit of money for the estate, thanks to Van Halen's (and a few other) cover version.
--
Re: Service model (Score:2)
Net result: Nobody makes any new music (commercially), since there's no money in it.
The issue is... (Score:4)
If they want to sue their fans, let them.
The issue is that the criteria they're using is flawed, and they're making mistakes at best (suing people who are innocent) and committing perjury at worst.
If I have a filename "EnterSandman.mp3", is it:
1.) Metallica's Enter Sandman from the black album (copyright owner: Elektra Records)
2.) Metallica's Enter Sandman from a live concert which I recorded legally (Copyright owner: me)
3.) Metallica's Enter Sandman from a performance on the Grammy Awards (Copyright Owner: NARAS)
4.) Apocalyptica's Enter Sandman from their "Metallica by Four Cellos" CD (Copyright owner: Apocalyptica)
5.) A spoken word essay from someone saying how much they hate how Metallica sold out when they wrote pop metal (owner: that guy)
6.) a text file disguised as a Metallica MP3 (owner: the author)
7.) Britney Spears song to intentionally poison Metallica song-searches (Owner: britney spears)
If the file is anything other than #1, then whatever Metallica representative claimed copyright ownership in their affidavit (the DMCA notice is an affidavit) committed perjury, because they claimed to own the copyright on something they had no reason to believe they actually had the rights to.
Now this group may be able to act on behalf of the owners 1,4,7 and POSSIBLY 3 above, but the rest have all got nice counterclaims against copyright.net, possible sanctions, etc.
Simply culling lists looking for filenames and even looking for title info isn't enough. The copyright holder actually has to confirm that the file REALLY DOES contain their copyrighted work, or they're in a heap of trouble, and whenever someone goes after (n>100000) people, you have to know that nobody verified the copyright on each and every item.
D
Waiters starve as voluntary payment model fails (Score:4)
I would argue that the opposite is true. People tend to form an emotional relationship with those whose music they like (just look at the amount fans spend on merchandising), that is much stronger than any relationship you might form with a waiter. If anything, voluntary payment will work better for music than it does for the service industry.
Your simplistic argument about public good, compares information to property, but the difference is that information costs effectively nothing to reproduce and distribute. Whether you force 100% of 10,000 people to pay for something, or whether 10% of 1,000,000 people pay one tenth of the amount, makes little difference to the producer of the information. Why not exploit the fact that the internet permits almost free distribution of your creative output, rather than using oppressive laws to prevent it from happening?
--
You miss the point. (Score:4)
True so far...
When company Y goes after Napster users, they complain that they shouldn't be going after individual users
Where? Certainly not in this article.
The complaint is not that someone is going after Napster Users, but that they're illegally going after Napster Users, by violating their civil rights ("Innocent until proven guilty.")
In essence, "company Y" is saying that it's OK for them to break the law, but it's not OK for the Napster users to do the same.
Please don't distort the truth.
(And it's a sad, sad, day when a troll gets modded up to +5 as "informative")
Re:When appearance is important, cops are guilty (Score:2)
Well, if instead of pulling me over for "weaving" Mandeville had just acted to seize all pre-1975 Cadillac sedans, I'd have been even more pissed off than I was.
In 'net terms what copyright.net is doing is called Denial Of Service. IIRC this is illegal under the DMCA 8-O
But of course the equivalent to my metaphor is actually going on -- whenever cops seize your money or your car or your boat and charge your property with a crime, rather than you, "your property has no civil rights" and they can shift the burden of proof (to a nearly impossible standard) to you. Welcome to Forfeiture Hell.
The Constitution may not be a dead letter yet, but it's panting, sweating, turning red, and dropping to the floor and nobody seems too interested in performing CPR.
No offense, but this is stupid. (Score:2)
Distribution is really the only key point at the present moment. This "method", if you might call it that, simply CANNOT address this problem.
As for HD copy protection, it makes little sense either. First, I believe most of these HD copy protection methods do not try to magically determine copyrighted material, rather they take specifically encrypted and tagged copyrighted material and try to prevent the user from committing unallowed actions on it (such as copying the file in question). So the only trick is just getting a "raw" copy, encryption is pointless. Second, even if HD copy protection really tries to play Big Brother, just about any number of existing encryption techniques could cover it just as well as this "method", in any event.
As for your vague DeCSS and subpoena statements, these come down to the same logical issues. If you are capable of decrypting the materials manually, the courts can compel you to release the key. Even if you claim that you can't retrieve the key for some reason, what's to stop the court from simply confiscating the material until you do, since you can't read it anyways? If your software does the decoding for you, it must contain the means to decode it. I don't see how it is logically possible to hide a key or the algorithm in such a way that only the software can get to it. In fact, it seems pretty much impossible. You might be able to do some things to the slight of hand, but not be truely secure.
Is there any possible and novel proposition here? I simply don't see any.
I have a question: (Score:2)
There, they are told specifically why they were kicked off Napster and offered copyright-protected versions of the Orbison songs, which cost less than a dollar. These specially encrypted versions can be sent to other users, but they can be played just twice, at which point a message invites them to buy a copy.
What is to prevent someone from creating a client that will save the original file in a backup. Play it once then restore from backup. How can they protect against a bitwise copy?
Any Ideas?
Re:Banned based on title? (Score:2)
Can copyright holders wildly allege infringement without recourse?
I fear the answers are "no" and "yes", but that doesn't seem right.
--
Re: Service model (Score:2)
Let's say Napster and Sonyster each decide to charge $5/mo for unlimited access. They have the same overhead, except Sony also has to pay production costs and royalties to artists. Without the ability to prevent others from stealing your creations, the most successful businesses are the "leaches" that create nothing.
And whether they like the service model or not, that's the only model there's going to be.
I think you're probably right here.
I also dispute that true artists wouldn't make music because "there's no money in it." The world would be better off without the "artists" so motivated, IMHO.
For the sake of argument, I'll accept your premise that all good artists are motivated by things other than money. Even so, we'll still get more good music by paying artists. If we don't pay them, then they have to work a second job to pay for food and expenses, and will have less time to produce music. Assuming the number of "true" artists is fixed, eliminating artist compensation will reduce the amount of music out there, which is a bad thing.
In reality, I suspect that most artists are motivated by a mix of factors that includes desire for fame, joy of creating music, and making money. Almost everyone is a little greedy, either for money, fame, or power. Thus, the effects eliminating artist compensation could be larger that your premise (non-greedy artists) would suggest.
Re:Just admit you're breaking the law (Score:5)
-Stype
No one can wrap themselves in glory on this one (Score:3)
Having said that, what copyright.net is doing is nothing less than throwing gasoline on the raging fire. I don't trade on Napster based on my beliefs, and have stated those beliefs in the past. But that does not give me the right to use the kind of crude act that copyright.net uses to force my views down everybody elses throat.
Copyright.net is a far greater threat to the resolution of this entire issue than Napster ever was. They need to be taken down, preferably by legal means, and Tim Smith, copyright.net's chief executive, needs to have a new asshole ripped. His comment that he's not trying to antagonise anybody is pure bullshit. I've never seen a troll site before, but copyright.net sure fits my definition of one.
I don't care about napster. (Score:2)
What I do care is the newer draconian user-controlling legistlation like the DMCA. Copyright cannot be enforced without destroying the first amendment and concurrently destroying the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
As they said, 300,000 users were banned from Napster, just based on song title. That's almost as stupid as blocking a website because it has the word 'breast' in it. (Like a cooking website talking about turkey's). This is WRONG.
Then you have the DMCA, whose purpose is to legistlatively and legally ensure that an obsolescent industry can preserve their former way of doing business, with the first amendment be damned. Fair use exists to resolve the conflict between the Copyright clause, banning speech, and the first amendment, allowing speech.
A 'copy-control' box cannot identify the difference between fair use, and unauthorized duplication. It cannot now and never will. Such a box is literally a censorship box. Right now, these boxes (CSS/SDMI/Minidisc) censor uses which, while legitimate and legal, are deemed undesireable by the owner of the copyright, regardless of whether or not they're legal. In the future, who knows what might be censored? With encryption adding technical obsticles and the DMCA adding in a legal obsticle, there is no way bypass the restrictions and do the things that the first amendment says that you ARE allowed to do. It also allows a tyrant to censor whatever they want from their populace, at any time after publication. Just 'withdraw the keys'.
A world with every computer, hard drive, TV, VCR, player, or recorder supporting censorship is repulsive. So is a world where people are assumed guilty and banned without proof, without evidence.
I cannot see any REASONABLE way of resolving this conflict other than the removal or signifigant weakening of copyright. As an artist myself, I would love to have some other alternative. But it looks like me, like everyone else, will have to toss the dice and see what comes up.
If you can offer a reasonable and workable alternative, I'd love to hear one.
Re:Whose side are we on? (Score:2)
The whole argument the *cough*Slashdot editors*cough* have been saying is that THE RIAA SHOULD NOT BE PROSECUTING ANYBODY. Jesus, where the hell have you been? In fact, you *sound* like you want people prosecuted. And apparently it's only okay to have a civil discussion with you as long as somebody *is* prosecuted.
The arguments you have paid attention to only bring to light the arguments you have blatantly ignored. Like, should we really be creating artificial scarcity, here? Do we really want the RIAA privacy-invasion scan on our hard drives? What about Fair Use? Remember "Fair Use?" You do, don't you?
Now, here's the argument you really missed. If I kick you in the teeth, I bet you wouldn't want to buy a cd from me. Boy howdy, did you miss it. Let's face it, if you really want to sell your good on an open market, prosecuting the primary users who buy your goods by the millions just ain't the way to do it.
Re:Waiters starve as voluntary payment model fails (Score:4)
1) Tipping is not anonymous, and failure to tip incurs societal disapproval (people think you're a cheap bastard).
2) You personally benefit by tipping, assuming you return to the restaurant (you'll get good service next time)
If you actually think voluntary tipping is viable for the music industry, check out Fairtunes's stats [fairtunes.com]. They've been running for something like 8 months, and have only brought in about $7000 US for artists. I believe the two university students who started Fairtunes have spent over $10,000 on equipment and development costs. Unless those numbers increase drastically in the next year or so, I'd say voluntary music tipping is a failure. You can't fault their implementation, either--it's a very well-thought-out system, and I can't think of how they could make it better. The problem is that people suck. If we were all perfectly moral, Fairtunes would work. Too bad it ain't so.
Don't serve copyrighted content (Score:3)
It's not a copyright violation to have the MP3s, but it is one to serve recording of other peoples' songs without their permission. And just because you "simply checked a box", that doesn't absolve you of responsibility.
---
Re:You miss the point. (Score:2)
The complaint is not that someone is going after Napster Users, but that they're illegally going after Napster Users, by violating their civil rights ("Innocent until proven guilty.")
Copyright.net isn't intentionally breaking the law--they've just screwed up. It happens. Especially when people do stuff to make it look like they're breaking the law.
Here's an example. Suppose that, shortly after a bank robery occured, you ran around town with a ski mask over your head, a plastic gun tucked in your pants, and a sack of monopoly money over your shoulder. You would quite likely be arrested. What a surprise.
"Innocent until proven guilty."
That's a principle of criminal justice. These people are being accused, not convicted, of a crime.
(And it's a sad, sad, day when a troll gets modded up to +5 as "informative")
Your post is only at +3 so far...
Sure, but... (Score:3)
1) With traditional notions of "common carrier", it was always easier to attack the source of the "problems" that were being transported. For example, you don't attack the USPS for mailing out Playboys because it is easier to shut down the Playboy printing presses. When everyone is a printing press, shutting down the press is hard, so attacking the carrier (i.e., the ISPs) will prove more practical, both for corporations looking for a pressure point and for legislators looking for an easy legal target.
2) The traditional common carriers (the mail and the phone service) have limited "criminal" impact, especially on large corporations. I mean, one guy with one phone or one mail box can only leak so many company secrets or transport so many stolen goods. The infinite copy powers and multiplication of distribution of the net radically change that equation. Imagine distributing the DeCSS code by a USPS letter, or the phone. The damage there is limited. You've seen what distributing it over the web has done- there are literally millions of copies of it floating around, and already there are multiple programs that use it. And
By the way, DMCA already has provisions that would force ISPs to install equipment that enforces copyright as soon as techniques to do it are invented. There hasn't yet been such a case, but you can guess from the fact that that provision has already been written and passed that Congress isn't going to come down on the side of the ISPs, no matter how badly they'd like to be common carriers.
~luge
Re:Whose side are we on? (Score:2)
Thank you for not resorting to ad hominem attacks. I appreciate it. It's nice to have such a high level of discussion.
The arguments you have paid attention to only bring to light the arguments you have blatantly ignored. Like, should we really be creating artificial scarcity, here?
You obviously missed my whole discussion of public goods, and the reason for copyright. Go back and re-read my post. It's a subtle argument, and I do presuppose some knowledge of economics and economist jargon, for which I apologize.
Do we really want the RIAA privacy-invasion scan on our hard drives? What about Fair Use? Remember "Fair Use?" You do, don't you?
Privacy-invasion scan? What the hell are you talking about? If you share your MP3s via Napster, you've obviously given permission for people to look at them. Fair use doesn't apply to Napster--at best, Napster is an infringing use for which no criminal charges can be laid (under Home Recording Act, or whatever).
THE RIAA SHOULD NOT BE PROSECUTING ANYBODY
In other words, you don't believe in copyright. You'll notice (if you re-read my original post) that I mention and discuss this viewpoint.
Let's face it, if you really want to sell your good on an open market, prosecuting the primary users who buy your goods by the millions just ain't the way to do it.
Last I checked, they're prosecuting Napster users, not those who are legitimately buying CDs in stores. If what the RIAA is doing is really a bad business decision, then they'll suffer for it.
Re:Banned based on title? (Score:3)
~luge
Copyright.net guilty??? (Score:2)
I couldn't help but notice one of the banner ads running on Copyright.net [copyright.net] looked an awful lot like the trademark of the gaming company Terminal Reality [terminalreality.com]. Here's a comparison for you:
12k GIF [notever.com]
Perhaps we should report these guys to themselves?
---
Re: Service model (Score:2)
Six minutes after the Grammies, Eminem & Elton John's performance was on Napster. I rest my case
I agree with this suspicion--it probably comes down to this: in the large, people aren't altruistic. There's some kind of self interest--it may be in the form of "warm fuzzies" rather than money, but the person still "gets something" for his/her efforts. I don't really know whether there'd be less real artists, but I am hopeful that they would not only continue to exist, but flourish, being supported by a willing base of patrons rather than through a small percentage of the fruits of systematic intellectual "property" extortion.
I used to think so, too, but the failure of Fairtunes [fairtunes.com] to generate any real revenue for artists ($7000 over 8 months?) has left me disillusioned.
Babelfish on $3 Crack (Score:2)
MP3-Abmahnpanne with Swiss music federation
Swiss regional committee that Federation OF the Phonographic Industry ( IFPI) is international with a letter, which equals after German right of a warning, on a joke in the Web pleases. On the assumption, on a Website MP3-Dateien were offered to Matthias Leisi a letter, which requested it to remove the files for the Download, had been sent IFPI Switzerland to the operator. Additionally it should platzieren the note " This Site is closed by IFPI Switzerland... " on the pages. A punishment of 500 Swiss Franconias is additional to pay - plus 200 Franconias for the determination.
However the editors do not seem to have given oneself much trouble with the " determination " particularly. Otherwise it would have surely noticed to them that it concerned with the alleged music pieces not around genuine MP3-Files, but text files, which contained only the word " * aetsch * ".
--
Re:Sure, but... (Score:2)
~luge
I've done a little extra research (Score:2)
Re:This is only half right (Score:2)
First off, internet access is a priveledge, not a right. Your ISP probably has a clause in the agreement that states they are able to terminate your service for any or no reason.
Secondly, I suspect there is no actual legal work going on here, just the threat of legal work. The ISP doesn't want to get into some big costly legal battle over a small percentage of their customers.
The data available to the world on your hard drive can probably be used against you as evidence because it is publicly visible. IANAL, but I seem to remember this from someplace. No warrent is needed if you keep your cocaine at the edge of your driveway with a big sign saying "come and get it."
Re:Just admit you're breaking the law (Score:3)
Re:Waiters starve as voluntary payment model fails (Score:2)
Where do you get the conclusion that lifting copyright and switching to SPP will increase interest in each artist by a factor of 100? Artists that don't sell a lot of CD's now are not going to suddenly become hugely popular just because they start accepting micropayments.
Re:I don't care about napster. (Score:2)
Whoa there, buckaroo. The first amendment has nothing at all to do with this issue. The first amendment merely states that you can {speak|write|play} original material, and distribute the product as you see fit, without hindrance. The amendment does not provide anyone the right to steal the intellectual property of someone else.
As for the second point, these people are not going on trial, they are merely being banned from a private company.
To put it in perspective, it's Slashdot's policy to ban trolls. By my reckoning, this would violate both of your points.
Re:Just admit you're breaking the law (Score:3)
Napster doesn't have to meet any burden of proof at all to ban you. They can ban you just 'cause they don't like you. The framers of the US Constitution wouldn't have it any other way.
Re:Whose side are we on? (Score:2)
Stephen King was not using the SPP. The SPP calls for a couple things that Stephen King didn't do. First, in the SPP, there is a target dollar amount that must be reached in order for the work to be released. Stephen King set a limit that a certain percentage of the downloaded copies must be paid for. The SPP's approach seems more reasonable to me, as people could pay an amount proportional to how much they think they would value the result. Also, release is not dependent on some percentage of the consumers, but on a preset amount that (presumably) the artist thought was reasonable.
Secondly, the SPP specifies that the money contributed by consumers be held in escrow and, if the set amount of money is not received in a prespecified amount of time, the money is returned to the contributors. Stephen King was not giving refunds in the event of a non-release of a poriot of the book. The escrow is important, because it assures the contributors that their money will not be wasted if nothing is released.
So, please don't point to Stephen King as a failure of the Street Performer Protocol. Perhaps the SPP isn't viable, but I don't know of any instances of it actually being tested. In the absence of any evidence, it seems to me that the protocol would work, and I would be willing to participate if an artist whose works I liked released those works via the SPP.
--Phil (As I listen to mp3s ripped from CDs owned by me...)
They can ban me all they want (Score:2)
Re:In case you were banned.. (Score:2)
Been said before (Score:3)
How can you ban/blacklist anybody based solely upon the title of a file. Other than "absolutely nothing", what does the name of a file have to do with the contents of that file? If I really wanted to host Metallica files on Napster, I would name them all "Little_Bo_Peep_Sings_The_Blues.mp3" and then advertise on a webpage/usenet that the above file is actually "Master of Puppets by Metallica".
Their search engines would be absolutely useless in the previous scenario. Not to mention the case of banning people based upon a filename, when the contents of the file itself are completely benign.
This is a pretty bogus way of searching for "bad" people on Naptser, and goes to prove that the whole notion of scanning what users are trading is totally impossible. They don't have the resources available to audibly analyze every file in their system to determine if it is RIAA owned material or not, and have to make assumptions. However, those assumptions completely negate any claim they have in court.
"Yes your honor, they did catch me hosting a file called "Master_of_puppets.mp3" on Napster, but it was really a recording of my little sister burping... I swear. They just assumed it was a copyrighted song."
--
Re:Just admit you're breaking the law (Score:2)
Sonny Bono (Score:2)
The one issue is that Roy Orbison (The Big Bopper) passed away a long time ago
Which means his music won't come out of copyright [everything2.com] until 71 years after such "long time ago." And the courts have upheld Congress's power to extend that by 20 years every 20 years.
All your hallucinogen [pineight.com] are belong to us.
You're thinking criminal. Copyright is civil law. (Score:2)
The prosecution in a court of law would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you had Knowledge and Intent
You're mistaken here. The "beyond reasonable doubt" standard (which became a household word during the Simpson trial) is from criminal law. The vast majority of copyright cases fall under civil law, where there has to be "a preponderance of evidence" (51%) that there was intent or just negligence. Failure to set up a strong firewall (e.g. OpenBSD patched every couple weeks) could be considered negligence.
All your hallucinogen [pineight.com] are belong to us.
Re:This is only half right (Score:2)
But they're not searching user's hard drives, they're searching a publically visible list of file names. They can even download some or all of the files, as the user is offering them for public downloading by sharing them.
It's like claiming someone would need a search warrant to read my public web pages. How silly is that?
does that mean you can use it as evidence against someone?
Court cases can introduce evidence which was publically published material. There's no rule that says evidence need be obtained with a warrant for search, only evidence collected by searching private property requires warrant. There are rules of the way evidence must be handled, to be admissible in court. Of course, there is no court case in this example.
And even better - does that mean a legal agency can enforce laws (IE banning you off your ISP or disconnecting your phone or whatever). Personally I don't think so.
They're not enforcing a law and charging you with a crime. They're requesting that Napster remove your account. Napster's service agreement states that Napster may terminate your account if they believe you have violated the terms of the agreement, which includes not distributing copyrighted material. Most ISPs have similar terms and conditions in their terms of service, which you agree to when you sign up.
Law enforcement and due process don't enter into it. Nobody is being charged with a crime... Napster is just excersizing their rights as spelled out in the service agreement. The agreement allows Napster to make the determination at their sole discression. Due process isn't part of the agreement between Napster and its users. Most ISPs allow themselves sole discression as well. In the case of an ISP, where you pay real money, there is the question of wether you are due a refund for any unused time that you're already paid for. In the case of Napster, you paid nothing.
On the other side I'm kinda hoping that ... forces napster to filter out "illegal" mp3's - because then it will be a boon to the vastly under-rated unsigned artist community
If it helps unsigned artists remains to be seen, but I hope it will.
MP3 isn't a crime because... (Score:2)
Since when is it a copyright violation to possess mp3's of cd's I own?
It's not a copyright violation under 17 USC 107, as you mention. But it is a patent violation [mp3licensing.com] under United States law unless the encoder publisher has paid THOMSON multimedia $15K/year or $2.50/unit sold (whichever is greater). That means you, LAME [sulaco.org] users.
All your hallucinogen [pineight.com] are belong to us.
W r a p s t e r (Score:2)
renaming text files does not work
Have you ever used Wrapster [cjb.net]?
All your hallucinogen [pineight.com] are belong to us.
Copyrights, trademarks, and patents (Score:2)
12k GIF ... Perhaps we should report these guys to themselves (for infringing Terminal Reality's trademark)
I'd report you to copyright.net for posting a GIF [burnallgifs.org], but copyright.net handles only copyrights, not patents (on GIF's LZW compression) or trademarks (on the Terminal Reality logo).
All your hallucinogen [pineight.com] are belong to us.
"Lasagna" by Weird Al Yankovic is copyrighted (Score:2)
What about the many thousands of parody tracks available? (e.g. "Lasagne", a take-off of "La Bamba")
"Lasagna" by Weird Al Yankovic appeared on the album "Even Worse" which is under Bono Act perpetual copyright [everything2.com]. Most parodies came off either some comedy album, SNL, MADtv, Howard Stern, or the like and are copyrighted by their producers.
I'd say that Al Yankovic performed less than one-third of the songs attributed to him on Napster, but that's another node [everything2.com].
All your hallucinogen [pineight.com] are belong to us.
Re:Double Standard (Score:2)
And what law would that be? I was not aware that corporations requesting that Napster ban users for offering copyrighted music requires absolute proof. Perhaps you are, in fact, referring to laws that restrict the govenment of the united states, and not the corporations found within.
This is not harassment, it is a legitimate application of Napster's terms of service.
Oh, and are you going to do an article on DOS 2.1? (Score:2)
Yeah, I have heard about this thing called Napster...someday I might check it out for nostalgia, like the Atari 2600 emulator I have or something. Wasn't Napster, like, some kind of music program for the first 286s? Or maybe it was programmed by that one Navy Lady who coined the term bug? I think I heard about it in a computer history textbook, or something.
Gnutella for the 3rd milenium!
Re:Don't serve copyrighted content (Score:2)
But what if I decide to let Napster advertise my collection of MP3s, but configure my router to prevent any uploads whenever someone tries to download a file from me.
That way I am not sharing my music, I am merely using Napster as a bragging tool, to boast about the immense size of my collection [tm].
~Cederic
ps: as it happens, I don't have a large collection, and my router does allow two-way traffic. But the point holds.
Re: Service model (Score:2)
They're actually pretty good--you can check the status of all your donations, and they post scans of cashed checks on their website. If you're really paranoid, you can email the artist to confirm. They've gotten a fair amount of media coverage, at least in Canada. It's really my ideal payment system, but, unfortunately, nobody uses it.
Second, you are making the mistake of assuming that low-quality MP3 files are what music fans want for their main copy of an album.
128 KBps MP3s are only the beginning. As people Get a Clue, they'll start ripping at 256 KBps, and the quality will become indistinguishable from CD. Napster or its successors will probably evolve to distribute cover art and liner notes, too. With CD burners becoming standard in consumer computers (see the new iMacs) and easy to use (check out iTunes), there will be no reason to buy a CD. The record companies know this, which is why they're freaking out now even thought it's not hurting them yet. They'd be stupid to wait until they were losing milliions a year and it was too late to stop.
Re:Just admit you're breaking the law (Score:2)
Re:Whose side are we on? (Score:2)
We think Britney and Backstreet are crap because we're not pre-teen girls. I bet they think our music sucks, too. You can get all snobish if you want, but the truth is that labels, being businesses, produce what consumers want. If consumers want crap, that's what they get, and lots of it. Sure, some good indie bands get missed, but a lot of others make it, and the ones that don't probably appeal to too small an audience to go big-time... If there were really this huge, untapped market for "good" music, then some new label would come along and clean up.
I tend to disagree here. I don't think they soley produce what the public wants. I think its more along the line of controlling what we can have in a trust-like manner, and them bombarding us with it (radio play, marketing, media hype, etc.) until we're brainwashed into liking it. What's more, I think they've also figured out that those tactics work on younger people better than old.
Of course, all of that can be explained away as teenage rebelliousness and normal business practices. I figure that the reality of what happens is somewhere inbetween. Its certainly not just following market demand though, they're pushing it. I doubt anyone in their customer base said "gee, I wish I could have a blonde, big breasted, omigawd girl who covers up her lack of musical talent with ridiculous coreographing!".
Music labels already rip off artists
True, the system is broken, but it at least gives some artists some money. It's better than nothing, and, until you come up with a better system, it's the only game in town.
Again, someone did try to come up with another system. But in one way or another, the RIAA members have a stranglehold on the whole darn thing. Its turned into a industry where you have to be able to refine, mass produce and market your music, not just put your MP3s on a website.
So its not so much that its all we have because no one else has tried, but its all we have because of the high cost of entry. Startup labels tend to be gobbled up, or indirectly owned by, the big labels.
Re:Banned based on title? (Score:2)
Does DMCA say anything about legal ramifications for a copyright holder who alleges infringement, later it's found that there is none, but the user lost their account for that time anyway?
Not that I know of, no.
Can copyright holders wildly allege infringement without recourse?
Here in the US, we have defamation (i.e. libel and slander) laws that can sometimes cover that. I am not a lawyer, but here's my rundown of how this works. For brevity's sake, I'll use "Alfred" to refer to the person who is claiming "Beth" has violated copyright. As a result, Beth loses access to systems.
First off, there must be no actual copyright infringement, if Alfred speaks truth, then it's instantly not defamation anymore.
If Beth is past that one, and is interested in pursuing, then she should call a lawyer instantly. There are a lot of arbitrary deadlines with defamation cases, and I surely do not list them all here.
Next, Beth should demand a retraction by Alfred within 20 days of finding out what he said. From what I understand, this is really only a requirement if the press has defamed her, but the way I see it, it doesn't hurt and might actually help. He might just retract his statement and tell people to give her account back.
Next, assuming Alfred doesn't retract his statement, Beth should file a lawsuit within a year, or else the statute of limitations takes effect and there is no case anymore.
Keep in mind that Defamation is part of Civil Law, which means that the key recourse is money. If Beth doesn't have significant financial damages to claim, it's just plain not worth it. For example, the guy who put up text files saying "*aitch*" with the names of popular songs really can't claim significant damages. An independant artist, who was counting on the increased recognition of having her own song ("Eat Metallica") widely distributed on Napster to help her career grow, could make a case. If so, she's in for a long and expensive ride (but could get publicity out of the case too, so it might still be worth it).
Most other countries have defamation laws, but from what I understand they often differ substantially from what I described.
----
Re:Been said before (Score:2)
Re:Whose side are we on? (Score:2)
--Phil (As I listen to mp3s ripped from CDs owned by me...)
A good way to make your music sound worse without as much time-wasting effort as ripping CDs is to merely punch holes in the little paper cones in your speakers... this gives you that marvelous clipping and compression on all your sounds, not just mp3s.
I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
Re:You miss the point. (Score:2)
These people are being accused, not convicted, of a crime.
These people are being forbiden to share files that MIGHT be copyrighted by some one else. No leagal body has been involved, becuse the action is not really legal. To use your poor analogy, this is like being punished for wearing a ski mask because a robber was wearing one. We are outraged at the presumption of guilt, the punishment that followed and the reasons for such behavior.
The goal is to restrict distribution of music, and other original content to the world's big five publishers. All other distribution channels will be bought, destroyed or made hoplessly inconvenient and socially stigmatized.
I've got news for you and your friends, it is not going to work. Good content will become available from alternate sources, artists will make money, and the big five will crumple into the land of dead media as revenue plumets. Those of you who would be abitrars of taste had better start looking for alternate employment, and lean humility. People demand more than your corrupt little radio, tv, and cable racket was able to provide. Good riddance, dinosaurs.
It would help if they were a more known service... (Score:2)
Re:Just admit you're breaking the law (Score:2)
If you try to sell a quarter ounce of oregano to someone and claim that it's weed IIRC, you'll go to jail for just as long... do they really even bother to test it?
I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
Rights and such (Score:2)
If you discount that argument, then I challenge you to find the right to 'walk down the street' in the Constitution in anything other than generalities like the 9th and 10th Amendments. And last I checked, using the legal system as a club to get something you want that doesn't have anything to do with the law is itself a crime. The RIAA wants Napster dead, and it will do anything, legal or illegal, to accomplish its goals, including (ab)using the legal system.
---
Re:Just admit you're breaking the law (Score:2)
If you try to sell a quarter ounce of oregano to someone and claim that it's weed IIRC, you'll go to jail for just as long... do they really even bother to test it?
True enough, but they have to show that you represented it. If the cops bust you and the buyer, and you both testify that you were selling oregano, you're not guilty. The same deal if you just hold out the bag and say 'you want to buy this?'. You didn't represent it as anything at all.
Re:Saving people the trouble: (Score:2)
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
Re:For those who are interested: (Score:2)
I guess a level of indirection is implied when dealing with RIAA scum.
For your protection, we always recommend keeping at least one level of indirection between yourself and RIAA execs.
We don't you catching any nasty viruses!
Copy R-I-G-H-T (Score:2)
Re:Waiters starve as voluntary payment model fails (Score:2)
----
Re:Banned based on title? (Score:2)
However, naming his song using someone else's trademark in a way which may cause others to believe his work is also the work of the trademark holder does open him to liability on that score. I'm not attempting to pretend I'm a legal official, but putting a band name followed by a "-" or other common separator makes it look like this may be a Metallica song.
Had he named the song "Sticking Gerbils up Metallica's Ass" that would be a much different story.
But parody can be a tricky business. For instance, Mad TV and SNL frequently run parodies that are nigh indistinguishable from the originals except that they are obviously skits on a comedy show. They use the trademarks of other networks and corporations all the time. What they do not do, is pretend to be those other entities in order to find a wider audience for the satires.