Napster Judge Groks Filename Variation 238
A reader writes: "Apparently the Napster Judge has thrown her hands up on the case. Napster has argued, successfully, that they cannot keep up with all the file name variations (and there's an interesting argument for the "Fab Four")."
Re:Copyright and Congressmen (Score:2)
I agree that this Congressman doesn't have a clue. However, even though Napster use does not constitute theft of property, it may constitute copyright infringement -- especially since there is large-scale trading and nobody is getting paid for it.
To put it another way:
Scenario 1: Your mother hands you $20 in cash on your birthday.
Scenario 2: You see several rioters looting a store. One of them reaches into the cash register and hands you $20.
The only differences between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are that the rioters in Scenario 2 didn't have a right to distribute the cash. To the person receiving the $20, the differences in how the cash was obtained are immaterial. :-)
Re:not a good argument (Score:2)
Now, your brain is a giant pattern matching system which can handle significant spelling mistakes. Napster is extremely popular and users will do anything to bypass filters.
So tell you want, you go out and build a pattern matching system a few thousand times faster than the human brain which can understand a few dozen languages and come back.
Re:not that late (Score:2)
Yep, they're the government. Being a target for blame is one of there most useful functions.
Re:Next up... (Score:3)
Dude, your connection will get dropped faster than VA Linux's stock price.
Re:De Facto Law (Score:3)
As for artists making a living, I think it's more important for them to hang onto commercial copyright (and get good contracts -- contracts that don't make them pay for the "privilege" of surrendering exclusive control of their recordings and copyrights to the record company) than to control non-commercial copying. There will always be a lot of fans who want to buy official product if it's available, and hasn't been bollixed up with watermarks and copy protection.
The bigger issue is that computer technology has called into question the value that the record companies add, and the degree to which they should be allowed to reap the benefits of the copyright incentive the PUBLIC provides to the ARTIST. Instead of answering this question by providing more value to citizens, customers, and artists, the record industry has gone all out to maintain and increase their control at others' expense. What they don't realize is that their own actions have placed them into a tar pit, and the more they lash out against the rest of us in their struggles, the deeper they will sink into the tar pit. With their back catalogs, I doubt that they'll go bankrupt, but I'm certain there will be a heavy financial price to pay just when they least expect it.
And it's so easy to avoid! All they need to do is to reevaluate their business from the perspective of "what do artists, customers, and the public need, and how can we make a profit serving them on their terms?". I could do that, and I'm not even a lawyer or a musician! Instead, they react to the strategic inflection point caused by new technology with an apparent attitude of "What rose-colored view of reality would make us most comfortable, and fit in with the way we like to do things? How can we force people to conform?"
Who's the fool? (Score:3)
Please follow up with more info, GemFire. I'd appreciate seeing your original letter.
Re:So (Score:4)
The RIAA is required to tell Napster what to remove, according to the appeals court ruling. Until they can do that, Napster is doing what is required of them, legally. Morally? That's another question altogether, and one our court system is not capable of answering.
Re:Too late methinks.. (Score:4)
The best way to rebel sometimes is to *bend*. Witness Felten - he very gracefully accepted the fact that the RIAA was trying to silence him, did 'exactly what he was told to do' by them, and gave a worse black eye to the RIAA by doing so (in the form of more press, more negative publicity, etc.)
As far as napster goes, well, they've pretty much shot holes in the RIAA's position by saying to the judge 'you know... this whole filename thing isn't going to work', and then *trying their best* to implement the courts order.
And you know what? the whole filename thing DIDN'T work. They were VINDICATED. That gains them credibility in the judge's eyes.
Sometimes the best thing to do is bend. Most times, in fact. The alternative would have been them to go out in a 'blaze of glory'.
Ed
Re:Finally, a verdict that makes sense! (Score:5)
This *had* been tried before. (Score:3)
ttyl
Farrell
Re:So (Score:2)
This, BTW, is precisely where the EFF Open Audio License [eff.org] may do the most good: it's an affirmative way to say that yes, Napster and similar tools may distribute it with the full consent of its creators.
Of course, there is the challenge of being sure that the "(O)" marker on an MP3 was indeed put there by the creators. I wonder if the EFF et al have any plans for any sort of registry, just in case.
The burden is on Napster to obey the law (Score:2)
Re:Finally, some sense... (Score:2)
The only reason radio stations can play nearly any song is because they pay a subscription fee to the RIAA allowing them this ability.
Not to mention radio stations only play songs off the newly release albums that have been authorized by the label as released singles. I don't think there is a coincidence there, I think they control what the radio stations do play because of their desire to effectively market albums.
But then you are going to cite this law which shows I'm dreadfully wrong.
Over-aggressive filtering (Score:4)
There are a lot of pages of instructions for what to do if you want to add a song to the filtered list, but for some reason Napster supplies NO information on what to do if a song that you hold a valid copyright on is being blocked for no reason.
Should this type of thing be brought to the attention of the judge?
Re:More napster? eesh (Score:2)
Tours lose money (Score:2)
Stop propagating this myth
Actually they make their money from publishing rights. Read the definitive state of finances for small bands
major lables: the problem with music [arancidamoeba.com]
(Albini forgets to mention the procedes from publishing, other than the advance, but in this case it would have been something on the order of $0.08/track, at 10 tracks a record, $0.80/record, adds up to $200,000 for this band, coming straight from BMI/ASCAP, the record companies get none of this) Add up the figures for playing on the road, net income -$15,000.Re:THE RIAA IS RIGHT (Score:4)
Yes. So is driving faster than 65. What's your point?
Schwab
Re:Prove innocence? What about DWI accusations by (Score:2)
Re:Prove innocence? What about DWI accusations by (Score:5)
Re:The burden is on Napster to obey the law (Score:2)
Except those are exactly the rules of the DMCA: the copyright holder must inform the publisher of the exact location of the infraction, then the publisher takes the infringing work down, and if the user wants they can appeal to have it put back up if they sign an affidavit that it is in fact not a violation. There is specifically no requirement that online publishers police their content, because it's impossible to maintain a modern interactive online presence and police anything 24/7. To hold Napster to such a standard would effectively shut down /. and k5 too.
The reason that you don't have to be warned by a cop for every traffic violation is because your use of the privilege of a driver's license means you agree to abide by traffic regulations. Napster is abiding by the governing law (the DMCA), although I admit that most of it's users are not. The RIAA just wants Napster to do the hard work that the RIAA signed up for when they got the DMCA passed.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Re:THE RIAA IS RIGHT (Score:5)
-- Michael Chermside
Too late methinks.. (Score:3)
As Jello Biafra said at Hope 2000.. (paraphrased) "Napster is cool now and all, but will you like them as much when they're the next Disney?"
The rebelious attitude is gone.. the music is gone.. it is time for napster to be gone.
Proves what I've said all along (Score:3)
Of course, the RIAA will never, en masse, go after the users of the songs. Those are the people who buy their music.
Re:think about it (Score:2)
Or shouldn't anyway...
Re:Next up... (Score:2)
However the end user who downloads the materials is liable. In fact, that's how it should be, ultimately.
Re:More information please...? (Score:3)
The judge doesn't work for free, you know. Nor was the courtroom constructed without cost. The staff who work behind the scenes filing and typing for the judge (and who do 99 % of the work, I'm sure) also need to be payed.
In short, unless someone is required to pay the court costs, the U.S. taxpayer will be footing the bill for the trial.
Re:Copyright and Congressmen (Score:2)
The only difference between Scenario 2 and 3 is the author of Scenario 2 needs a clue.
Re:More information please...? (Score:2)
Re:Finally, a verdict that makes sense! (Score:5)
We tried voting her out, but lost something like 40-60. The op-ed columns were surprisingly uniform in their labeling of Tom Campbell as someone who "doesn't quite have what it takes" to make it in the Senate, and even more consistent in portraying her prolific selling-out as "effectiveness" and "getting things done". You can search for some of the juicy tidbits at Media Awareness Project [mapinc.org]. Here's just one sorry example [mapinc.org], with glowing references to the Maxxam Headwaters buyout.
Slashdot readers ought to vote against her based solely on her continuing support of the CDA. Californians ought to vote her out simply because she's as corrupt as they come. 5.5 more years...
-jhp
Re:Finally, a verdict that makes sense! (Score:4)
Well, I'm not a California resident, but, it is my understanding that Feinstein is so secure in hir incumbency that she refuses to debate during election season. Californians need to vote her sorry arse out of office.
Re:Finally, a verdict that makes sense! (Score:2)
This wasn't a "deal" or a "compromise" it was a ruling by a court of law. Napster is seemingly complying with that ruling, certainly the trial judge seems to think so.
While the burden of proof is on the accuser, it is the burden on everyone to obey the law or suffer the consequences. If you think the law is unjust, work to change it or peacefully protest or whatever.
It's the job of the courts to interpret the law and at present Napster appear to be obeying it. It seems to be the RIAA that find the law unjust in this instance, and I don't doubt that they will work to change it
Re:Too late methinks.. (Score:2)
My recollection is that Napster stated from the outset that it wouldn't work. The trial judge ordered them to ban all copyrighted files, Napster said they couldn't because they had no way of identifying copyrighted files, which could be under any name. Napster appealed. The appeals court rules that the RIAA had to provide them with a list of the infringing files on the system and that then Napster would have to ban them. Napster said it wouldn't work but they'd comply with the court's order.
So far as I understand it, the fact that the court supposed that Napster could effectively ban the infringing files whilst otherwise continuing its activities was essential to the distinction they drew with the Betamax case. In the Betamax case Sony couldn't control what people did with their product, which had substantial non-infringing uses, and therefore weren't responsible for what users did with the product. In the Napster case the theory was that Napster could ban individual infringing files and was therefore responsible for doing so (you can argue the substantial non-infringing uses of course, but I think realistically they do exist even if they're not the main actual use). If they can't effectively ban individual copyright works from being traded then based on the court's reasoning it would appear they're back in the Sony position, i.e. they can continue to provide their product.
I don't have much sympathy for Napster myself, their business plan (such as it was) from the outset seemed to rely on primarily trading copyrighted works i.e. they didn't go into this with a clean conscience and they were foolish enough to put their intentions in writing. But as of now, they seem to be complying with what the court has required, and I don't think they in anyway tricked the court into it.
Re:This seems to contradict (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5)
not a good argument (Score:3)
--
Re:think about it (Score:5)
The problem is much more fundamental, and really strikes at the heart of human/computer interaction: computers and humans assign significance to data in totally different ways. What we look at as unimportant details are the only things that matter to the computer. Nearly every attempt to close that gap on anything but the most tightly defined problem has failed miserably.
In short, it is not technically possible for Napster to comply with the ruling. What this means from a legal perspective is unclear to me.
Re:Pissing in the punchbowl. (Score:2)
Sure its a waste of bandwidth, but it'll serve the RIAA's needs. Bastards.
Re:Pissing in the punchbowl. (Score:2)
Re:Spell Checker (Score:4)
Song length wouldnt work too well either as you can just add a silent second or two to your already rot-13'd song name and ID3 tag.
If you really want to punish someone, let them download songs by their real name and just have the client replace the mp3 data with a short speech on a loop for the exact length and data of the song. After 20 or so "You have downloaded a copywritten song" tracks you won't go near Napster again.
Also, I'm curious to know which independant labels want Napster distributing their songs.
Re:I Rest My Case (Score:2)
So pppffftt ack..
(apologies to Mr. Breathed)
Re:think about it (Score:4)
1. Develop some fancy filtering technique which manages to pick up a particular style of munging of mp3 files.
2. Submit a patent for the filtering technique.
3. Start munging mp3 files that way (legal ones for best comic effect) and putting them on Napster.
Napster can't filter them effectively, although a way exists, thanks to the ludicrous nature of software patents.
Any comments? Why wouldn't this work?
Re:The burden is on Napster to obey the law (Score:2)
Actually, in many places, that is the case - haven't you ever seen the "this area monitored by radar" or "your speed many be monitored" signs on the side of the road? In some areas, it is law that you be informed of this as well as many other factors during a speeding violation. As an ex-cop, I can tell you that speed enforcement is one of the great scams of the 20th century.
-jerdenn
Re:Copyright and Congressmen (Score:2)
Granted, the situation with no intellectual property ownership would be more like everything having the BSD license.
What I don't understand is why people like you think that intellectual property ownership is the same thing as physical property ownership, and get just as fanatical over it as if someone had stolen a car from your driveway. "Intellectual property" is an abstract concept defined for the overall benefit of society, by lowering the risks associated with generating creative works to increase a potential economic payoff for the creators. There is no physical basis for "intellectual property".
Re:Copyright and Congressmen (Score:2)
I figured it was something like that, but I'll continue the [loaded] questioning. Bear in mind that, as a programmer, I am aware that I am being paid for the "intellectual property" which I am generating, so I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the idea of getting paid for my creative work, but I tend to take the viewpoint that people should be paid for goods & services, not for things which have been assigned economic value through legal machinations.
I'd question the value of a single "idea" which could be so easily copied. Why should society let you coast on the artificial value of a single "idea" (especially if it's a concept so simple that other people could easily use it)?
I'd point out that the heart surgeon is providing a SERVICE, and is getting paid commensurate to the value of that service. In the context of intellectual property, a better example would be for someone to work out & document a better method for a particular kind of heart surgery, then expect all heart surgeons (or the hospitals or medical plan, whatever) to pay them money every time they use it.
As a "knowledge-worker", you get paid for the service that you can provide using whatever skills & knowledge you have gained during your training/experience. Why should you get paid for something you might've developed if someone else develops the same thing, probably without even consulting you or even knowing of your work, just because you came up with the idea first?
I reiterate the original premise of the intellectual property laws - they exist to benefit SOCIETY by giving special short-term benefits to creators. If the current incarnation of the intellectual property laws does not result in a net benefit to the society, then they should be revised to maximize the benefit to society, NOT to the creators. (The creators's benefit will be factored into the net benefit to the society.).
Re:Copyright and Congressmen (Score:2)
That's a circular argument - the only reason you get paid for your "creations", even though you're not doing any work past the original creation, is BECAUSE an intellectual property "right" has been defined.
Try this one: assuming that there is no intellectual property "right", what kind of service can you provide to people that they will find of value so that they will pay you?
Your argument still presupposes the existence of intellectual property "rights". Because of intellectual property law, those things defined as intellectual property have value, and people have to pay you to use them. If the law didn't exist, then those things wouldn't have value to other people, and people wouldn't pay to use them. They'd pay you to CREATE them, but not just to use them (once the idea was out).
Come up with an argument for intellectual property rights, assuming that we are living in a society that doesn't already have them.
Re:Copyright and Congressmen (Score:2)
What do you mean? You'll get paid for services rendered, the value to be negotiated between payer & payee, just like any job.
I don't see what this has to do with intellectual property rights. You're getting paid for services rendered. I don't see where you think lack of intellectual property rights would affect this.
My "demand" is necessary to debate the societal value of intellectual property rights - what kind of value do they provide to society, versus what kind of cost do they impose on society. If you start with a society that does not have intellectual property rights, and give them a chance to do a cost/benefit analysis of adding intellectual property rights, then they can draw a conclusion about whether such rights will provide a net value to their society.
It would be more difficult to start with a society that does have intellectual property rights, and then theorize what would happen if you removed those rights (given that such a society is likely to have large "players" which have grown to depend on those rights for their survival).
Please, you don't have to be a nutcase to desire systemic improvements. And if enough people get pissed off, there WILL be change. And the more people who get pissed off before the change occurs, the more likely that change will be catastrophic rather than gradual.
Taking a step back from my Devil's Advocate stance, I don't actually disagree with the basic concept of intellectual property - encouraging the creation of new ideas for the long-term benefit of society by giving the creator some short-term control over the idea, with the promise that the idea will be released after a reasonable interval for use by the generic public. I just disagree with the DEGREE of absolute, practically-unlimited control which has been bought by special interests who would rather make money by manipulating the legal system & restraining the creativity of other people rather than make money by creating a regular flow of NEW ideas.
This seems to contradict (Score:4)
the full story (Score:5)
NAP9000: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"
Dave: "then try Meetalika, dude...."
NAP9000: "That would be illegal Dave according to my RIAA-clipperchip, by the way, there seems to be something wrong with the main antenna, you will have to go on a spacewalk to fix it."
Dave: "Ok, man."
[dave slips into a spacesuit and then through the airlock]
NAP2000: "Lt. Uruhu, Contact the the RIAA-Borg homeworld, and inform them, I have spun Dave off into space for copyright infringment. They can legally confiscate his assets now. I'm sure Jack Valenti's Preserved Brain will be pleased."
Now, how to practically leverage this... (Score:5)
So basically any number of possible mechanisms will work to delay the process that the RIAA must undertake when seeking out and identifying specific songs. First, people have been munging filenames quite a bit, but that's really not very convenient for people trying to search for songs with certain words adjacent to eachother, etc (According to this ruling the current filters for word sequences like "Green Day" can be removed).
Instead, we could incorrectly report the length of the file, and even introduce a recognizeable chunk of junk data at the beginning of the mp3 so that the only way to determine whether or not a specific file is infringing on copyright is to download at least up to the point where the junk data ends. Then, have the client alter the file info slightly, if not by altering the Case of the filenames, then by altering the reported length and amount of junk data attached to the beginning of it.
That way if the specific file that was being downloaded is recognized as being infringing it doesn't really matter because that *same* file doesn't exist anymore.
Re:think about it (Score:2)
Yes, it could. Of course, that's an easy task anyway: there is no material on Napster's servers which is controlled by the RIAA! That's the whole problem: Napster never come into contact with the MP3s being traded by users: they go directly from one user to another. Napster's filtering software (on their indexing servers) doesn't have access to the content of those MP3s - only their filename, bitrate etc. You could try putting fingerprinting software in the client, but then you have trusted client security - which is pretty much no security at all, as anyone following the DeCSS story knows...
The alternative would be for someone to run a 'bot on Napster, downloading every single file from every single user to identify it and report unauthorised material to Napster and ban that account. It could be done: we're only talking about a few terabytes per day of data...
Publicly held companies (Score:2)
So, what they're doing is exactly what they have to: show their shareholders that they are gravely concerned by privacy, and will stamp it out by any means neccessary. A bit of advice for anyone who runs a privately held company: NEVER GO PUBLIC! The money is just not worth the restrictions you will eventually be placed under.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Re:Copyright and Congressmen (Score:2)
Re:THE RIAA IS RIGHT (Score:2)
Re:Copyright and Congressmen (Score:2)
My we're quick with our assumptions! When I was in college two things happened - first I chose to pursue my hobby (computers) through an Information Systems degree (honestly b/c of fear of math; my verbal SAT scores placed me in the top 95 percentile, but my math scores...yikes...).
The second was that I met my future "competition". While taking classes I realized that many students actually hated computers and programming, while I would breeze through programming assignments so I could get home and play with all the neat tools I could afford (thanks to the student discount, this was a lot!). I would stay up late installing Win NT, OS/2, Concurrent OS in different configurations (and this was before the official release of NT 3.1; I had access to bootleg betas, thanks to the university). I would play with Borland C++ Pro Dev, Texas Intruments IEF, VB 2/3, Access 1/2, xBase, FoxBase, PowerBuilder, etc. Many classmates hated their assignments and paid people to do their projects for them (future managers...but that's another story). One asked me, "Aren't you worried about the market becoming saturated with IS " [this was in the early 90's; IT wasn't in use yet]"people?" My answer: no; many are in it for the future payoff; I'm here because I'd be doing it regardless - I love it. They'll burn out.
When I first started with a computer (1979 on an Apple ][ belonging to my uncle and then 1980 with my own Apple ][+) I was in middle school. I played games till bored (how long can you play Lemonade Stand???) and started learning Applesoft Basic, Integer Basic, peeks and pokes...I wrote a graphic Christmas card to my family (to learn the graphic functions). In school we had an SWTPc UniFlex multiuser system. I loved learning the Unix-like CLI and revelled in writing utilities that tied various functions together for new students to use. ... On and on.
Through all this I've picked up a love for the hacker ethic (thanks to Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution), learning, sharing, benefiting others and being benefitted by others.
But I live in a society that rewards hard work, ingenuity, talent, skill, etc., with material goods. I have a family and don't want to have them suffer while I try to subsist on an artist's or philosopher's salary (i.e., nothing). But for my work as a system designer and application developer to be rewarded I have to assert my intellectual property rights (through my company) in order to be compensated for my creations. If not for these rights, then those who would benefit from my efforts would be able to use them without any recompense to me (through my company). That would mean I'd have to do something else to subsist - and the creative flow would slow down, if not stop.
And this last point goes towards you "benefiting society" comments. If the creative workers cannot benefit from their creations, then advances and innovations would slow down as system designers take time to dig those physical, wholesome ditches some people prefer to see as payable work. The last 200 years have had two novelties (1) an explosion of invention, innovation, and societial progress and (2) a strong system of intellectual property right codes and enforcement. Think about it.
Re:Copyright and Congressmen (Score:2)
Re:Copyright and Congressmen (Score:2)
I didn't say my "car supply" depended on a single idea...but on the premise that my work is protected by intellectual property law. If it is not then none of my work has to benefit me as it benefits others. It's not the single idea, it's the whole system. If there is no intellectual property right, then why do my customers need to pay me for my creations? I'd point out that the heart surgeon is providing a SERVICE, and is getting paid commensurate to the value of that service. In the context of intellectual property, a better example would be for someone to work out & document a better method for a particular kind of heart surgery, then expect all heart surgeons (or the hospitals or medical plan, whatever) to pay them money every time they use it. See, I told you I had a bad analogy. More than a service, intellectual property has value beyond a single use or function (generally). It has value on merit of its existence. The surgeon doesn't get paid merely because of his knowlegde, but because of putting his knowlegde into action. However, a creative work can benefit others merely by its existence (you don't need the programmers present to run MS Word) apart from its creator. The Dr. is happy to share the technique (for no one will put him out of business by "stealing" it - there are more than enough customers and not enough surgeons).
Re:Copyright and Congressmen (Score:2)
Re:Copyright and Congressmen (Score:3)
I read this over and over again trying to understand the "yeah right" reaction. Finally, it hit me: you don't accept private ownership of creative property. At all. Wow. With that reasoning RMS does not have the "right" to enforce his GPL - afterall the GPL only carries weight if you grant RMS creative ownership rights.
Re:Copyright and Congressmen (Score:3)
Ah. Well, "people like me" view intellectual property ownership as perhaps more real than (my) car sitting in (my) driveway, because I have said real property through the excercise of my intellect and creativity. That's the 'basis' - I create, you benefit and pay, I buy things. You steal my car, I can buy another, but you take away my intellectual property rights and you've cut off my "car supply".
I'm a knowledge-worker. I've spent years getting the knowledge I have. It's kinda like the heart surgeon asked to justify the $100,000 fee for open heart surgery. His answer: "operating room, tools, support staff, billable time to operate - $10,000; knowing where to cut - $90,000." Bad analogy, but the point is knowing is worth a lot. If you take my intellectual property without my permission, a good case could be made that you are taking tangible assets from me.
IIRC, In the middle ages the church did not allow craftsmen to sell an item for more than the cost of the materials used in making the item. So, a mahagony dinner table would be cheap! Just the price of the lumber. No allowance for creativity adding value to the slab of wood. The real property is merely the materials, but the artistry and effort that transform the boards into beauty -- that's harder to substantiate. In today's world wealth advances through means of intellect.
Best Tactic for RIAA: (Score:4)
Use MP3.com instead (Score:2)
say I start a band, and I name the band "S@ndman"
First, you would change your name; it's too similar to an existing Electronic artist Sandman [mp3s.com]. After that, you would sign up with MP3.com [mp3.com]. You keep the copyright and $5 of every $10 CD you sell. And because they run the server and listen to everything that goes on it to make sure that no unauthorized cover songs are posted, RIAA/ASCAP/BMI won't attack them.
¹The fate of MusicCity; improving gnapster (Score:2)
In particular, where are all of the MusicCity servers?
MusicCity [musiccity.com] has switched from being an OpenNap network to being a Morpheus network with its own client.
how the hell do you get a hold of the gnapster author
Start with Mike Markley [mailto], who maintains the Debian package.
in particular, I want a client that can QUEUE UP SERVERS TO CONNECT TO
WinMX can add this. Why don't you add this feature to your favorite free software napclient?
How to get your music un-filtered (Score:4)
but for some reason Napster supplies NO information on what to do if a song that you hold a valid copyright on is being blocked for no reason
If you hold the copyright on a sound recording, get your band listed [napster.com] in Napster's legal music registry. Or just sign up with MP3.com [mp3.com] and name-drop your music in the chat rooms.
not that late (Score:4)
The rebellion is on, napster is just the tip of the mp3 iceberg... and for us Canadians it's not much of a rebellion. Fair use is clearly defined although RIAA Canada would like to tell you otherwise. The fair use laws in Canada have been tested with video tapes and the MPAA lost.
You see in Canada you can copy something a billion times, as long as you do not intend to make a profit. I just don't know if there is going to be a test case, everyone is just too scared to take on the Lawyer rich RIAA.
What The Judge Said When She Threw Up Her Hands (Score:5)
It'5 3een a hard daze ni6ht.
Need XML expertise? crism consulting [maden.org]
How is Napster different than the postal system? (Score:5)
If there were no legitimate uses for Napster than it should probably be closed down. However, that's clearly not the case here.
Pointers vs Data (Score:3)
What about bands on multiple Labels? (Score:5)
Years ago, sSs were on EMI. EMI own the rights, quite legitimately, to the material they recorded at the time, and publishing rights too.
But the band were dropped years ago, recently reformed, created thir own label and released an new CD, PirateSpace. Tony James, the 'BosSs' of Sputnik, made it abundantly clearthat the reason they reformed was the unexpected presence of many websites devoted to the band, and has repeatedly credited Napster with rekindling their career.
So, if filenames are to be banned based on a band name, here's another fatal flaw. EMI have every right to ban Napstered copies of "Love Missile F1-11". But they have no rights whatsoever over "Welcome to the 21st Century". And yet, if the filters are looking for the string "Sigue Sigue Sputnik"... Well, they deserve to be sued by Sputnikworld records for restraint of trade, since Napster is a preferred means of promotion by the new label.
And this is far from the only example.
TomV
Fuck Napster. (Score:3)
Step one: go down to the local music store and buy five albums. This will cost you around sixty bucks, definitely within the means of anyone who buys computer equipment. Feel free to adjust the number according to your income. Try to make your selections a diverse group, bands you haven't heard much before but that you think you would like.
Step two: Rip the music from the CDs and store it on your computer in high-quality mp3 format.
Step three: Give the CDs to friends of yours. Have your friends give you the CDs they got. Rip the music and pass the CDs along.
Step four: Listen to all your music. If all goes well you should have a lot of stuff that is new to you. Listen to it and think about what music you like and what it is about that music that makes it good. Talk with your friends about the music. Keep the good albums in the background when you hang out, when you go on long drives, when you party, when you code, and when you want to sit and listen to something cool.
Repeat as necessary. Make sure you listen to bands you've never heard before as well as old favorites. Then if the new ones are good, you can pass them along to people who you know will appreciate them. Buy music, share music, and listen to music.
--
Re:More napster? eesh (Score:3)
Am I the only one thats just a little tired of napster?
I agree that Napster isn't exactly a knight in shining armor for the causes of business integrity and IP reform. But we have to take what we're given: the battle for digital music is Napster vs. RIAA, like it or not. Yes, Napster is a greasy outfit, but RIAA is Stalinesque. Given that, I guess I'm pro-Napster, and I'd guess you are too. If Napster is demolished in the courts and legislature, I don't think we can expect, say, Bearshare to trundle up in 2004 and reverse all the precedents set in Napster vs. RIAA.
I'd like to be rootin' for someone else, but Napster and RIAA are the only players on center court.
Re:I don't think this is a win, guys... (Score:4)
Sure, it gets us a few more months (or years, if there's a long appeals process), but overall I think this is a case of winning a battle that will probably mean losing the war.
Ahhh... but time is on our side.
The longer it takes RIAA to shut down Napster and other music trading services, the more users there are and the more convinced those users become that it is their GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO COPY DIGITAL MUSIC. And those users become ever more likely to scream ever more loudly to their representatives if that right is snatched away.
Every day that Napster stalls, the good ship Music Trading gathers momentum, and becomes harder for RIAA to bring back to port.
sleepyfellow.com (Score:5)
Who would RIAA sue then? This new service, call it sleepyfellow.com, doesn't trade in music, so RIAA can't go after it for copyright infingement. They could try to nail it under the DMCA like the MPAA did to DeCSS, except that the software isn't decrypting, it's encrypting. In fact, if RIAA tried, they might be liable under the DMCA for breaking sleepyfellow's encryption. Could the RIAA reap what it sows?
think about it (Score:5)
RIAA says it can't provide a list due to the problems with changing file names, Napster says Bullshit.
And around we go
________
Re:Copyright and Congressmen (Score:3)
That is, hands down, the worst Napster analogy I've ever seen.
Re:Finally, some sense... (Score:2)
The key phrase there is 'top albums'. It's only the ones that the labels choose. For anything else the radio wants to play, they gotta pay up.
--
Re:THE RIAA IS RIGHT (Score:3)
Restricting the free flow of music is restricting the free flow of culture. That is basically impossible.
Most musicians make enough money from their CD sales to survive in luxury above that of the people purchasing their CDs. Some don't. You can't make a living off of music.
The fact is, anyone with any business experience will save up money to distribute their music via MP3 first, then once people get a taste for it, publish CDs. If you jump straight into CD production, you are being stupid, and deserve to go bankrupt.
I may sound a little crazy, but whether Napster wins or loses may determine if the US is nearing socialism, or is still completely capitalist.
Just my deranged, biased $0.02
---
Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of theese?
Filtering the wrong end (Score:2)
But, this brings up the next problem. Who gets to decied ? I know of someone who is tring to get into the music bussiness and wants his music distributed via napster. He owns the copyrights, he can make that dession. Since his name is fairly close to some other well known artists, how do you correctly filter it ?
What happens when everything is filtered and napster turns to be worthless. Everyone will move on. Honestly, people are not intrested in non-name music (some are, but not many).
No matter how you look at it - "Put a spork in it, your done son." ... urrr, fork :)
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:4)
Alternatives to Napster (Score:5)
There are several programs available to help users defeat Napster's filters. There are also more file sharing apps around than you can shake a stick at, so if you can't find it on Napster, just try a different one.
I've compiled a list of many alternatives to Napster [steenerson.com], as well as many of the recent news stories featured on /.
Get them. Use them. Show the RIAA who really controls the internet
Re:think about it (Score:2)
Bullshit or not, score one for the Napster crowd. That is, if you care.
Anarchism vs. libertarianism [OT] (Score:2)
Copyright and Congressmen (Score:5)
I, too, have written Congressmen. Here's the reply I received to a letter I sent detailing how the copyright laws have gotten beyond any possible Constitutional interpretation.
Dear Ms. Aker:
Thank for contacting me regarding copyright law and its relationship to the United States Constitution. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts.
I believe the United States government should always remain within the boundaries set in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers. Regardless of the length of time the copyright laws allow private ownership to the original creators of a piece of material, I do not believe the material is constitutionally required to be surrendered to the government. Should legislation regarding this matter be brought before the House I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me and please do not hesitate to do so in the future. Input such as yours helps me to better serve the Ninth District.
Respectfully, Nathan Deal
This letter clearly shows that a)he has never read the Constitution, b)he hasn't a single clue what he's talking about or c)that he just wants to say something he thinks might placate me.
I especially liked the part where he says private ownership belongs to the creators - yeah right. And then there's where he seems to think that these works are surrendered to the Government? Excuse me, since when is the Public Domain the government. Expiration of copyright is a limitation on monopoly and YES it is written plain and clear in the Constitution.
When I vote, I simply vote out all of the incumbents, no matter what party they are. If they'd been doing their job we wouldn't be having these problems. The only differences between Napster and the radio is that you can choose what you hear with Napster software and Napster doesn't pay ASCAP or BMI. To the enduser, the latter is immaterial. If recording is legal, recording is legal and several landmark cases have declared that recording is legal. Analog vs Digital isn't the issue at all.
Check out my website - http://www.limitingcopyright.com
Finally, some sense... (Score:5)
Technological incompetence and ignorance in our judicial system is scary. Those making the rules don't understand the nature of the game, and when that happens, you get things like the DMCA. Lord knows we don't need another piece of legislation like that disaster...
-- Chris
Next up... (Score:5)
I can't wait till my ISP contacts me saying "The RIAA wants us to shut you down because you run a Freenet server" my response will be "Um - ok, whats their beef? Oh copyrighted music? Prove that data lives on my server! What? Its encrypted? Wow. Do I have the keys? Maybe - maybe not. I have no idea. Oh yeah - thats right - you aren't liable for criminal traffic going through your network either if you can't identify it? Well neither can I." Click.
Bring it on!
--
Re:Prove innocence? What about DWI accusations by (Score:3)
I guess getting a driver's license to drive on public roads that you pay for entails agreeing to an "EULA"
No activity that requires getting a license from the government is free. Look at over-the-air broadcasting for an example.
Re:Prove innocence? What about DWI accusations by (Score:4)
Perhaps someone could how this is legally permitted?"
Constitutionally, it isn't... But, the sheep populace has accepted the premise that driving on PUBLICALLY FINANCED roads is a "priviledge" not a RIGHT, has allowed a much lower burden of proof to be enacted into law. Now you know why a Republic (rule of law) is superior to a "Democracy" (where the government acts to enact the wishes of a sheep population).
Basically, since 1933, the 9th and 10th Amendments have been meaningless. How convienient, as they are the MOST restrictive on the power of government...
Finally, a verdict that makes sense! (Score:5)
To do otherwise is to turn the USA into a country where you are guilty and liable until YOU prove you are innocent. That is tyranny.
Bull. (Score:4)
More napster? eesh (Score:5)
Am I the only one thats just a little tired of napster?
I stopped caring the day they became a company and took a dollar knowing full well that their company was founded on people trading music they don't have the 'rights' to. I hate IP laws as much as the rest of the /. community, but their business model depended on college age people trading illegal mp3s. Furthermore, they continued to be under the guise of "Oh, we're only here for the independant artists!"
Sure...
How is that different from the RIAA saying "We're fore free speech and openess" when clearly they're not"?
Napster can be good for independant artists, and I've been introduced to many great new sounds with napster, but the vast majority of the use is trading music that artists didn't give permission for. Note, I said 'artist' and not 'RIAA/Record Label'. I don't care what they say I can and can't do with things, I'd rather respect what the person who created it wishes. Unfortunatly the RIAA/Record label doesn't allow them to speak for themselves.
Back on track, I feel that if some greedy VCs and possibly Shawn Fanning himself didn't try to turn Napster into a cash cow, things would be pretty different today. Frankly, Napster and all the people that are involved in the shadyness can be buried in the bottem of the dotcom cesspool for all I care.
Lets get it over with, one way or another, and mote on to new more promising, more open technologies like jrxe, gnutella, freenet, and others.
Re:Next up... (Score:3)
Re:The Fab Four? pre-1972 stuff is public domain (Score:3)
Answer, you don't. US law has protected sound recordings since the 1908(?) when the copyright act was modified to include copyright on player piano rolls.
The Beatles recordings are all fully in copyright and always have been.
I Rest My Case (Score:5)
Yes ladies and gentleman of the jury the time has now come where you must decide the facts of the case, and make final judgement on the case. As stated by the RIAA, Napster has continously stolen from the mouths of poor millionaire artists worldwide by providing a peer to peer network solution for sharing music in illegal fashions.
It does not matter that most of the mp3 music stored on Napster was purchased in order to actually make the mp3, nor does it matter that you could also record most of the songs from radio onto cassette tapes. It does not matter that studies have show many Napster users actually purchase billions of dollars in music.
Ladies and gentleman of the jury we provide you with fact based statements and stipulations that don't show much, but the RIAA is footing the bill for this case, and my new golf clubs.
You must come to an agreement, that shows Napster, the thieving service that they are, are no better than someone robbing a bank at gunpoint, or the white collared criminal giving away insider trading information with their boiler room tactics.
It is without reasonable doubt, Napster is the Michael Milken, Charles Manson, O.J. Simpson, Kenneth Kimes, Timothy McVeigh of the computing world. Sure they didn't hurt anybody physically, but Metallica's feeling were hurt, and in pop and media culture attention and money are what counts in society today. DON'T let Metallica and the RIAA go hungry
Ladies and gentleman of the jury I ask you find the defendant GUILTY.
fearsome [antioffline.com]
Re:not that late (Score:5)
Basically, Congress never, ever thought you'd be able to distribute a piece of music to 10 million people unless you dedicated your life to the task.
They never thought to ask what happens when you scale up taping songs off the radio to millions of copies while decreasing the time and effort involved to almost nonexistant levels and also practically eliminating the distribution time and expense.
Can you blame them?
Re:Finally, a verdict that makes sense! (Score:3)
:
#1 - Original Message.
To: senator@feinstein.senate.gov [mailto:senator@feinstein.senate.gov]
From: XXXX@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Napster must be allowed to operate.
1- I build a park.
2- Lots of kids play there.
3- A drug dealer comes and sells drugs to all the kiddies.
4- Am I to blame for building the park?
5- No.
Seems like a closed case to me.
#2 Her lame reply.
-----Original Message-----
From: senator@feinstein.senate.gov [mailto:senator@feinstein.senate.gov]
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 6:30 AM
To: XXXX@ix.netcom.com
Subject: About your e-mail message ( Ticket# 02222001C47353395:AR0001 )
Thank you for writing to me about Napster. I read your
letter with interest, and I welcome the opportunity to
respond.
I understand that many people would like to hear music
before they buy it. Napster has become very popular for
providing such a service. I am worried, however, that
Napster is also facilitating the widespread violation of
copyright laws. When an artist produces music, that artist
has made an intellectual and financial investment. When
entities like Napster make it so easy for others to swap
the artist's work without remuneration, then the artist is
not being compensated for that investment. Napster could
reduce the incentive for musicians to create music and
reduce the diversity we enjoy in our listening choices.
The nature of the Internet makes this threat very real.
This issue is currently the subject of judicial
proceedings, and I am awaiting the results of those
proceedings with great interest. I'm sure the courts will
address both commercial copying and non-commercial copying
during the case.
Again, thank you for writing to me. I hope that you will
continue to share your thoughts with me in the future. If
you have further questions or comments, please feel free to
call my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 224-3841.
With warmest personal regards.
Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
#3 My reply to her.
Using 'threat' and 'Internet' in the same sentence is not what I want my government or my representatives to be doing. I voted for you to represent my beliefs. I do not believe in a monopoly of recording companies squeezing the blood from the musicians. This is a capitalist society with a concept of an open market. This is a new venue and the monopolists do not like it. Lots of artists support Napster. Popular music is trite trash anyway, with labels defining the music and not the best man wins as it should be in a free & open market. I personally have come to the conclusion government is useless and would like to support any and all action to reduce it. I've been all over Europe. While they take home less, they certainly have a lot more in they way of quality of life to who for their spent tax dollars. I don't see a need for a big government who fails to serve the people. Libertarianism would prevail if more people were more effectively educated. I suspect that's the idea, keep the public dumb, as it is right now by design, so that things can continue as they are.
Re:Finally, a verdict that makes sense! (Score:5)
I wrote my senators and congressmen here in California, apparently they support monopolies (the replied with rude letters that made me not want to vote for them again =).
Re:Finally, a verdict that makes sense! (Score:5)
I am very sorry to say I didn't save the letter, well... I'll go fish through it now..... Yeah, I chucked it because it was trash.
It amazes me that in a recent article published about UPS winning the rights to deliver packages in a direct route from California to China from Congress a member stated that it was quid pro quo to be bribed. It turns out UPS gave various Congressmen a total of 1.2 million in contributions (bribes). I'm sorry for being vague, I will dig up the link the statement made by the Congressman about bribery.
This state is fried, isn't it?
I wish Diane Feinstein would have the gumption to speak out this blatant waste of resources that will at best produce an absurd (and freedom-crushing) precedent.
Make a filename renamer & protect under DMCA (Score:3)
More information please...? (Score:4)
2001: A Download Odyssey (Score:5)
NAP9000: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"