RIAA Looks To Stop KaZaA, Morpheus & Grokster 611
John Hampton writes: "The RIAA is going to try to sue KaZaZ, Morpheus and Grokster, according to this story. Internal memos from within the RIAA outline the record label's findings and strategy going ahead. Great story. Hilary Rosen begging executives to talk about the issue and the RIAA issuing the lamest statement ever. From DotcomScoop.com."
Grokster not based in America (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yah, FP
Re:Grokster not based in America (Score:5, Insightful)
Thousands of troops will be sent storming into Nevis from the air and seas, and after a 15 minute battle, the Island of Nevis will be no more. Grokster will be shut down.
For more information on Nevis, visit CIA Factbook on Nevis [cia.gov] or your local library.
Re:Grokster not based in America (Score:3, Insightful)
RIAA haiku (Score:2, Funny)
You listen to our music
Micr'Soft is our bitch
RIAA Limerick (Score:2, Funny)
The RIAA's trying to end
Programs that all they do's send
Tunes from my 'puter
To yours, through Bermuder
Without paying them or paying their friends
Re:RIAA haiku (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm, that sounds a little forced. How about "Congress is our bitch"? Sounds better and is just as true!
damn, 10 seconds too slow (Score:2, Funny)
I think there's a radon leak in the RIAA offices and crack in their water-cooler...
Bill - "hey Jim, let's try and shut down a Peer-to-peer network today. They might be using it to do illegal stuff"
Jim - What's a "peer-to-peer"?
Bill - "damned if I know, I heard about it on Oprah"
Jim - "sure, I'm in. It's not like we do any real work around here."
Lawyer's group? (Score:4, Insightful)
If find it very hard to believe that this organization was allowed to exist. It functions autonomously using other people's money, but claims to do everything "on other's behalves."
Re:Lawyer's group? (Score:2, Insightful)
Which pretty much describes our government too come to think about it.
We need to organize OUR OWN lawyer's group. (Score:4, Interesting)
I am a wealthy IT professional, and I assume that a lot of you here are too.
Assuming that we could get a lot of people similar to myself to contribute $100, could we buy the ability to shut down the RIIA's legal efforts for awhile?
It appears to me that we have two options: attack their lawyers or attack their revenue sources. If we don't do one of these things effectively, they will continue to oppress the public (and us specifically).
I'm tired of listening to the RIAA tell me how bad I am. Let's do something!
Re:Lawyer's group? (Score:3, Funny)
Typically, when I first read that line this morning I read it as:
The International Federation of the Pornographic Industry
Coffee helps.
The interesting part is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The interesting part is... (Score:3, Insightful)
But that's not really the case as I understand it because Kazaa, for example, connects to kazaa.com to get a list of supernodes when you start the program, so it's just like Napster connecting to it's own servers to get a list.
Re:The interesting part is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The interesting part is... (Score:2, Interesting)
They could use ftp to connect to another computer and get an mp3, doesn't mean they could shutdown all ftp programs.
Breach of agreement? (Score:3, Interesting)
They're not entirely stupid- they want the upper hand on this situation from start to finish. If they don't go about it in a just-so manner, they don't have the upper hand.
Another draconian law (Score:2, Informative)
he he... (Score:5, Funny)
1. The moment when the industry realises how good they could have had it before they fscked up the server model of napster compared to a distributed self organising network
2. The moment when some dumb exec decides the only way to stop it is to take out EVERY supernode
3. The RIAA resort to hiring hundreds of consultants to try and fix the unfixable problem
4. The RIAA eventually succeed in closing down the big three and just as it happens, giFT is finished and goes mainstream, or even better fasttrak release the source (I can dream cant I
Re:he he... (Score:5, Insightful)
While you're laughing at the idiocy of the RIAA, does it occur that they're chuckling away to themselves as well? They're not losing money right now, and they see a way to make even more money in the future by demonstrating that we're all thieves.
They don't have to win these suits. Actually, they want to lose them (in court, or de facto as the users switch to a new service) as this just demonstrates how ineffectual individual litigation is. Then they just buy more laws that effect everyone. We will be presumed guilty, and taxed on that basis.
The RIAA will buy laws that let them tax your ISP for carrying copyrighted data. They will have a tax placed on blank media and will then extend it to all hardware. They will buy laws that let them view all of your data traffic, and have your ports blocked or your service throttled or cut off. If they feel like having a show trial to try out their new laws, they will have you thrown in jail for longer than a murderer or a rapist, along with the sysadmins of ISPs and sites, including .govs and .edus, that refuse or fail to comply with their laws. They will control what hardware you can buy, and what operating systems and applications you can run on it. They will control what software you are allowed to write yourself, or to run on your own system. They will control who you can discuss software with.
If you think the RIAA is losing by making it clear how impossible it is to stop or monitor file sharing under the current model of the internet, then I urge you to have a think about how many of the extreme measures that I describe above already exists in the USA or other democracies, and I ask you who you honestly believe will still be laughing in ten years time.
Re:he he... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:he he... (Score:4, Insightful)
I keep telling myself that, but either the RIAA are really dumb, or really clever. It's comforting to think that it's the former, but I fear that's egotism speaking.
And the DMCA wasn't dumb. It was risible, it might be struck down yet, but it's on the books, and it's hurting real people right now. It's easy for you and I to laugh at it, but I expect the people currently defending themselves against it might not agree. It's hard to get your head round it, but try and remember that DMCA isn't some theoretical bill. It actually exists. Once our legislators let that one through, they signalled that it was open season.
So now we have a proposed bill on mandatory copy control in hardware, with an intimation that OS's that bypass it will be illegal. OK, it's unpopular, it will probably be defeated, but we said that about the DMCA as well. And if it fails, there will be another one next year, and the year after that, until one much like it passes. Then we have to fight it on every point up to the supremes, and then they can just buy another bill.
The one thing that I have no doubt on is that internet traffic will be taxed. Germany and Australia already tax blank media on the basis that it's used overwhelmingly to copy protected material. The same argument applies to residential broadband connections. It's only a matter of time.
Re:he he... (Score:3, Insightful)
In Canada, there is already a tax on blank media, and it won't surprise me to find that a tax on data transfers is in the works.
Listen to this fellow, people: he's right on the money.
Re:he he... (Score:2)
The Times of India, March 8th 2000. The quotation might have been from earlier, but that's when it was reported. Take it up with them if you have a problem with it's veracity.
Supernodes (Score:4, Funny)
What are they trying to do really? (Score:2, Insightful)
The software industry has survived despite the warez scene, though I must confess that I don't think we can draw as many parallells here. There are a lot of software that is not made for the general public, and then the software in itself could even be useless without the connection to the company which makes it, or it wouldn't even have been made unless it was ordered.
So what is the point of my rant? Well, the industry can either go on and be a royal pain in the ass and hated by soon everyone, or they can start thinking about their existence. This is what happened to people with the industrial revolution, and now it's reversed itself as large companies are on the loosing end instead. If they want to survive, they should find new markets, and they will prevail. There are brand new markets out there just ready to be exploited!
//John
Re:What are they trying to do really? (Score:3, Interesting)
Show me one.
There are currently NO brand new markets in that industry, and if the RIAA gets it's way there will not be any. They are busy protecting their old market.
My take on this is that the RIAA is going to use their weight to form this "brand new market" to their liking. So we'll end up with a brand new market that's suspiciously like the good ole market: pay through your nose for music that you can't copy without a reduction in quality.
--Bud
Re:What are they trying to do really? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Having listened to the music being put out now by the RIAA members, I think we already have a reduction in quality, and that's before the copying starts!
There is little need for the music industry (Score:2, Interesting)
Now that musicians can produce their own material and sell it without reference to the music industry then there is little need for them.
In the push for online music we must not impoverish the artists who produce it. The fact that the music industry's profits disappear is irrelevant.
Re:What are they trying to do really? (Score:2)
I agree that downloading and sharing hundreds of mp3s at will IS a form of theft, the people who slaved and sacrificed to create that art were never compensated for it.
BUT I see no harm in downloading a few songs to try out a new cd before I go spend $20 for my own copy. I HATE buying a cd for a one-hit-wonder band, sampling the music beforehand is a way to prevent that. If I like the band, I will buy the CD to support them, it's a simple idea, but unforunatly not one that is shared by all users. Why should I be punished with copy-protected CDs because other people are unwilling to pay for their own copy?
Instead of trying to prevent people from sharing their music, give them an incentive to buy their own copy. Include "extras" on the CD (music videos, behind-the-scenes footage), coupons in the cd case or free posters. Incentives are good right?
Re:What are they trying to do really? (Score:2)
If they're lucky they dont get a lifetime debt.
Re:What are they trying to do really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyright is an 'agreement' - its a fiction. Intellectual property is not 'stuff'. IP is to property as FoolsGold is to Gold.
When the 'mass' accepts the idea that they would rather reclaim their right to copy music, when they realize that it no longer acceptable for them because the other party isnt providing them the benefits to outweigh their detriment, this *DEAL* ceases to exist.
So, instead of addressing the issue at hand: Copyright is no longer an acceptable situation to the citizens who empower the concept. They have ended their compliance to this fiction and are distributing and manufacturing (mail && cp respectively) copies of the music.
We can either
Accept that the RIAA/MPAA will whore our plutocratic government into making law that will protect their asses ($$$). The world has rendered their former function (publish, promote, manufacture, distribute) unnecessary, so they seek an artificial control on technology, personal freedom and the Capitalist Free-Market.
Reduce, Change, Rethink or Abolish copyright altogether.
I vote the latter.
People who refuse to buy DVDs, CDs and VHS and ONLY dload the works of Artists are practicing Civil Disobedience - this is justified, reasonable and unquestionably within the realm of honesty, I also ACTIVELY encourage others to do the same.
I am a citizen of a Democracy, I disagree with the law, as do most citizens, if we all disagree with the law... it should be changed... unless of course we dont live in a Democracy any longer... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm makes you wonder dosnt it. My new favorite word is:
plutocracy (pl-tkr-s) n.
Government by the wealthy.
A wealthy class that controls a government.
A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
Perfect Timing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perfect Timing (Score:2, Informative)
So it's basically like playing Wack-A-Mole (Score:2)
Napster was a nice distraction, but I'm back to doing the same thing I did before Napster came about and there's no way for the RIAA to stop it.
Not that they should. What they should do is just get a clue. But they're not thinking outside the box, they're not adjusting to a new form of distribution for music. Napster came out late 1999. MP3s have been around since 1997, and that's not counting how old CDDA trading is. You'd think in 4 years they could've come up with a smart, valuable system. Oh well...
Silly RIAA... They just sound... silly. (Score:5, Insightful)
What the RIAA and other big industry orgs fail to understand is that it's not about directing users to "legitimate offerings", it's about not being a dinosaur in a fast paced industry. They are struggling to maintain old ways of distributing music and they don't understand that they have been replaced by a new distribution model. The record industry used to exist because some band, say "Vibrating Sandbox", didn't have the resources to publish and distribute nationally. Duh. Today, ANYBODY can send their music around the world.
I find it so amusing that the RIAA claims it hopes for the success of other music related businesses, then talks about handing enforcement. Enforcement!? RIAA: You are a conduit for music, not the source! Enforcement is up to the artists. If "Vibrating Sandbox" doesn't want its music distributed on *ster, then that's their problem.
The thing with organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA is they don't know when to quit. They need to learn a new way to make money that works with the modern world, or just go away all together.
Of course, not to mention that these "illegitimate" file/music sharing services actually give listeners access to a wide variety of flavors. Try finding the same obscure, yet decent material on an RIAA services as you would find on Napster. It's a shame how something so big, greedy, and ancient can have so much control over the methods of medium they contributed absolutely nothing to.
Couple of Quick Questions (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Couple of Quick Questions (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't speak for the first case, but for your second statement, it's obvious. They don't. You don't prosecute someone from another country doing things that are legal there and not legal here. Oh wait, we already do that [freedmitry.org]. It's not right, is it?
If you are an artist with the choice of getting a major label deal and maybe making a profit if you sell over a million copies (or being in debt otherwise) or making no money from the spread of your music while being popular among the fans that don't pay for your music, what would you choose?
Hold it. Remember that from the sale of each record, lesser known artists get as low as 1% or less of the total profits, with the RIAA keeping the other 99%. Artists literally can get checks from the RIAA of 0.12$US for a 20$US record sale. Artists could make a LOT more money if they distributed online and took all the profits from said sales (and more power to them on doing this - I would buy music if my money was going to the artist, and not the RIAA).
Eventually, when CD burners, Minidiscs and car MP3 players become cheap and popular enough, how do you propose artists make a living in this new world order?
What are you talking about? They're already cheap and popular. I can buy a pack of 100 blank CDRs for 15$US. Mp3's are free (as in beer, and not the algorithm of course). Minidiscs are just about there. But going back on topic, remember an obscure, ancient invention called the "tape recorder"? Old dinosaurs in the music industry said the same thing and pushed the issue in court. The courts said that people making copies was fair use. I propose that we RETAIN fair use for everything we buy, including music. In a free economy, you have to figure out ways to fend for yourself. Artists will deal with it.
Last thought on the issue of artists getting big and rich, well, that just is kind of absurd, isn't it? Someone's motivation for creating art should be for the sake of art, not the money they can get from it. Sure everyone has to live, but how many painters, sculpters, poets, etc, are rolling in the big bucks? If you are really good, you'll find a way. Take a look at J.R.R. Tolkien's estate.
False logic (Score:2)
Please name the countries where copyright infringement is legal (as opposed to illegal but unenforced due to how widespread it is like in most parts of Asia).
Artists literally can get checks from the RIAA of 0.12$US for a 20$US record sale.
That was my point about selling a million copies. Artists that go multi-platinum do fairly well while those that don't end up with a few good memories and sometimes in debt. This gamble is still preferable to making no money which is what the P2P services would eventually lead to given enough time.
Artists could make a LOT more money if they distributed online and took all the profits from said sales (and more power to them on doing this - I would buy music if my money was going to the artist, and not the RIAA).
This is very amusing. Why would anyone pay to download a song when they can get it for free on Morpheus, Gnutella, KaaZaa or Grokster? Wasn't there a recent Slashdot story about They Might Be Giants and how they were pissed at Napster because they had created an online presence only for Napster to render it all irrelvant?
BOTTOM LINE: For artists to make money from online music, free music services must disappear.
!false logic (Score:4, Insightful)
Afghanistan. Hell, anything's legal there (except women feeding their families). But I am CERTAIN they don't care if you make a copy of an N*Sync CD.
That was my point about selling a million copies. Artists that go multi-platinum do fairly well while those that don't end up with a few good memories and sometimes in debt. This gamble is still preferable to making no money which is what the P2P services would eventually lead to given enough time.
Other replies to your original post already address this and do it better than I can, so read theirs.
This is very amusing. Why would anyone pay to download a song when they can get it for free on Morpheus, Gnutella, KaaZaa or Grokster?
You're not very observant are you? Look at the real world. Why would anyone buy a CD when they can get it for free on blah blah blah. People STILL buy music in a day and age where music can be got for free. It's reality. It will still be reality.
Wasn't there a recent Slashdot story about They Might Be Giants and how they were pissed at Napster because they had created an online presence only for Napster to render it all irrelvant?
It's not the consumers fault that they jumped on the bandwagon after someone else did. It's call competition. Sometimes other people get to ideas before you do.
BOTTOM LINE: For artists to make money from online music, free music services must disappear.
What a flaming crock of horse shit. You basically deny the existence of companies like RedHat that sell free software! That's right, they sell software that is given away for free everywhere else. The difference is, when you buy it, you get trimmings like actual CD's, manuals, and so forth. This model is very simple, works, seems pretty damn honest, and makes money. It could be very easily applied to the music industry.
Ugh, we need less of corporate bottom feeders like you.
Re:False logic (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, Russia. They didn't sign the Berne Convention or whatever it's called, so infringing a US copyright isn't illegal.
It's actually legal for you to fly to Russia, buy a copied CD/DVD/Piece of software and then fly home. NO law has been broken unless you choose to sell the stuff...
Re:Couple of Quick Questions (Score:3, Insightful)
A pro bono class action by a first rate lawyer would set a lovely precedent. As for international torts, I'd say deal with them on a case by case instance. For the most part, the problem is US-centric.
It would really depend on what was important in my life. Personally, and I can say this because I'm not in the said predicament of choosing this, I would want my artistic work to be free for everyone to experience, but I wouldn't want or expect to make a living off of it. That's a personal perspective, but a rational one.
The number of artists that could be employed in the industries is phenominal, but they aren't because the markets have been saturated with megalabels and uberdraconian principles of selection that prohibit any entry. It's an arisocracy now anyway, and 99.9% of artists are dropped by the wayside and barely scrape a living. Getting rid of the megalabels would certainly create more demand for smaller bands, and maybe bring the success rate for lesser known artists up to 99.8%, which is a difference of millions of people.
To give an economical perspective, a concert band or symphony orchestra employs up to 120 people (iirc, London Symphony Orchetsra), rarely if ever releases CD's, has huge overhead in musical instruments, and still turns a profit in the majority of large cities. Surely God a band of 4 people with mass produced musical equipment can fabricate a decent profit from live concerts.
Re:Couple of Quick Questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Musicians have been making a living for thousands of years without the RIAA. Today, there are more professional musicians out there who DON'T have recording contracts with the RIAA than DO. Only a select few have the "advantage" of getting an RIAA-sponsored recording contract, and even fewer benefit from it, aside from the promotion that comes with it.
Non-american musicians make livings without the benefit of RIAA. Plus, other types of "Artists" (actors, painters, etc.) make livings without the benefit of the RIAA.
Without the RIAA, there will still be musicians. Musicians will still make money. Without RIAA, choices will increase, and quality will rise. Do not worry yourself about the plight of the "Artist" in a world without the RIAA--worry about the "Artist" in a world where their only option is the RIAA.
Re:Couple of Quick Questions (Score:3, Interesting)
this new world order?
Billy Corgan (of the late Smashing Pumpkins) has had the best "big name" take on this so far: music will increasingly become like sports. Major league sportscasts are available for free on network television; how do they make their money? Gate fees and advertising. In BC's view, you could soon see "the RIAA on NBC!" on Saturday afternoons. Dave Matthews, on stage, makes his money from the thousands of screaming fans packed into whatever arena he's playing, as well as by allowing Fender and Zildijan to digitally insert ads onto the front of the stage (or even onto his conveniently dull blue guitar.) The fans at home get to enjoy DM's performance (albeit in a reduced fashion, just like going to watch an NFL game is a much better experience than watching one on TV) while having to sit through commercials at the intermission.
Then, like in sports, there could arise a "minor league", farm club sort of structure where local bands play in smaller venues (which make most of their money from corporate sponsorship and billboard ads).
Of course, there will still be "street performers" who just play for the love of it (think the streetballers in Rucker Park in NYC).
I don't know if it would shape up exactly like this, but I think the possibility is intriguing at the very least.
Re:Couple of Quick Questions (Score:4, Interesting)
Artists have copyright collectives.
ASCAP, BMI and SOCAN are three that I know of. These are large, well-funded organizations, that actually include more artists than the RIAA - plenty of independent artists belong to them. Also, they represent artists' interests directly.
They are set up mainly to collect licensing fees from radio.
None of them have gotten involved.
How about: Burn your own CDs, sell them at shows for $10 Canadian. Maybe spend $2 or so per CD on media and the insert. Make $8 per CD. Compare this to the RIAA system, where you make about $.12 US ($.18 Canadian) per CD. By my math, you'll make about the same amount of money by selling 22 thousand CDs this way as you would be selling a million CDs with the RIAA.
And this way, you get to record what you like, and you don't have to go in debt.
Plenty of bands do it. They Might Be Giants are an excellent example of a band that's made much more money than they could have in the RIAA world.
By burning their own CDs for fifty cents a pop. :)
Car MP3 players seem to be disappearing gradually. I'm not sure if MD really has much of a future either. CD-R, on the other hand...
CD-R is the biggest threat to the RIAA that has ever happened, because it takes the power of recording out of their hands. Now, all you need them for is distribution. Internet distribution is insufficient thus yet to replace in-store distribution (mainly due to lack of available bandwidth), but stores are opening up to selling more independent artists.
I can't wait to see what DVD-R is going to do for independent filmmaking.
Re:Silly RIAA... They just sound... silly. (Score:3, Insightful)
Most artists sell all rights to their music to their recording/distribution company. Not just the Britneys, the real artists too.
That's bogus in itself, but let's buy into the RIAA "you're stealing from the artists" spin.
They are doing that. They are buying laws that assume guilt, and that will eventually see all hardware sales and internet traffic taxed on that basis (Germany already taxes blank media for that reason).
Re:Silly RIAA... They just sound... silly. (Score:2)
Is that Windows XP, XBox, Playstation or just Windows Media formats
It is possible and coming to a planet near you soon! We are deluding ourselves if we think that the "hackers" will ever constitute a critical mass for a file sharing system, if we have to write the software and collate the media and upload it and .....
Decentralized Serverless P2P? Are we there yet? (Score:4, Informative)
Because of this, at present, these three together form the largest network (far larger than napster or even gnutella's break-brick-block kind of network).
As fasttrack says, this architecture is distributed, self-organising network. Neither search requests nor actual downloads pass through any central server. The network is multi-layered, so that more powerful computers get to become search hubs ("SuperNodes"). Any client may become a SuperNode, if it meets the criteria of processing power, bandwidth and latency. Network management is 100% automatic - SuperNodes appear and disappear according to demand.
Basically, unstoppable!....You can stop the development of the code, and the program, but not the existing network. Just like gnutella.
For sure, they are RIAA, MPAA and the software industry's largest and the hardest to destroy enemies because they also allow users to share movies and programs.
Now that's what they say, let's see what the reality is!
Juicy emails out at FuckedCompany (Score:2)
Check out the emails on FuckedCompany! MIRRORS! RIAA lawyers are
saying its going to be tougher then Napster. Juicy stuff!
Here [fuckedcompany.com] and Here [fuckedcompany.com]
"Freenet needs food... badly!" (Score:4, Redundant)
A wise man once said "Freenet views lawyers as damn apes and routes around them."
Do some thing useful with your Paypal account besides wandering ebay. Donate to Freenet [sourceforge.net]
Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's take a quote from the giFT page:
Can you say "Ooops?"
Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
In a way, they're acting no different from the record companies in trying to stop an alternate method of distribution (of sorts).
It's ironic (did I use the word correctly?) that this protective action has openned them up to lawsuits from the record industry.
Actually it gets better (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Actually it gets better (Score:5, Interesting)
Again with the assumption that they didn't know what they were doing. Every time the RIAA lose a case or demonstrate the futility of litigation, they just make it easier to buy more laws that ensure that eventually they will control the cable that brings the data into your home, and the hardware that stores that data. Meanwhile, for all their ranting and wailing, profits keep going up.
Given this, why should they change tactics? Things are going just fine for them.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course not. KaZaA, Morpheus, and Grokster are all ad-based services. Surely you remember the hoopla over Gator and other whatnot in KaZaA. Morpheus and Grokster also require the user to view ads. giFT does not. If a client like giFT extists that circumvents the Fasttrack money-making scheme of ad viewing, Fasttrack isn't going to like it. In fact, I have to side with the RIAA here, because the Fasttrack services were making money off of sharing of copyrighted material.
Is there an open version of the Fasttrack network? The idea of supernodes is an excellent modification of the Gnutella network. Gnutella, as everyone knows, scales horribly and has weak search capabilities, but still works. Why not create an open hybrid network like Fasttrack? Having a case against a decentralized network, as illustrated by the RIAA's timing, is nearly impossible. Gnutella 2, anyone?
Yay! 'nother post (Score:2)
Right - so you need to shut down your competition so that you may get more money. If think we should file an anti-trust lawsuit against the RIAA. And what defines legitimate anyway? I'm curious to know where a law exists that says you must be held liable by what people use your sofware to transfer since your company would be classified as a carrier. And the data doesn't even pass through their services anyway!
Hey RIAA! You can't have a PROTOCOL repealed! (Score:2, Interesting)
There is no way that the RIAA will be successful here. I don't know why people think that they actually will be able to go after MusicCity and WIN.
If they succeed in getting rid of Morpheus/Kazaa, then they should go after other famous transport mechanisms for files:
1) wu-ftpd
2) wsftp
3) cuteftp
4) any alt.binaries newsgroups
5) any newsgroup decoders
6) all major web browser
7) inventors of the FTP protocol.
8) inventors of the telnet protocol
9) inventors of SSL
10) inventors of HTTP
... basically they should try to eliminate all forms of data transport.
Not gonna happen.
Re:Hey RIAA! You can't have a PROTOCOL repealed! (Score:2)
Re:Hey RIAA! You can't have a PROTOCOL repealed! (Score:2)
Some of us think that their intention is to lose.
For "eliminate" substitute "tax" and we're in agreement.
Re:Hey RIAA! You can't have a PROTOCOL repealed! (Score:2)
>Or Wilbur & Orville Wright for inventing airplanes that terrorists use to kill people.
Umm... No. The Wright brothers didn't invent airplanes to make it easier for terrorists to kill people.
FastTrack invented this protocol to make it easier for people to share (mostly) copyrighted material.
The firearm example is more to the point, but then again, I think firearm manufacturers probably should pay society to cover for the lost lives.
1.. 2... 4! (Score:4, Funny)
Gee, these guys manage to find out so much about the structure of the FT network, and yet they don't know how to count to three?
A lot of "we don't know's" for a lawsuit, eh? (Score:2)
In the emails at fuckedcompany.com I found in this post [slashdot.org], I read [fuckedcompany.com] a number of instances where they plainly stated that they didn't know about how services uses FastTrack worked. I find it very amusing that they're threating lawsuits, but they don't have all the facts at their disposal. If they do not understand how the communications take place, how can they even assume that they can place liability on someone for "damages"?
all in the interpretation (Score:2, Flamebait)
This phrase has a couple of possble connotations. First would be "we need to bring our former customers back into the fold, and offer them some incentive to once again lavish our industry with extravagant and entirely unearned gifts of their precious, precious cash." This is, of course, not bloody likely, given that Hillary the Harpie views "customers" in much the same way as a vampire bat views an Argentinian cow.
The second, and much more likely, interpretation of her statement, is that the RIAA must seek some revenge against those who perhaps used to be paying customers, but were swayed by the RIAA's own retail guerilla tactics to pursue a different path, i.e., file sharing. This interpretation actually likens Hillary the Harpie's strategy to that of the US government, under the leadership of the winged monkey, in pursuing "war" against a methodology called terrorism (which is about as bright, in my book, as pursuing war against methodologies like pragmatism, or immunochemical histology, but then winged monkeys ain't made to be bright). I'd have the same advice for H the H as I have for W the Schmuck - give peace a chance, and, for the love of all that is decent and right, STEP DOWN NOW!
Re:all in the interpretation (Score:3, Interesting)
People like you make me sick! The U.S. always gives peace a chance. We promote it in Ireland and with Israel's problems. We offer a peace-loving country, open to all religions, including Islam. We were then ruthlessly attacked by delusional psychotics clinging to their pseudo-Islam religion to brainwash similarly disenfranchised, pissed off Middle Easterners.
In exchange, has Bush launched a carpet bombing of Afghanistan, or any other nation that sponsors or harbors terrorists? No. He has been making careful plans for weeks now, while Americans have been screaming for blood. Presumably if they were going to carpet bomb some place, it would have been done by now. They've made it clear they are going after surgical strikes and unique ways of fighting terrorism (cutting off funding, putting extreme pressure on those countries that harbor them, etc).
And you propose to Bush to 'give peace a chance.'
If anyone's a schmuck here, it's you. You should be saying the same thing to Osama bin Laden, et. al., not to anyone in the United States government.
And no, I did not, nor would not vote for W. I'm a card-carrying libertarian.
But I know a load of ignorant bullshit when I smell it.
We need an open source alternative! (Score:5, Interesting)
Now we need a piece of software that will do all of this without the need for a central company. That way the RIAAA _can't_ shut it down.
Come on guys, we're one step away from success here - the power of Napster/FastTrack with the freedom of Gnutella - let's show them it can be done.
More info needed (Score:2)
Does giFT run under windows?
Does giFT automatically promote clients to supernodes?
does giFT allow multiple downloads of the same file from different sites, to speed downloads and prevent loss of data if a source vanishes?
If it does all three of those, then I'm there!
Needs Supernode code (Score:2)
Without this, the traffic swamps the network before it can scale well.
Time to jump onto the Freenet bandwagon. (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm all for musicians' rights, however I am also very much anti-arrogance and anti-stupidity. If you're a member of the RIAA, I implore you (the technically savvy musician) to speak out against this pointless game. The rest of us, well... I'll be seeing you on Freenet [sourceforge.net].
Checkmate, Hilary!
Silly people... Morpheus is decentralized... (Score:2)
It is what gnutella should have been.. its decentralized so a company failure cant stop it, it is fast (instead of everyone being a node, only high bandy people are super nodes that carry searches), and contains encryption between sender and receiver so noone could tell what was happening...
The thing is, RIAA can sue Morpheus all they want... what are they going to do? Change the webpage that a Morpheus app goes to at the start to be one that says "please stop using this product" -- or maybe just put out an update (giving people the chance to choose to install it or not.. yea!) that disables morpheus...
I think the RIAA's hands are pretty tied in stopping the application... now destroying the morpheus and kazaa owners/coders.. thats in their reach -- but since they cant stop the app, it seems kinda pointless to me (though, I am sure, not to them)...
it will all go back to how it used to be. (Score:4, Insightful)
I predict people will end up using BBS software over ssh and downloading using zmodem. (as some ppl are doing already)
I'd like to see the RIAA have ssh banned.
The sooner these goons realise that they cannot stop whats happening the better for them and for everyone else. Their business model is obsolete because copyright has outlived its usefulness to society in many areas.
Re:it will all go back to how it used to be. (Score:3, Redundant)
Lucky you. Not banned, but how will you feel about having all of your traffic taxed on the presumption of guilt? That's where we're going here, and every time the RIAA demonstrates the futility of individual litigation, we get a little closer.
So the RIAA know that the packets are encrypted .. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Significantly, the FastTrack system encrypts all communications"
They then go on to discuss the packet communications and types.
Doesn't the DCMA prohibit them from doing playing with encrypted packages and attempting to decrypt them to see what's happening? Or don't I understand the law correctly?
Re:So the RIAA know that the packets are encrypted (Score:2, Interesting)
Sadly not. IANAL and all that, but as I understand it, the relevant part of the DMCA says that if you own the copyright in something and you put some sort of access control on it, such as encryption, it's illegal for someone else to circumvent that access control. Clearly, p2p users don't own the copyright in all those Britney Spears tracks that they're swapping, so the DMCA doesn't apply here. The RIAA may have to get a court order to intercept p2p communications, but they're entirely within their rights to break any encryption that might be in use.
For those who enjoy tweaking lawyers' noses, create a file that's about the right size to be an MP3. (They use about a megabyte per minute at 128Kbit/s.) Something like an uncompressed high-resolution photograph of you at your desk should do. Encrypt it with rot13 or xor63. Then call it something like Metallica-Enter Sandman.mp3 and share it on every p2p network you can find. When the lawyers come calling, remind them that they have to prove that the file really is a Metallica track. When they break your encryption and find that the file isn't what they thought it was, countersue them for violating the DMCA.
Just a thought...
More info, links (Score:3, Informative)
ZDNet story [zdnet.com]
CNet story [cnet.com]
Interesting story at BBC News [bbc.co.uk]
Unexpected...no (Score:5, Informative)
One thing that interests me, however, is that KaZaA is much more than audio file sharing. You can download audio, video, software, images and documents, and only one of those categories applies to the RIAA. I suppose it only takes one category, but it's interesting that no other companies or industry representives have become involved (yet, to my knowledge). I wouldn't be too amazed if the MPAA joined the fray, not to mention numerous software companies.
The thing is...how long can this go on for? Someone sets up a filesharing network. The RIAA sues them, bringing their vast financial resources to bear, which means that any other resources they require can be bought. They close-mindedly bring about the destruction or complete alteration of the network, not taking into account many technicalities like the way that Napster was demonstrated to actually boost CD sales, and that the server owners should not be held responsible for the traffic on their network, just as ISPs cannot. But in this time, another network has popped up in its place. In fact, several networks.
How long can this continue? Surely the RIAA must realise that it is a futile proposition (at present) to attempt to take down every filesharing network that may allow access to copyrighted material? I suppose that's why they are attempting to pass more and more fascist laws, and are encouraging other countries to do the same, in order to maintain their somewhat archaically-based real-world manopoly. Surely there must be an easier way for record companies etc to protect their copyrights, within reason, but to allow filesharing like this within reason as well (and I'm not specifically thinking of subscription). It seems that the RIAA, MPAA et al, rather than go with the flow and try new avenues of profit on the net, are attempting to stand firm in a present system that is rapidly becoming a part of the past. I am reminded of the SG-1 Archive [sg1archive.com], which was recently featured in Showtime's magazine (since Showtime produces Stargate SG-1), where the site was apparently hailed as a source of information on the series, and yet a couple of weeks later the webmaster received a CAD letter from the MPAA and was forced to remove the episodes available for download. This would not be a problem, legally speaking, if Showtime had objected to the site; but they hadn't. They had praised it. Apparently the MPAA is simply doing the rounds, attempting to scare everyone into submission, and sue those who are brazen enough to resist, despite the wishes of the people producing the actual material (who the Stargate SG-1 copyrights actually belong to I am not entirely certain, but I believe it is MGM/Showtime) [mgm.com].
Having said that, I fearlessly and without disclaimer (partly because slashdot thinks my IP is a 203.97 subnet, which it's not) acknowledge that all the software and mp3s on my computer are pirated, and that I feel little remorse. Being what I hope is a morally upright person, this disturbs me somewhat, but when I see the sort of things that Microsoft, the RIAA, the MPAA etc do, and the tactics they resort to, I seem to feel a lot better. As a writer, I put a certain value on intellectual property, and I also accept that people will copy and distribute my work illegally. This doesn't bug me particularly, partly because I'd be a hypocrite if it did, and partly because people will still buy my work, despite those who pirate it. When I look at how bloated with money MS, RIAA etc are, I hardly feel sympathic.
disclaimer My ideas and arguments are subject to minor alteration depending on circumstances, and are probably slightly bigoted and not as balanced as those that I normally produce. Taken completely objectively, you may well be able to tear holes in them. If you feel the inclination to do this I would be appreciative, as I am still formulating my own opinions in this matter; however, I ask that you don't flame simply for the sake of flaming...it doesn't tend to be conducive to constructive conversation.
Hook, line, and sinker (Score:5, Insightful)
If I claimed that the internet was technically illegal because you could use it to distribute copyrighted music or child porn, you'd think I was an idiot.
And yet you've bought in completely to the "sending files from one computer to another is morally wrong" claim, just under a different name. And all of the implicit assumptions that could justify that claim, "A tool is evil if it can be used to do evil things", "The RIAA owns everything that can be encoded as a sound file", did they manage to convince you of those too?
Re:Hook, line, and sinker (Score:2, Troll)
And all of the implicit assumptions that could justify that claim, "A tool is evil if it can be used to do evil things",
Wrong. A tool is evil if it is primarily used to do evil things. Machine guns are illegal, even though it's "just a tool". In many places, switchblades are illegal even though they are "just a tool".
The primary purpose of KaZaA et al is the illegal trading of music. 0.1% legitimate use doesn't excuse the other 99.9%.
Re:Hook, line, and sinker (Score:2)
Re:Unexpected...no (Score:2)
This poster clearly hasn't even bothered to read the article, where it is clearly stated that the MPAA are on board with this, and yet he still gets modded up as "insightful"? Hilarious or scary?
Re:Unexpected...no (Score:3, Funny)
Shhh, don't tell anyone, but I only read half of it myself before I started hammering out my own rants. Just between you and me, eh? ;-)
so when are they going after Google? (Score:3, Interesting)
FastTrack Not located in the Netherlands (Score:3, Informative)
According to the article FastTrack is supposed to be in the Netherlands... It definitely is not. Although there is a site called FastTrack.NL it has nothing to do with the software used by Grokster, Kazaa and Morpheus.
According to the whois info it is a Chattsworth CA based company.
http://www.whois.net/search.cgi2?str=fasttrack&
Look at entry #40.
Free advertising for MusicCity (Score:2, Interesting)
During the 2 odd years they took to tie napster into a legally binding state of disrepair, the Napster network grew almost 10 fold in size.
Finally, when it died, everyone just migrated to gnutella for a month or two, before they realised it was S*it slow, and moved onto MusicCity....
Now the process seems to be repeating. All MusicCity has to do is move it's entire advertising budget into it's legal department, and wait until every person on the street starts associating them with "Music sharing".
You'd think the RIAA would've learnt from before, and be looking at ways to work WITH the community.
Computer Software has been pirated since day 1, yet Bill Gates, chairman of a company which makes Computer Software is the richest person in the world. I would say this is some pretty compelling evidence indicating that people pirating your music/software isn't nessessarily a bad thing.
On the flipside, the powers that be have done a pretty good job strangling the DVD market here in Australia. We are charged royalties on BLANK DVD-Roms.
Indicitive costs of DVDs in AU:
One blank DVD: $30
Die Hard on DVD: $35
Why would you pirate? (Thank god for DivX)
Someone whip out the DMCA quick... (Score:3, Insightful)
The FastTrack network designates (perhaps automatically) certain peers - more powerful computers with high-bandwidth connections - as "supernodes." [because of the system's encrypted communication, we are unable to determine how supernodes are designated].
I would love to see them suddenly understand how the supernodes work and the FastTrack developers sue for an incredible amount. It would be nice to see Slashdot's favorite law get used to help the little guy once.
Re:Someone whip out the DMCA quick... (Score:2)
Re:Someone whip out the DMCA quick... (Score:2)
So... (Score:2)
"We have to get our customers back"?! (Score:2)
---
Hello? "we have to get our customers back"? What the heck is THAT supposed to mean?
Are we supposed to merrily spend our money on whatever fucked up business plan THEY find suitable? I wonder how much longer it will take for them to realise that the bird's out of the cage.
From the article, Hillary Rosen says .... (Score:5, Insightful)
More like *drag* their customers back, kicking and screaming the whole way. Hello, maybe you should ask yourself why you've lost your customers in the first place?
I am NOT paying $17 for a copy of Eve6's CD.
FastTrack deserves what it gets. (Score:2)
Check out giFT [sourceforge.net] and the GUI kift [sourceforge.net].
This network is a lot better than gnutella, faster and more reliable, really good.
I have been using it with joy, very good downloads, excellent. Then 5 days ago the assholes at fasttrack changed the format, centralized the access, you know NEED a central server to get the passphrase. No more decentralized network. It was called a "security update"
So, I hope they DIE a horrible legal death, greedy sobs. No compassion.
The companies involved have NO interest in a free client at all.
Read the whole story at the homepage of giFT:
http://gift.sourceforge.net/press_9_29_01.html [sourceforge.net]
A good thing? (Score:2)
In the year 2525... (Score:2, Interesting)
Napster is turned into a pathetic excuse for a service and looses all users. The users then flock to other alternatives (Morpheus, Grokster, et. al) and these become the shining beacons in file sharing. Then they go after them and shut them down. 9 more alternatives popup which are quickly shut down. Then 27, 81, 243 then thousands of file sharing programs ream the planet and nobody can keep up.
In the meantime, the RIAA shuts down all playing of CDs on computers by copy-protecting them. DVDs are banned from computer players as well. So much for that multi-media concept. Your computer is back to being a system that runs software, but forget about running anything except Winamp playing MP3s that are deemed "acceptable" (whatever that means and whatever Barry Manillow songs you can download from the web).
I still fail to see any proof that Napster or any of these file sharing programs (central based or not) are making any impact on the reduced sales of music media. If anything that has been learned by this fairly time wasting effort it's that Napster promoted the songs and artists and let people make more informed decisions about buying or not buying that album. The RIAA should treat this as an educational lesson not an attack. The artists should look at it as a godsend and start making albums that have content that people want, not just filler material to cram onto a 12 song CD.
Of course this battle will go on forever. We have open source alternatives, engines and libraries that allow anyone with a compiler and half a brain to make the next Napster. So for every one the RIAA shuts down, three more will be right around the corner to replace it. If you can't beat them, then join them. What's next? Let's shut down Google, Alta Vista and Yahoo because they allow people to search for music (just like Napster, Morpheus, etc.) and you can download copyright material right to your hard drive! Oh my. What is the world coming to.
Wake up RIAA. You're just pissing more people off and you can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting.
liB
Huh? (Score:2)
"I know you want your new businesses to be successful. So do I. Given the overwhelming volume of these alternative services, RIAA can't handle all of the enforcement alone. If they are not controlled more effectively and consumers redirected to legitimate offerings, there won't be new businesses. That's obvious," Rosen continued.
So although it's the customers who are considered to be the actual ones 'violating copyrighted works', we're going to litigate the technology companies who provide all those degenerates the method to 'violate copyrights' in an effort to win back all those degenerates as paying customers once again? That does not make sense to me. Besides, college students are probably RIAA's biggest customer base in the first place, so screwing them over by getting rid of their favorite technology toys sounds like a bad business decision, despite whatever laws you may be trying to uphold. And it's pretty clear that the RIAA is in it for the money, not for protecting artist's interests.
The game has changed (Score:5, Informative)
A few personal examples. My grandfather was a professional signwriter. Not so long ago if you needed a sign above a shop, for instance, you used to have to go to a signwriter, who would labouriously paint it by hand. There are of course very few of them about nowadays because there are so many other ways to create signs. A perverse way of looking at this would be to think that the signwriter profession has been 'robbed' of its rightful earnings because bad technology has made them irrelevant.
My grandmother was a double entry book-keeper, a kind of accountant's clerk. She would labourously enter figures by hand into big books, do sums and checks to make sure everything was correct. My grandmothers profession has also been 'robbed' of its earnings because it has been made irrelevant by those bad computers.
The men and women of the record companies have made money in the past by promoting music, making copies of it and distributing it. Their profession has been made irrelevant because the Internet means that anyone can promote, copy and distribute music at virtually zero cost. They are desperately trying to stop this happening, but being a record company is becoming just as irrelevant as being a signwriter or double entry book-keeper.
In the short-term the record companies will use their financial power to get bad laws passed which will slow this natural development down. But in the longer term, sorry folks, but you're history.
Re:The game has changed (Score:3, Insightful)
OK. Back to the original and fundamental point of my email: "The rules have changed". This is going to affect people in all kinds of professions, and it is going to seem unfair and unjust to many of them.
What rules have changed?
1) There is now virtually zero cost associated with duplicating certain products.
2) There is now virtually zero cost associated with distributing certain products.
3) There is now virtually zero cost associated with promoting certain products.
Of course, we can create technical enclosures where the above rules don't work. But unless we turn around progress, like the Luddites wanted to do, we cannot get rid of the above new rules. They are here to stay.
So what will this mean in practice? The record companies will have their technologies where the new rules don't work, and for a while that will slow their death. But the young kids of 2020 who want to be a famous pop group will know that if they make a great tune, record it, put it on the right web sites, email it to their friends, they'll know that if they are really good their fame will spread like wildfire and they'll get rich and famous, not from selling individual songs but from ad revenue on their web site, from mechandising, from product tie-ins, from playing live and giving live web concerts, etc...
Look at history. There are hundreds of examples of the rules changing which dramatically affect the way people make their income. It is only relatively recently that musicians have been able to sell a physical manifestation of their music - before they had to make their money by other means. The rules are changing again, and the artist and musician of the future will make their money in a different way than those of today. It might be technically possible for the musician of the future to use an uncopiable format, but they won't do it because it just won't be relevant any more and will be a restriction rather than a benefit.
Re:The game has changed (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not about the copying. It's about the product. The product has lost its value, yet they still charge the same price.
It's like what would happen if we changed from highly-controlled currency to "maple leaves" as currency. Eventually, the value of a "leaf" drops through the floor.
And as for the artists, there is a glut of highly talented performers and songwriters in the world, not a scarcity. That's why it's so hard to "break into" the industry.
So don't blame the handful of people who violate the SR copyrights. Their actions are merely a reflection of an efficient free market. There is a glut of talent and high-quality recording is now available to the masses. The value of the product has dropped, while the cost has stayed high. The result of this in an efficient market is that either fewer people will buy the product, or if demand has not waned, large numbers of people will resort to means of obtaining it at substantially less than it's worth.
The solution for the record companies is very simple. Charge less for CD's. Substantively less. I'm talking about $5-$6 per album, maximum.
What's that you say? You mean, people can't make a profit when the price is so low?
Of course they can't. And that's the point he was making. The technology has eliminated the industry.
Don't cry for me Argentina (Score:4, Interesting)
Consider the hundreds of thousands of musical artists that aren't signed to a major label. What separates them from their signed counterparts? Promotion. The money the signed artists receive isn't based on their talent, but their management's ability to drive up demand for their art through many marketing techniques. Of course one entity controlling both the supply and demand of something is a dangerous situation.
I wonder some times if the RIAA is really afraid of peer-to-peer file sharing, or something deeper. It may be that they're not just losing their ability to control the supply, but losing control of demand as well. When I found songs I likes on Napster, I would always view other songs that that user was sharing, and inevitably find more songs I liked. In many cases these songs were not artists under RIAA-member managers. Could this be what RIAA is afraid of?
Class Action, and an Alternative (Score:3, Interesting)
And the second thing I wonder about is how can we build an alternative to the record companies and their business model for the musicians? The fans and consumers are pissed off, but as long as the musicians largely stay with the record companies, then the RIAA and its ilk will still act like they control the music supply. If the musicians believe they'll starve without the record companies, then they sure won't be on our side. We need a real plan to convince the musicians that there is a better way to reach their fans.
God bless America (Score:4, Funny)
(Que background music)
Bush: God bless America - where speech is free (unless its owned by a big company) (or the government) and justice is served fairly (along as it makes money [dmca]). But now, now its being changed! changed by a small people, people who will do anything to harm the freedom. These people are called 'file sharers' They are evil hackers who roam the sea of the Internet pirating as they go. The use their ships of software to go from point2point. They steal from the poorest artists and the companies that represent them (poor artists like Jackson and struggling companies like Warner, Polydor etc.) They trade sick and pornographic images that no human should be subjected to (because no-one actually _wants_ to see Alysa Milano lesbian action) and whats more, they send plans of terrorism! Yes, thats right, Bin-Laden and the Taliban used these systems to swap images and files containing hidden plans for their terrorist attacks! These people must be stopped, they are as guilty as Bin-Laden himself! To save America you, the citizens, must vigil and report these people. Do your duty for your country and your family. If you see anyone using file sharing programs, report them to the authorities (who will have their equipment destroyed and them put in prison for a long long time) and save America. Everyone must decide: You are either against file sharing, or your with Bin Laden!! No amount of bolding and repeating, repeating! can do enough to stress the importance of this.
Thank You, and, goodnight.
Fade Out, titles
"this presidential speech is protected under federal copyright laws, reproducing it in any form without prior consent is a federal offence carrying penalties of upto (15) years imprisonment."
Re:Um, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is the general trend. Each lawsuit that the RIAA wins strengthens their future lawsuits because they now have case history. I don't know if you read the articles, but when they pointed out the legal misdoings of KaZaA, the legal arguments they cited were all taken from the Napster case.
When KazaA is taken down, there will be even more legal precedence to take these networks down. Strictly speaking, the ability to share files is not and should not be illegal. The users who share copyrighted files are the ones breaking the law.
Rather than trying to screw us out of our fair use rights (backups, ripping, etc), the RIAA and related companies should work on hitting the individual users guilty of infringment. Once a bunch of people get fined for stealing, it won't be so prevalent.
Instead, they are trying to take out the technology that makes stealing possible. This may work in the long run, but does nothing to help the end user. If you think all of your customers are theives, then you should probably be in another business.
Captain_Frisk
Re:peaceful fight back - use different 'weapons' (Score:3)
And who really benefits from this? The people who are using it for society damaging illegal activities. In this level of perverse logic, the RIAA is helping create a superflu that undermines society. (Yes, it is a slippery slope argument and yes, it is only done partly tongue-in-cheek).