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

 


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

The Law and P2P 245

Posted by michael from the before-the-law dept.
Anonymous Coward writes "Here's some interesting legal commentary on the continuing saga of copyright enforcement and Apple's attempt at a constructive approach."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Law and P2P More

The Law and P2P

Comments Filter:

  • New bill will be out (Score:5, Funny)

    by SpanishInquisition ( 127269 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:08PM (#5911323) Homepage Journal
    Available on Kazaa soon

  • Wait a min... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jonfromspace ( 179394 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `snikliwnoj'> on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:08PM (#5911324)
    I was under the impression that iTunes was Client/Server, not P2P... How does it possibly relate to Napster/Kazaa/Gnutella, etc.

    They are more akin to Amazon.com no?

    • Re:Wait a min... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by B3ryllium ( 571199 )
      I think P2P has become a blanket term for any sort of file sharing, not just those based on a true peer-to-peer network model.

      My own BeShare server [beryllium.ca] is client-server [lcscanada.com], for instance ....

      • Re:Wait a min... (Score:5, Funny)

        by Bendy Chief ( 633679 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:29PM (#5911525) Homepage Journal
        No no no, you've got it all wrong... the blanket term is "Napster-like theft ring" nowadays. :)

    • Re:Wait a min... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Abm0raz ( 668337 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:36PM (#5911594) Journal
      Did you RTFA? If you had, you would have noted the "Compare and Contrast" nature. For brevity's sake:

      Compare =({"music", "file-sharing"});
      Contrast = ({"p2p", "client-server", "free/$.99"});

      It also compared them to other RIAA sanctioned online music systems that are failing miserably because of their price structure. The fact that the article finishes with a very viable (IMO) business model that would not only increase the distribution and profits for the MPAA and RIAA backers, but also lower the price for consumers is a welcome change from the rampant "RIAA BAD! MPAA BAAAAAD!" arguments I see.

      The article is a how-to for both sides. It points out the flaws of failed file sharing systems as well as what the current ones are doing right (and why the corporate strongmen hate them for it). It also looks at the other side as to why the corporate anti-piracy measures and their on-line distribution methods are both failing and why Apple sold 1,000,000 songs in it's first week.

      From the article, only apple users can use their service. Apple has 4% of the computer market. I'd guess about 20% of the world is on the net. 5,000,000,000 people on the planet. This leads to:

      5,000,000,000 * .2 * .04 = 40,000,000

      At 1 million songs, that's 1 song for every 40 MAC users. Now consider that MACs have a heavy niche in primary and secondary education facilities where kids under the age of 18 can't use the service or in college computer labs where the users can't keep the songs or play them at their fancy (at least not like a home computer). All in all, the overwhelming early success of MACs new service shows that at a reasonable price, people ARE willing to pay for music online, but only if it is quality sounding, fairly priced, and their's to own after purchase.

      • [rant]
        MPAA = Motion Picture Association of America
        RIAA = Recording Industry Association of Ameria
        MAC = ???

        Why do people insist upon putting that in caps? It's a abbreviation of Macintosh, not an acronym for Most Approachable Computer or something.
        [/rant]
      • I thought it was just because Mac users will overpay for anything [bbspot.com].

    • Re:Wait a min... (Score:2, Informative)

      by jspoon ( 585173 )
      It isn't mentioned in the article, but iTunes now has peer to peer streaming of music. You can share your library or specific playlists and let people access those lists over the internet or LAN (using Rendezvous) and choose songs to play. This feature effects me more than does the music store, and I think it has lot's of cool implications for more legal music sharing.

  • Hmm (Score:3, Funny)

    by B3ryllium ( 571199 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:09PM (#5911329) Homepage
    I'd read that article, but isn't it copyrighted by the person who wrote it?

    I wouldn't want to break the law or anything ....

    • Re:Hmm (Score:4, Funny)

      by k3v0 ( 592611 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:11PM (#5911363) Journal
      you can read it, you just have to forget it as soon as you are done
      • But I have a squid cache on my LAN - not only will the document be copied to Netscape's cache, it will be stored on the squid server, too!

        Mucho copyright infringement, I could get sued or something. Ack!

      • Re:Hmm (Score:2, Funny)

        by Blackbird01 ( 517367 )
        Done and done. I read the article and then read two more that were linked from the first one. All I remember is that the Senator that is proposing new P2P "fight back" legislation looks earily familiar to Sen. Kelly from the two X-Men movies...

    • Re:Hmm (Score:2, Funny)

      by psylent ( 638032 )
      this is slashdot. You don't have to read the article (you are new here aren't you?)
  • I understood that the decision rested primarily on the fact that these networks were determined to have significant uses other than copyright infringement, rather than their distributedness? Am I wrong, or is this article wrong?

    • Both (Score:5, Informative)

      by nosilA ( 8112 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:17PM (#5911412)
      The distributedness was really the clencher though. Basically, the opinion states that Morpheus and Grokster had no ability to prevent copyrighted files from being shared due to the nature of the network. This, of course, requires that there were significant other uses than copyright infringement.

      -Alison
      • Am I the only one who read the article and came away thinking, "Well, duuuuh?"

        IANAL, but this really looks like common sense.

        Oh wait, the **AAs have none of that. Gee, this ruling IS interesting.

    • Re:Non-infringing uses? (Score:4, Informative)

      by johnnick ( 188363 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:19PM (#5911432)
      While the Napster decision may have rested on that (didn't read the decision), that wouldn't qualify as a difference between Napster and Grokster/Morpheus. Because Napster was client-server as opposed to true P2P, Napster as a company was found to know about and also to be able to prevent copyright infringement. Since they could've done something, and since shutting them down stopped the problem, they were rightly (IMHO) held liable.

      Grokster/Morpheus, OTOH, because they are pure P2P, are more like copy machines. They have substantial non-infringing uses and there is no way for the manufacturer to know whether a user is copying an item in violation of a copyright.

      If, for example, record companies included some kind of encryption in their files that would prevent them from being played without some kind of key, and if Grokster/Morpheus included in their software some ability to strip out that encryption, then Grokster/Morpheus would be violating the DMCA, and might also be held liable for copyright infringement.

      John

    • Re:Non-infringing uses? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Sylver Dragon ( 445237 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:24PM (#5911480) Journal
      Each was a part of the ruling. In the Grokster/Morpheus (G/M for brevity) ruling it was found that the programs from G/M did have significant non-infringing uses, but this in itself does not free them from the Contributory/Vicarious infringment charge by itself. They also had to show that they did not have a right and responsibility to police the network. This is where the distributed nature of the network came into play. G/M have really no way to watch over what is traded on the network, they do not, in fact, control it really. They have no way to kick off a user who is abusing the network. As such, the judge in the case found that they did not have a right and responsibility to police the network. It was the combination of the two things that made for the not-guilty ruling. If either test had failed, then G/M would have been shut down, just like Napster.

  • /. proof mirror (Score:5, Informative)

    by cultobill ( 72845 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:13PM (#5911374)
    Sorry, no links.

    Why Grokster and Morpheus Won, Why Napster Lost, and What the Future of Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Looks Like Now
    By CHRIS SPRIGMAN
    ----
    Thursday, May. 08, 2003

    On April 25, in M-G-M v. Grokster, U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson dismissed a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by a group of movie studios and record companies against Grokster and Morpheus. (Grokster and Morpheus are peer-to-peer services that enable users to share copyrighted music, movies, and other content over the Internet without paying a dime to the copyright owners.)

    Many observers were surprised. They had assumed that Grokster and Morpheus would - like Napster in A&M Records v. Napster - be shut down for facilitating individual file sharers' copyright infringement. But Judge Wilson, after carefully examining the underlying technology, found that though users' infringement was occurring, Grokster and Morpheus were not contributing to or authorizing it. Thus, they could not be held liable.

    The decision is obviously bad news for Hollywood studios and record companies. If it is upheld on appeal, they will continue to face wide-scale infringement of their copyrights.

    If the decision is indeed upheld on appeal, will that be good news for consumers? That is a more complicated question. The answer depends heavily on Hollywood's reaction. Will it continue its battle on other fronts - focusing perhaps not on the services, but on their users? Or will it, instead, launch new strategies to take advantage of the powerful business opportunities that peer-to-peer might provide?

    Comparing and Contrasting Grokster, Morpheus, and Napster

    To see what is likely to occur in the future, it's helpful first to take a closer look at the differences between Grokster, Morpheus, and Napster.

    First, Grokster. It offers for download a branded version of software owned by Sharman Networks, a company incorporated in Vanuatu - a remote Pacific island chain that markets itself as protecting corporate secrecy.

    When a user boots the software, his computer is directed to sign on to a "root supernode" (a server owned by Sharman), which then directs the user to a "local supernode." The "local supernode" is some user's computer, which has been temporarily designated to route file-sharing requests among a large number of other users. (A particular user's computer may function as a local supernode one day but not the next; the process is largely invisible to the user).

    Suppose a Grokster user requests a certain file - it could be a song, a movie clip, a video game, or an e-book. His search request is relayed among a large number of local supernodes and on to individual users. Once the requested file is found, it is transferred directly between the users.

    Now let's look at Morpheus. Its software is based on the Gnutella peer-to-peer platform, built from "open source" code. Morpheus users connect to the Gnutella network by contacting another user who is already connected. (This initial connection is usually made by linking to a computer on the network that maintains a constantly changing list of IP addresses for certain currently active nodes.)

    The Gnutella network is a "pure" peer-to-peer network - composed of users running Gnutella-compatible software such as LimeWire, BearShare and Shareaza. It does not use supernodes. Instead, user search requests are passed from user to user in the network until the requested file is found. The file is then transferred directly between the two users.

    So what's the difference between Grokster and Morpheus, on one hand, and Napster, on the other? It is this: when Grokster and Morpheus users search for and receive digital files, they do so without information being relayed to or by any computer owned or controlled by Grokster or Morpheus. Thus, as the district court noted, if Grokster or Morpheus shut down, their users could continue to share files with little or no disruption.

    In contrast, Napster users relayed se

    • Re:/. proof mirror (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Timesprout ( 579035 )
      The decision is obviously bad news for Hollywood studios and record companies

      Doubt it. More like bad news for a lot of people sharing copyrighted material who can start expecting to hear from the legal attack dogs shortly
      • I think it's hilarious when people read the article in a post then respond to the post as though it was its own information. As if people on Slashdot will read random posts but not the article itself.
  • I hope that Apple sees the chance to pull in some extra revenue, and ports this to PC. I doubt anyone would switch to a Mac just because of iTunes, but it'd give them an extra stream of cash if they let PC users share in the goodness.

    While $10 is still higher than I'd spend for most craptacular CDs, it is a reasonable fee. I'd love to be able to just download the new Metallica CD as soon as it comes out, legitimately.

    • Re:Nifty Apple Service (Score:3, Informative)

      by oneishy ( 669590 )
      Read the article: "Apple has announced that it is adding additional music to its library, and will introduce a version of its service for Windows machines by year-end."
    • I hope that Apple sees the chance to pull in some extra revenue, and ports this to PC. I doubt anyone would switch to a Mac just because of iTunes, but it'd give them an extra stream of cash if they let PC users share in the goodness.

      From the Article:
      Meanwhile, Apple has announced that it is adding additional music to its library, and will introduce a version of its service for Windows machines by year-end.

      There you go...

      While $10 is still higher than I'd spend for most craptacular CDs, it is a re

  • Download AND Pay? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Malicious ( 567158 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:16PM (#5911406)
    This is a great idea that would be embraced by the public... until someone asked:
    Why would i pay to download music on one service, that i can download for free on another?

    • Re:Download AND Pay? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tokerat ( 150341 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:27PM (#5911507) Journal

      Guarenteed quality. Guarenteed speed. Instant preview streaming. No one cuts off your download because they're shutting down, or just being an asshole. Guarenteed complete albums. Cover art. Exclusive artist news and videos which are also free with the service.

      $0.99 isn't exactly rock bottom prices, but it's better than going to a store and dropping $19 for the one track you like, and it's way better than sitting on the computer for 3 days trying to find a reliable download on Gnutella.

      I just tired the iTunes store yesterday, and it's BETTER than I thought it would be, and I'm a die-hard Mac user. Honestly, I have no idea why it took so long for someone to get it right, and all sly remarks about "leave it to Apple to show you how it's really done" aside, I'm glad it's been done, and prehaps this whole "Threat of the Digital Age" bullshit can finally be the fuck over with.

      • Re:Download AND Pay? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by yy1 ( 238590 )

        just tired the iTunes store yesterday, and it's BETTER than I thought it would be, and I'm a die-hard Mac user. Honestly, I have no idea why it took so long for someone to get it right, and all sly remarks about "leave it to Apple to show you how it's really done" aside, I'm glad it's been done, and prehaps this whole "Threat of the Digital Age" bullshit can finally be the fuck over with.

        The reason noone else did it right before was because they (RIAA Cartel) wouldn't license anyone else to do it. Some

        • Even if you don't pay for they tracks you are supposed to be buying, the RIAA still has you because they tend to limit the exposure of the artists you have access to. They push one with so much hype to make quick sales and then go to the next artist.

          If you really like to listen to music, then listen to the music, not the artist. There's plenty to choose from. Just pick your favorite genre [iuma.com] and listen. You have permission to download these songs for personal enjoyment. However, if you really like the artist'
      • Guarenteed quality. Guarenteed speed. Instant preview streaming. No one cuts off your download because they're shutting down, or just being an asshole. Guarenteed complete albums. Cover art. Exclusive artist news and videos which are also free with the service.

        Very true. An analogy: which is more desirable, eating at a chain restaurant with a consistent branding and franchising scheme or eating at Billy's Roadkill Shack? Maybe this week's roadkill is really good...then gain, maybe not.

    • Re:Download AND Pay? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Mononoke ( 88668 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:29PM (#5911520) Homepage Journal
      This is a great idea that would be embraced by the public... until someone asked: Why would i pay to download music on one service, that i can download for free on another?
      You're absolutely right!

      Why, just the other day I was thinking about how Home Depot leaves those crates of stuff out front and how I should just drive by after midnight and take what I wanted. Why pay, right? Then there was this time driving through a school zone. I went 40MPH, just because I felt like it.

      I hope my neighbor doesn't mind me parking on his lawn, because, well, Why Not? Right?

      • Re:Download AND Pay? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JudgeFurious ( 455868 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:48PM (#5911693)
        I don't think he'll mind you parking there since really, if you think about he's not out anything. His lawn's still there, albeit under your car and there should be ample time for the grass to get sunlight and water during those times you're at work or just out using your car. I say go for it.

        Since Napster was cranking along I've been downloading what I wanted and just flat out not caring whether it was stealing or not. I'm 37 years old and the record labels have been bending me over for music for decades so right or wrong I just plain didn't give a fuck what they thought. I always said that I wasn't going to give them $15 or $20 for one song on a CD that sucked and that if I had a legal and affordable alternative I would be glad to pay for it. Well now I do and I am. .99 a song is fine. The quality is fine. The freedom to do what I want with my freshly bought track is adequat for my needs.

        I'll pay to download from Apple instead of searching for it on Kazaa because it's the correct thing to do. Put-up or Shut-up time for those of us who said "we would if they would...".
        • I'll pay to download from Apple instead of searching for it on Kazaa because it's the correct thing to do. Put-up or Shut-up time for those of us who said "we would if they would...".

          I'd love to... but I have to pay $1000.00 or more to get started using their service....

          you see all I have is INTEL based machines running linux and 1 running W2k for video editing.. and apple isn't interested in my demographic because I am not a mac owner.

          Sorry but they surely could have rolled it out for all platforms at
      • > Why, just the other day I was thinking about how Home Depot leaves those crates
        > of stuff out front and how I should just drive by after midnight and take what I
        > wanted. Why pay, right?

        Actually that is a very good question.
        I do realize the intent of your post, so this is sorta 'side tracking', but let me ask you this:

        If you could 'take' a crate worth of stuff from Home Depot, yet both a) home depot was not at all deprived of the crate, and b) they had no idea you now have the same stuff from t
      • I hope my neighbor doesn't mind me parking on his lawn, because, well, Why Not? Right?

        Well, in the South, your neighbor's car would get in the way. Sorry to spoil your mischievous plot.
    • > until someone asked:
      > Why would i pay to download music on one service, that i can download for free
      > on another?

      For the same reason a company would use one service to have a person killed (legal system) vs another (doing it themselfs for free)
      One is alot more annoying, in this case killing someone else yourself for free. You have to go through all the work of not getting caught and covering it up etc etc.
      If you got your ends through means that people dont complain about, its generally easier e

    • Re:Download AND Pay? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:49PM (#5911703) Homepage Journal
      "Why would i pay to download music on one service, that i can download for free on another? "

      Why would you go to Starbucks and buy a coffee when you could make your own? Simple: you get your coffee quicker with more consistent quality. $.99 buys you a fast download plus really good search capabilities.
    • Then someone else asked - why would I download something for free when I could help out the artist I really like.

      Do you run out of restaurants all the time without leaving tips? You could, but why? Sometimes you want to give someone something because you appreciate what they've done. It just happens to work out nicely with music that I can give a little bit to someone who wrote something I like and in return I can keep the song... while the masses of people who write stuff I don't care for get nothing,

  • Dragged kicking and screaming... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sanity ( 1431 ) * on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:17PM (#5911413) Homepage Journal
    The entertainment industry always needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into new business models. Look at how hard they fought against VCRs, and now 2/3rds of their revenue comes from video sales and rentals.

    It is quite likely that at some point the music industry will end up making more money out of Internet distribution of their music than they do out of selling CDs. It is also entirely likely that they will continue fighting against P2P tooth and nail until they have exhausted all possible options.

    The problem is that right now the lawyers are making the decisions. If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and if you are a laywer - you often assume that all problems can be solved with a law suit. This mentality will likely continue to persist until it is absolutely obvious, even to the lawyers, that it can't work.

    What does this mean? Well, for one it means that we should fully expect legal attacks against users of P2P networks to continue. This will simply serve to encourage greater use of Freenet [freenetproject.org] and other future systems which protect user anonymity (Freenet still needs work to make it well suited to this task - but if there is a demand, someone will create a suitable third-party app which uses Freenet as a back end).

    After Freenet or its successors have finally demonstrated the futility of trying to use the law to halt progress in communications technology - the music industry may eventually accept that it needs to adapt, but don't hold your breath for it to happen any time soon.

    • Re:Dragged kicking and screaming... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by julesh ( 229690 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:35PM (#5911585)
      What is needed is an application that scans your MP3 (or whatever) collection, matches up artists with labels through some database and allow you to choose what you already have a paid-for copy of to remove from the list (it would store this information for later use). Then it would calculate a cost for a licence for your entire MP3 collection. A bulk discount would be applied for people with thousands. Then you could whip out your credit card and make that 10Gb legal.

      I know people who would do this if they could.
      • Then it would calculate a cost for a licence for your entire MP3 collection.

        Wow. This is probably one of the best ideas I've seen in a long, long time.

        If I had mod points, you'd my vote!
      • > matches up artists

        That's not the problem. I'd love to support the ARTISTS. I go see my favorite DJs and bands perform all the time. If they are, themselves, selling merchandise, I'll not uncommonly buy something... from the ARTIST.

        > with labels

        Therein lises the problem. The RIAA/Metallica had repeatedly and unerringly demonsteated that they do NOT, in a million years, deserve my money. I have no desire EVER to support them, their minions, or their supplicants. Any scheme (including Apple's
    • It is quite likely that at some point the music industry will end up making more money out of Internet distribution of their music than they do out of selling CDs. It is also entirely likely that they will continue fighting against P2P tooth and nail until they have exhausted all possible options.

      Agreed. Wouldn't it be funny and ironic if they realized someday that p2p had become their real cash cow and that cd sales were actually affecting their p2p revenues adversely, prompting them to go on an eno

  • Apple's (& RIAA's) long-term plan (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pyrosophy ( 259529 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:19PM (#5911430)
    Sell at $1 a song until business gets sluggish, then surprise users with a $20 a month, download-all-the-songs-you-want subsription service. Everyone goes gah-gah because they have been paying $100-a-binge for songs and signs up for the service. Mac users revel in the fantastic deal they're getting from Jobs.

    RIAA now has the business model it wants, though Apple gets a small cut, in that instead of people paying $17 a few times a year for a cd, they now have them automatically paying $240 a year. Cell-phone pricing syndrome has everyone blissfully unaware that they are paying way more than they ever wanted to in the first place and the RIAA uses the extra dough to have public executions of P2P software engineers.
    • Steve's said on more than one occasion that subscriptions suck, which is why iTunes is structured the way it is. Why would anyone buy music that goes away if you don't re-up every month?
    • Actually what's going to happen is that Napster is going to reform, retool and re-appear on the scene letting users download any and all music for $0.10 per song with no DRM restrictions using lossless open source audio compression techniques. The RIAA will take them to court, be defeated, and all of it's members will be jailed for being jerks to music lovers.

      Naturally I have no evidence to back up these wild claims.

      Which is exactly the same amount of evidence you have for claiming that Apple and the RIAA are going to pull a PressPlay on its customers.

      Here's a concept: Maybe they're the first people to do this thing correctly. Maybe in a year's time everyone will be doing it this way. Maybe all non-Mac users will look back on the fact that Apple led the way with this model and laugh nervously and rapidly change the subject. Kind of like they do with most of the other innovative firsts to come out of Cupertino.
    • RIAA now has the business model it wants, though Apple gets a small cut, in that instead of people paying $17 a few times a year for a cd, they now have them automatically paying $240 a year. Cell-phone pricing syndrome has everyone blissfully unaware that they are paying way more than they ever wanted to in the first place and the RIAA uses the extra dough to have public executions of P2P software engineers.

      This is not automatically true. I remeber when AOL did this sort of switch (yes, I was at one ti
    • Cell-phone pricing syndrome has everyone blissfully unaware that they are paying way more than they ever wanted to in the first place

      Not unaware, they are just too stupid to care. Not everyone (although it sure does frickin seem like it) has a cellphone. I used to own a cell-phone when you could pay for the minutes you used. I paid $11 a month for service, and got 0 free minutes. I loved it! Why should I pay for something I don't use? I am convinced that the American public is just stupid. "Hey, I'

      • Couldn't agree more. The best cell phone to have is a quarter in your pocket.
      • The cellphone pricing plans can be quite suitable for some people.

        In the UK, for example, I pay Orange rental of GBP 50 per month (USD 80) which gives me:

        200 minutes to any UK mobile network;
        150 free SMS
        10mb GPRS transfer (emails on PDA);
        Free handset upgrade each year (I like my gadgets); and my cellphone insurance.

        I can guarantee you that my monthly bill would be a lot higher without these pricing plans - while people like yourself may see them as a con, a cellphone can be most useful, and affordable.

        Tim

    • And that is exactly how emusic operates now. $10/month, all you can eat. And it's freakin great. Fast, no hassle d/l, consistent quality.

      As has been said before, the only problem is their selection. A lot of minor/new stuff, but sadly lacking in the majors. Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc.

      Monthly is not necessarily a detriment.

  • Company execs could be jailed? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dafoomie ( 521507 ) <dafoomie@hotmail. c o m> on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:21PM (#5911441) Homepage
    "And a recent article in the New York Times details quiet efforts by the major record companies to develop software programs that would interfere with - and, in some cases, damage - computers engaged in file sharing.

    Of course, resorting to such extreme measures would almost certainly inflame public opinion. And, as George Washington University Law School Professor Orin Kerr has argued, it might even land a few record company executives in jail, absent Congressional immunity for such tactics, which (believe it or not) has been proposed."

    I personally would love to see this happen, if they damage my computer, I want the bastards in jail. If somebody came into a music store and stole a bunch of cd's, they can't just break into their house and smash them - along with anything else they might believe is stolen, they'd have to notify the authorities. I'm not trying to defend copyright infringement here, but two wrongs do not make a right.

  • Executive Summary: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by foo fighter ( 151863 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:24PM (#5911475) Homepage
    Napster was ruled against because it isn't really P2P; requests went through a central server.

    Grokster and Morpheus were not ruled against because they are really P2P; if the backend companies shut down the users wouldn't be affected.

    Previous attempts at online music services failed because they were too expensive and too restrictive.

    Apple's online music service will not fail because it is not expensive and not restrictive.

    The media industries should follow Apple's lead.

    IMO, this article wasn't that interesting, nor that informative. It was yet another summation of the story thus far. At least it was a quick read.
    • "Napster was ruled against because it isn't really P2P; requests went through a central server."

      It was P2P in the sense that the users provided the content and did the transferring. Napster didn't make the content availble, they just made it searchable.

      I understand your point, but Napster did have some defense by claiming that the users were the ones making the stuff available to download. I'm not saying they were right, just saying the argument could be made.

    • Re:Executive Summary (Score:2, Interesting)

      by achbed ( 97139 )
      I have an problem with this analysis of the Grokster/Morpheus ruling. The dismissal of each suit was for slightly different reasons, which will have a major impact on Sharman Networks and all sublicensors of their technology.

      Neither company operates "supernodes", which facilitate entry into the P2P network. Grokster does rely on Sharman to operate a "supernode" for all clients attaching to the KaZaa network. Once connected, the clients do not go through this central machine. According to the logic of the r

  • Sick of Kazaa (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jetkust ( 596906 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:27PM (#5911508)
    Seriously. I generally use Kazaa to bypass having to deal with the post office, or having to spend forever looking in a record store which almost certianly won't have the CD i'm looking for, and even if they did, would miscategorize it anyway. And Kazaa, when it comes down to it, is generally a lot of repetative work for me because of the unreliable download sources.

    This is why i think Apple has something here. They built the perfect method of buying music, addressing concerns of all other methods. Reasonable price, Choice of song instead of choice of album, No days of waiting for delivery,easy to find,ability to burn to cd,reliable,easy to use, music sampling, no financial commitment.

    I want in. Too bad don't have a mac or an ipod though.

  • Apple's success hurts fair use (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Logic Bomb ( 122875 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @12:43PM (#5911645)
    I'm very much enjoying the iTunes Music Service. However, for pure fair use ideology it presents an extremely unpleasant development. The existence of a "balanced" solution that succeeds in the market means the general public will not feel compelled to challenge awful laws like the DMCA. A lot of people have to get very unhappy about something for, say, Congress to take notice and take action. If the cries of disgust are isolated to the geek sector, nothing is going to change.

    Folks like the recording industry are mostly out for short-term profits (if a given executive can make his millions and get out, what does he care about the future?). However, they have probably finally realized that slowly pulling the rug out from under an unengaged public will make their long term goals easier to achieve than trying an all-at-once lockdown.

    • "The existence of a "balanced" solution that succeeds in the market means the general public will not feel compelled to challenge awful laws like the DMCA."

      Maybe that suggests that if a legal, convenient, and "balanced" online music distribution system can exist under the DMCA, then perhaps the DMCA isn't as evil and restrictive as some here would like us to believe.

      • I'd also add that if the public accepts a balanced solution then perhaps the content providers will not feel compelled to defend themselves by pushing for drastic legislation like the DMCA.

        The DMCA is the understandable backlash from the content providers in response to the rampant and widespread subversion of payment for copyrighted works that exists today. It, and the motivation behind it, wouldn't exist if the rampant piracy weren't taking place.

  • article is flawed (Score:5, Informative)

    by smd4985 ( 203677 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @01:00PM (#5911801) Homepage
    in a couple of ways, but one specifically - the author states that Gnutella does not use supernodes. in fact Ultrapeers (the gnutella term for supernodes) have been on gnutella for quite some time. there weren't as effective as hoped, but that was because of several bad iterations of implementations. things are getting better - check out any respectable (BearShare, LimeWire) gnutella servent and you'll see.

  • Here's a tactic he left out (Score:4, Informative)

    by McChump ( 218559 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @01:07PM (#5911856)
    The RIAA might just let the cops do it for them [dispatch.com].

    Be afraid, be very afraid.

  • How do the artists feel?? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CoolCash ( 528004 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @01:08PM (#5911865) Homepage
    I wonder what the pricing breakdown per song for iTunes is. What percentages are going to the Record Industry and the Artists? Since there is no cost of the physical "CD", besides advertising, promotions, etc.

    I don't think that this is necessarily a solution for the artists, but a solution for the consumers. The RIAA always talkes about how it's artists are loosing money because of P2P. I hope whatever "tax" that Apple has to pay the record industry to pay for the copyright use of these songs, that a greater percentage goes to the artist.
    • If the artists weren't getting their fair share, they'd stop whoring themselves to the RIAA. When you buy a car, are you just as worried that the guy who sewed the seats together got as fair a share as the CEO of the company?

      I know you mean well, but I think you're worrying too much. If the artists didn't feel they were getting a good, let alone fair deal, the market wouldn't be saturated with every kid who ever picked up a guitar in their parents' garage.

      Just be happy that music buyers now have a muc

  • Apple demonstrates pent up demand (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Wansu ( 846 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @01:24PM (#5912041)

    The customer was not being served by the music industry. Apple's recent Music Store opening offers ample evidence of that. It certainly has shortcomings but the overwhelmingly positive response to it clearly demonstrates that people will pay a reasonable amount to download a quality recording.

  • One major error in the article... (Score:3, Informative)

    by faedle ( 114018 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @01:27PM (#5912069) Homepage Journal
    ...regarding eMusic. In the article, he implies that eMusic's subscription model requires you to continue paying the monthly fee, otherwise your previously downloaded songs stop working.

    This is not true. eMusic's files are straight MP3s, with no DRM encumbrances. They do require you to sign up for a minimum 1-year commitment, but after that year you are free to cancel, and all the files you downloaded will continue to work just fine.

  • Get a grip (Score:3, Funny)

    by rtkluttz ( 244325 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @01:47PM (#5912228) Homepage
    I see so many articles about this but even on a law site the OBVIOUS point is still missed. These are TOOLS. Tools do not break the law, people break the law. If there is even one small legitimate use to a certain piece of software, no one should have any argument against its use even if millions are breaking the law with it. HTTP and FTP can and ARE used to host files that violate copyright. So can Windows file and print sharing, my goodness, you can even encode hidden files inside of picture files. Are all of these going to be outlawed by the government and the RIAA and MPAA? Get a grip. Go after the ones breaking the law not the tools people are using to do it.

    Moral rant *****
    ALSO just because you break the law doesn't mean your not on the moral high ground.

    Mull over the following fact:
    I am definitely to the point of refusing to buy CD's and movies because I am treated like a criminal.
    Yes... I use it. I just downloaded all of Fallen by Evanescence. I liked it so much that I went to their website and tried to find ANY method to pay them directly because I REFUSE to give any money to the RIAA. There is no way to do it there. I know there sites out there that are trying to do this but there should be the option to pay the artists directly because I want to KNOW where my money is going.
    I'm not saying I'm right and that I'm not hypocritical by doing this and finding excuses not to pay, but I'm fed up with it. There has to be another way.
    • "I liked it so much that I went to their website and tried to find ANY method to pay them directly because I REFUSE to give any money to the RIAA. There is no way to do it there."

      That's not the fault of the RIAA; it's the fault of the entertainers who whore themselves to the RIAA. If entertainers wanted to maintain control over the music they create, and sell it via their website, they wouldn't sign contracts with the RIAA.

      Don't blame the RIAA because entertainers make foolish deals with them.

  • When a user boots the software, his computer is directed to sign on to a "root supernode" (a server owned by Sharman), which then directs the user to a "local supernode."

    I've never used KaZaA or Grokster, but if the above is true, how is it that "when Grokster and Morpheus users search for and receive digital files, they do so without information being relayed to or by any computer owned or controlled by Grokster or Morpheus." is also true? If Sharman Networks were to shut down their servers, how could Gr

  • I still don't see how P2P is infringement. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ahfoo ( 223186 ) on Thursday May 08, 2003 @02:13PM (#5912500) Journal
    The Federal Code has several sections on Fair Use.
    The first section on individual Fair Use may not be all that relevant to P2P, but the second section seems to go straight to the heart of the matter.
    The second section is about Libraries and Archives. It's the Archives part that seems particularly relevant to P2P. That's what P2P is, isn't it --a distributed archive.
    Moreover, the law itself specifies what it means by a library by saying that a library is a publicly accessible non-commercial media lending facility.
    Libraries and Archives are allowed not one, not two, but three. Count them, three big copies of any copyrighted work. And what is the purpose of these three copies? Specifically, the purpose of these copies is to lend to other publicly accessible non-commercial archives.
    So, let's compare this to P2P. A hypothetical user has two copies of a copyrighted work on CD backups and another on the hard drive. That's three copies. Hmm, so far I don't see any infringement. But what's the intent. Let's see here. It appears our hypothetical user is going to lend a copy to another publicly accessible non-commercial archive.
    According to US Federal law this seems to be completely legal activity.

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX enhancements aren't.

Close