Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OpenNaps Targeted; Gnutella "Validated"

jamie posted more than 13 years ago | from the gnu-complete-me dept.

Music 333

An Anonymous Coward writes "As early as Wednesday, the RIAA has sent letters to the ISPs and operators of OpenNap servers in the U.S. which were listed on Napigator. Here's the story from ZDNET. The RIAA's letter refers to the U.S. Supreme Court decision against Napster. Given that nearly all the OpenNap servers are run by individuals who are never intending to charge for the service, this is an interesting assertion." And HyperbolicParabaloid points out this NYT story (free reg. req.) in which a lawyer says the decision "validates Gnutella" (ok, whatever, but there's also some interesting discussion about how the Sony VCR time- and space-shifting precedent fails to apply to Napster).

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Re:The cat is out of the bag, dudes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#406722)

Insightful?? Fucking hardly..

Get it through your thick skull, d00d. There is a limited supply of the SUV and you taking it removes it from someone else's possession. A COPY would not.

Shit, are people born these days simply devoid of intelligence???

Re:US != world (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#406724)

All your base are belong to US! What you say? For great justice :)

jeez soon mp3's will be gone just like warez (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#406727)

two points:
1. if you want to cash in cause your "artsy" and spend hundreds of hours in a studio, get a job, it seriously is not worth how much it costs in stores, your greedy pigs right down to the artists. i personally think when you spend 100 hours in a studio that even an acoustic set starts to sound like boring pre-recorded, layered, muzak. kudos to the independant scene that thrives on free distribution(and free distribution was done even before the internet, so this is not some "computer thing" to me as i read in one post, it is moral application to not gouge money from people when creating free expression. unless greed is what you were expressing). DIY or DIE.

2. FTP, it's the main way i get my mp3's. there is absolutely no way on the face of the earth that the RIAA can ban all use of file transfer protocol. therefore, RIAA can't effect the way I get my mp3's. i have a big list of FTP sites, and i share them with friends with similar tastes. no napster, no fancy client, no one to sue. they can shut down sites individually, sure. they just have to get court orders to seize and search all hard drives on earth. not bloody likely.

They can declare whatever they want as illegal, it is not going to have any impact on my mp3 collection nor will it effect how many mp3's i get in the future.

Gnutella is old hat (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#406728)

Go with MojoNation. It is cryptographically secure, even more decentralized than Gnutella, and is based on a very viable micropayment system.

Re:The cat is out of the bag, dudes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#406729)

To the people who are trading illegal MP3s, 1 cent is "too damn expensive". This argument that "all Napster uses are reasonable people really" just doesn't reflect human nature.

I mean, maybe all *we* are reasonable people, but have you *met* a warez d00d? They don't give a flying fuck about the artists. And they're multiplying thanks largely to lameware services like Napster.

So nice argument, but it doesn't really work. I can't imagine you persuading anyone at the RIAA with that line.

underground.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#406730)

/me wonders how long till slashdot is forced underground considering all the 'subversive' attitudes everyone seems to have :)

Re:Supreme Court decision? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#406731)

The answer is #1, because they are right. SOrry

Re:Fairtunes - yeah right. What a wanky concept (1)

drsoran (979) | more than 13 years ago | (#406733)

Fair market value? You're joking right? CDs have NEVER come down in price from when they were first introduced even though that was a big sticking point. They were more expensive than tapes and they're STILL more expensive than tapes even though they cost a fraction of what it cost to make a tape. The recording industry is fucking us up the ass if you think that is fair market value. Fair market value for a 5 cent pressed CD would be maybe $1.. $2 if at least half went to the artist.

Re:Isn't this irrelevant? (1)

jafac (1449) | more than 13 years ago | (#406734)

Yeah, that's right you MPAA and RIAA fucks! Go to hell!

Re:partners doesn't work anymore! (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 13 years ago | (#406735)

I myself registered so I lost track of the shared ones a while ago. "

Yeah, and it's an encoded cookie too, so no checking it out on the hard drive :(

Re:Copywrong (1)

MushMouth (5650) | more than 13 years ago | (#406736)

Artist's have every right to distribute their tunes however they want to. I haven't seen Napster users care in the least bit if the artist doesn't want their music pirated. It is easy to find Metalica, Aimee Mann, Courtney Love, She said that RIAA and Napster sucks, everyone seems to ignore that part rant, which was the only original part. And they do, there are many artist's who own their own record companies, Dead Kennedys, Ani Difranco, Beastie Boys to name a few, also there are record companies, Touch and Go for one, that give 50% royalties to their artists, guess what, I can find all of these bands on Napster. Either way, the record companys get a large percentage of the royalties, because they take all of the chances on the artists, they front the money for the studio, tour, equiptment (Bands get to keep the instruments, and cloths they buy with the record company allowence no matter how many records they sell). The less money that is in the music industry the less interesting music we will get. Ricky Martin's will always make money, it is people like Aimee Mann that will say "fuck this, I am going to be a web developer, that way I can get paid", then guess what the talentless /.'ers will be forced to take orders at the local BK because the real jobs will go to people with talent, and are willing to work for a living.

Offshore opennap servers safe (1)

emptybody (12341) | more than 13 years ago | (#406752)

Time to register a few 20Mb hosting sites in europe. What is the bandwidth requirements? Know any good hosting facilities where I can run opennap?

Re:Were you expecting otherwise? (1)

ethereal (13958) | more than 13 years ago | (#406755)

1.Unenforced legal rights are lost.

I don't think this is correct, at least as regards to copyrights.

2.Missed legal suits are actionable in shareholder lawsuits.

That one's much more important.

Re:Isn't this irrelevant? (1)

look (36902) | more than 13 years ago | (#406777)

Amen, brother.

Sorry I don't have anything more insightful to say but I have to catch my ride.

Mmmmmm.... (1)

ASCIIMan (47627) | more than 13 years ago | (#406782)

Time and space shifting...

I gotta get me one of those.

Brief question (1)

cyberdemo (49375) | more than 13 years ago | (#406783)

Now that napster seems to be ill-fated for good, which services do you think that could replace it in a "reasonable" way? I mean, opennap is still available (for now..) and there is gnutella, but I've never found anything besides opennap servers to be as good as the mainstream napster servers. Do you happen to know some file-sharing service that might replace napster one day?



Re:Napster users are all theiving criminal scum. (1)

cyberdemo (49375) | more than 13 years ago | (#406784)

Quick question: I own the disc. My little brother crashes the disc. Don't I have the right to, somehow, get that audio back?


Re:Napster users are all theiving criminal scum. (1)

cyberdemo (49375) | more than 13 years ago | (#406785)

Obviously, what I was saying is that you have the legal right to get that audio back, whether you download an mp3, or copy your buds' cd, whatever. You have the right to the songs in a record.



Re:Isn't this irrelevant? (1)

jacoplane (78110) | more than 13 years ago | (#406793)

Yeah fine, Gnutella has technical problems, but as you say, the RIAA will have an impossible task shutting it down in court. But then there are always alterenatives to Gnutella that have less technical problems. (Freenet, anyone [] ?)

Re:blah (1)

mikej (84735) | more than 13 years ago | (#406796)

I DO have that song on vinyl

And that's the important point. You bought that song. You paid for it. If the media on which it was stored disintegrates, it's within your rights to replace your copy. I'll be good godddamned if I'm going to pay $15-$20 for a bit of plastic, people. I pay that money for the music. The music is what's valuable to me, and the media on which it's written plays exactly the same role as the frame around the Boccioni print in my living room.

Re:Since when that is a problem? (1)

nublord (88026) | more than 13 years ago | (#406798)

New York (AP) - In an unexpected move today The New York Times shut down it's online newspaper website. "No one was reading it" said Mr. Blabberworthy, a New York Times Public Affairs representative. "The only visitor we've have since the end of Feb 2001 was someone with the username 12345678." When asked if the web site would ever be opened again in the future Mr. Blabberworthy replied "Probably not. I guess the web just isn't the 'in' thing it use to be. Sorry Mr. 12345678."

Blowed link (1)

cmoanz (88260) | more than 13 years ago | (#406799)

You guys might want to take a t out the htttp in that link to Napigator.

If you want to...


Re:The cat is out of the bag, dudes (1)

Dr. Noooo (90976) | more than 13 years ago | (#406800)

The way I have decided to deal with this situation is to let them *choke* on their music, movies, et all. If they want to charge way to much for much to little, so be it. Do not expect the Supreme Court, the U.S. Government in general, or anyone else who earns a literal fortune off of this enterprise to worry about you in the least - until your money stays in your pocket, instead of flowing into theirs. Then they will take notice. An organized boycott? Nope. Each individual should just decide that paying too much is wrong. I think the money looks better in my pocket. I can live without what they sell. Can't you? If so, *keep* your money. If not, stop complaining, as you are literally paying for them to do as they please with you. 'Nuff said, me thinks.

Re:The cat is out of the bag, dudes (1)

PerlGeek (102857) | more than 13 years ago | (#406809)

Aye, sir. I hate to write a "Me, too" message, but I don't have any moderator points, and I want you to know that you're not the only one who's made that choice.

Re:Blah. (1)

welthqa (111199) | more than 13 years ago | (#406820)

hey, napster is damn important in my book. why one day i might want to listen to a song or something and not have to pay for it. if only p2p options worked better. i don't know about you guys but i can't seem to get speeds faster than 10k/sec, or are accepting connections. not to jinx anything here, why hasn't anything happened to hotline? or irc?

Re:This is like suing Google over MP3 web sites (1)

rograndom (112079) | more than 13 years ago | (#406822)

I cannot understand how any reasonable judge could argue that explaining how to commit a crime is the same thing as committing it.

The OpenNap servers are only directories-- they don't contain illegal contents, just listings, so how can they be held accountable?

I think "reasonable" is the key word here. Have you been paying attention to the 2600 vs. MPAA [] case?

RIAA -- Antitrust Investigation Time? (1)

YIAAL (129110) | more than 13 years ago | (#406826)

The Bush Justice Dept. should investigate the record industry for pricefixing and other antitrust violations. This is because: 1. All evidence indicates they're guilty; and 2. They give lots of money to Democrats. Take it away, Mr. Ashcroft! PS: Check out the MPAA, too.

This is great! (1)

infractor (152926) | more than 13 years ago | (#406838)

Well, the first shot is fired against Opennap.

People are not going to give up and this is going to cause some serious innovation.

Gnutella is a great idea, but in my opinion, it doesn't scale like Opennap which I even find better than Napster!

If they shut this down, what replaces it will be unstoppable. I'm don't advocate piracy, but with the technology today, really it seems impossible to stop this peer-to-peer file sharing.

This is a war that I'm sure they'll lose.

Re:The cat is out of the bag, dudes (1)

ryuko (158055) | more than 13 years ago | (#406839)

That's what warez sites are for. ;) They've been doing this long before Napster, and they'll be doing this long after Napster. ;)

Ever lovable and always scrappy,

Re:Were you expecting otherwise? (1)

ryuko (158055) | more than 13 years ago | (#406840)

The quote is said by JFK, during his inaugral speech, I believe. =)

Ever lovable and always scrappy,

Re:The cat is out of the bag, dudes (1)

srhuston (161786) | more than 13 years ago | (#406845)

So what if they shut down OpenNap (and as the article points out, overseas servers are going to make that a difficult proposition)?

Simple. As the article mentioned, they're going after ISPs that house OpenNap servers. So what'll stop them from going to the border router admins that route overseas links, and ordering them to drop the packets that match OpenNap/Napster/Gnutella/Whatever? Right. Nothing.

If they're going to go after the source of the problem (in their eyes), they'll just as easily cut off your access to it if they can't reach it themselves.

Re:silly NYtimes. (1)

Dreyfus (176426) | more than 13 years ago | (#406852)

Speaking of the silliness of the New York Times, if you read the post-script to the article above, youi'll find this tidbit:

Putting flesh on the bones of the space-shifting argument, I imagined a college student who wished to access his home-based CD album collection from a dorm room in another state. All he had to do, I said, was upload his CD's to the Napster system so that he could download them at his new residence. My correspondents pointed out that Napster users do not upload their music files. They download digital music files from the hard drives of other, networked Napster users.

While I guess I have to give the writer points for admitting his own mistakes, I find it disturbing that a person writing about Napster in the New York Times wouldn't have bothered to learn how it works in the first place. If you were a non-technical person writing a column about Napster, wouldn't it occur to you to at least try it out? Even once? Just to see how it works? Especially given that you can do so for free?

With such tireless dedication to reporting the facts to the public, it's no wonder intellectual property laws are in such a poor state.

Block RIAA Snoops (1)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 13 years ago | (#406857)

Does anyone know if RIAA is contracting with some firm to search for OpenNap servers?

If so, blocking the ip blocks of RIAA agents would make it difficult, if not impossible, to prove that you are violating the law.

move it offshore (1)

hyperstation (185147) | more than 13 years ago | (#406864)

maybe this has been talked about before, but what about moving napster/etc to a place like Sealand [] ,an island off the british coast that has claimed it's own independence since 1967. A company called HavenCo [] plans to host colocation services there.

may be a longshot, but you never know


Since when that is a problem? (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 13 years ago | (#406869)

I just tried some bogus userid/password combinations. After 3 trials I found one:

Enjoy! (1)

prelelat (201821) | more than 13 years ago | (#406871)

okay heres the thing I read on that they are going to be up and running again and for all of you that know about it its a p2p like napster except that it serves movies and pictures. Now it has been deamed leagal and there working out the fine print as it seems it will stay free too! now how about that. So why is napster getting so cut and beat up over this if other p2p wether runny though a main machein or off of every one.

Or am I crazy once again.

Hell if I'm gonna spell check. I don't even know were I am half the time...

The NYT story... (1)

DarkEdgeX (212110) | more than 13 years ago | (#406876)

...was written by someone named Carl S. Kaplan? I wonder if there's any relation to the Kaplan that ruled against 2600 in the DeCSS case?

silly NYtimes. (1)

X-Dopple (213116) | more than 13 years ago | (#406877) 23CYBERLAW.html

I don't know why they insist on a registration system if there are tons of loopholes.

partners doesn't work anymore! (1)

AFCArchvile (221494) | more than 13 years ago | (#406890)

They found our loophole! Ugh!

Can someone either cache, post, or find another loophole to that NYT story? The suspense is killing me!

mojonation, freenet, etc... (1)

Jacek Poplawski (223457) | more than 13 years ago | (#406891)

And what's with mojonation and other systems? What is really forbidden? If I share pr0n movies - is it OK? If I share classic games is it ok? If I share free mp3 - how can anybody check if it's really free?
Will they do something if we will _use_ systems like gnutella/mojonation, or if we share their music? And how they will check what we are doing in mojonation?
I hope at least they won't ban ftp...

I think there's already enough patents... (1)

Sebby (238625) | more than 13 years ago | (#406900)

Like we need another 'centralized server providing on-demand content of various formats to clients across a network consisting of wired or unwired (wireless) computers using a communications method in which the data in encoded and sent in binary digits (bits) of 0 or 1'

( P.S. I think that should answer your question about prior art :) )

Time for OPENNAP to move out of the Jurisdiction! (1)

rigor6969 (240549) | more than 13 years ago | (#406902)

Simple as that. Move the napster servers to countries which dont give a damn about the RIAA and lawsuits. We'll be on them. You can't win. Just like warez-sites, they will always exist in one fashion or another. Sure napsters' time will come and we'll be forced back to smaller scale music sharing, but this will only make us work harder to get what we want. And we will spite the RIAA even more.

Re:Supreme Court decision? (1)

Goldmund (247522) | more than 13 years ago | (#406905)

Copyright is dead, Long live Copyright!

Re:The cat is out of the bag, dudes (1)

dlkf (261011) | more than 13 years ago | (#406909)

Ok, im not too familiar with the details of DMCA, but why do ISPs have to listen to a letter from RIAA? No judge has decided whether or not the servers in question did actually have copyrighted material on them. They are just assuming that RIAA is right. Are these letters just a threat of possible legal action because no one has verified their clames. Has anyone challenged RIAAs authority to demand ISPs to shut servers down? It seems to me that the orders to shut down servers should come from the courts, not the corporations.

If copyright is what we're concerned with... (1)

cooley (261024) | more than 13 years ago | (#406910)

then to me is seems the argument could be made that copyrights are a lot like software licenses. If I own 10 licenses for Mac OS 9, I don't have to use all ten CD's to install it. I can use one CD, since there is no license number, to install ten copies. Therefore, [begin logic-stretching sequence now] I believe that when I bought Graceland on Cassette in like 1987, that gave me the license to listen to the data contained within as I wish, including grabbing CD quality versions from Napster. If this is not the case, then perhaps we are not paying for a user license at all, rather we are paying for the media it's printed on. In that case, then since there is no stolen media involved when I use napster, it's all cool.

Maybe I just used up all my logic resources this week already, too. (Score: -2, burned-out)

Re:The Sony Decision Doesn't Apply Because.... (1)

TGK (262438) | more than 13 years ago | (#406911)

The District Court concluded that noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement. It emphasized the fact that the material was broadcast free to the public at large, the noncommercial character of the use, and the private character of the activity conducted entirely within the home. Moreover, the court found that the purpose of this use served the public interest in increasing access to television programming, an interest that "is consistent with the First Amendment policy of providing the fullest possible access to information through the public airwaves

So on one hand we take television broadcasts. It's legal to record these things, so long as they are used for private showings.
What about video rentals? Do those shops pay an IP licencing fee (beyond the purchace of the actual movie)?

. We have in the other hand the radio. A smiliar method of broadcasting data over the airwaves. We record it on tapes (the difference between a CD and a Tape being irrelevant in this case). It is legal for me to tape songs off the radio to listen to them. It is legal for me to tape songs for my friends. But if I obtain the same data, for the same price (free) over the internet its suddenly illegal?

So we have an extant model allowing the copying of broadcast materials (netcast ~ broadcast). And we have a model allowing the distribution of copyright material FOR PROFIT by a corporation (probably without paying any fees).

Honestly, I don't understand why the rulings have been going against Napster.
This has been another useless post from....

Napster users are all theiving criminal scum. (1)

Flabdabb Hubbard (264583) | more than 13 years ago | (#406915)

I know it's an unfashionable viewpoint, but I think that users of Napster and Gnutella are trying to get something for nothing. They want to hear the results of hundreds of person-hours of studio time, plus God knows how much creative energy without paying the creator a single dime.

In any other sphere, this would be plain and simple theft. Because a computer is involved, it somehow is a 'human rights issue' ?

Perhaps the 'Your rights online' topic should be renamed 'Your criminal behavior is not defensible' I mean, Slashdot should show some leadership and responsibility here. Many slashdot readers are quite young and easily influenced by what they read here. A few words from slashdot coming down firmly on the side of law and order could give them some very useful moral guidance.

In the meantime, I just hope the RIAA gets some real muscle to prosecute these theives and send a message to all 'slackers' 'crackers' and 'hackers' that theft is theft, no matter what technology you use to perpetrate it.

Re:Doesn't matter (but it DOES) (1)

corporatewhore (308338) | more than 13 years ago | (#406919)

Don't underestimate the power of the greedy-they are well fed, well armed, insured, and have virtually unlimited resources compared to the average joe (victim). And we continue to work for them... anyone see the gradual erosion of personal rights to the corporate machinery ? anyone willing to die fighting it anymore?

slashcode (1)

1Oman (308666) | more than 13 years ago | (#406921)

I've never really looked at the slashcode (I will do so now), but maybe some tihing like this could be added. I assume slashcode is in perl, if not you get my point. $post =~ s#\s*(?:http://)?(.*?)\s*#$1#igs; [1targetblank]

Re:slashcode (1)

1Oman (308666) | more than 13 years ago | (#406922)

whoops how 'bout this. $text =~ s#\s*(?:http://)?(.*?)\s*#$lt;A HREF="http://$1" TARGET="jobs">$1<\/a>#igs;

Re:slashcode (1)

1Oman (308666) | more than 13 years ago | (#406923)

allright mod me down $post =~ s#<we>\s*(?:http://)?(.*?)\s*<\/web>#& lt;A HREF="http://$1" TARGET="jobs">$1<\/a>#igs;

Link to NYT article... (1)

xkenny13 (309849) | more than 13 years ago | (#406926)

I haven't tried this before, but here goes, link [] .

Re:Since when that is a problem? (1)

$la$hdot (312361) | more than 13 years ago | (#406927)

That's amazing I've got the same combination on my luggage!

Doesn't matter (1)

Dr. Prakash Kothari (314326) | more than 13 years ago | (#406929)

For every OpenNap server that is shut down, Ten more will open in it's place. No one, not even the RIAA can stop the spread of information.

What do you expect? (1)

qpt (319020) | more than 13 years ago | (#406934)

I'm not surprised by the RIAA's decision even if I don't necessarily agree with it. After all, the RIAA truly does believe that they would make more money methods did not exist of distributing their content for free. They may even be correct.

Further more, the RIAA isn't without legal grounds. The fact is, the OpenNap servers are indeed facilitating the transfer of illegally copied material. Even worse, that's almost all they're used for.

Think of a speakeasy during the prohibition. Their purpose was to serve alcohol, and serving a glass or two of orange juice now and then didn't absolve them of legal responsibility. These OpenNap servers are the same way. The operators know that illegal material is going to be transferred through them. In fact, they know that their primary use will be for piracy.

You may not like the RIAA, but going after these servers is perfectly reasonable from their point of view.

- qpt

No such thing as common decency anymore ? (1)

Lord Hugh Toppingham (319381) | more than 13 years ago | (#406940)

Excuse me for saying it, but don't you Americans have any sense of 'fair play' or common decency any more ? Have you forgotten your British backgrounds so easily ?

It seems to me that a large number of American problems stem from their wholesale rejection of the British values that served them so well up until 1776. Perhaps you chaps have thrown the baby out with the bathwater !

I look forward to the time when Americans learn of such things as good manners, etiquette, and a sympathy for the underdog. All good British qualities sadly lacking in our colonial cousins despite their mainly British origin.

Sorry if I have upset anyone, I am quite new to this worldwide internet thing.

Toodle pip old chaps.

-- The sun never sets on the British Empire

Re:Scare tactics (2)

jafac (1449) | more than 13 years ago | (#406952)

Not only did they get a cut of the sale of all blank recording media, a /. article from a couple of weeks ago said that Germany is trying to write a law requiring all computer manufacturers to pay a fee, because all computers are potential copyright infringement devices - it would equal out to about $80 more per machine.

Is your ass feeling sore now?

The cat is out of the bag, dudes (2)

msuzio (3104) | more than 13 years ago | (#406953)

How sad. They will continue to fight this at the effect level, and ignore the cause. The fact that people go to Napster et. al. for music is just an effect of the prime cause -- CDs are too damn expensive.
Until that is "fixed", any number of solutions will be pursued by those who love music, but think they are getting gouged paying for it.
...and this action is fruitless. So what if they shut down OpenNap (and as the article points out, overseas servers are going to make that a difficult proposition)? At the worst, I could set up a private anonymous service to put Bob in touch with Joe so they can exchange whole burned CDs of MP3s -- and then what is the RIAA going to do?

This is like suing Google over MP3 web sites (2)

Webmonger (24302) | more than 13 years ago | (#406973)

I cannot understand how any reasonable judge could argue that explaining how to commit a crime is the same thing as committing it.

The OpenNap servers are only directories-- they don't contain illegal contents, just listings, so how can they be held accountable?

Napster Patent? (2)

Ngeran (31568) | more than 13 years ago | (#406975)

Earlier this week, Napster unveiled a proposal under which it would pay the record industry $200 million a year if it is allowed to stay open. But record industry officials have been cool to the idea, and say they are moving ahead with their own online plans that don't involve Napster.

Wouldn't be surprised if this has been discussed before somewhere, but would Napster be able to patent the distribution of music via centralized servers? Is there prior art somewhere that would nullify a patent like this? If not, it would be a wonderful little surprise to the RIAA/record companies when they try to get their own plans out the door...

RIAA and overseas servers (2)

kahuna720 (56586) | more than 13 years ago | (#406979)

This might make things difficult for hosts in the USA, but what can they realistically do about servers in, say, Europe? Or a "Sealand"-ish offshore host? (Although the DeCSS [] issue does come to mind...)

Ultimately the RIAA would seem to be aiming at an ever-moving target here anyway--have all the recent attacks on "software piracy" by MS and others been a deterrent to the warez d00dz? I still see just as much free (as in beer!) stuff available now as there has ever been...

The Napster argument gets old here on /. 'cause the rebuttal is always "yeah but you're STEALING!!! It's WRONG!" Nevertheless, people are now accustomed to getting free music and WILL NOT GO BACK. Even the clueless will get clued in quickly when Napster (1)shuts down (2)begins charging $, and millions will migrate to whatever alternative is available. Stealing or not, that's just how people ARE.

The Sony Decision Doesn't Apply Because.... (2)

nellardo (68657) | more than 13 years ago | (#406982)

Sony [] had the billions to spend on lawyers to fight it to the death.

1/2 :-)

Marginally more seriously, Sony was, what, twenty, thirty years old at the time (founded in 1949, making a rice steamer, of all things). Lots of stock holders. Lots of existing vested interest. And existing analogies (audio tape) to draw on. And let's face it, TV broadcasters still made their money. They were tossing the content over the transom anyway.

Re:partners doesn't work anymore! (2)

rkent (73434) | more than 13 years ago | (#406984)

  1. Try this: 23CYBERLAW.html
  2. Use one of the zillions of NYTimes ID's people have posted here before. Try cyberpunk/cyberpunk and slashdot/slashdot for starters; I myself registered so I lost track of the shared ones a while ago.
The NYTimes is good! I haven't gotten any spam from them yet, either, so go ahead and sign up.

Not Really (2)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 13 years ago | (#406986)

The MPAA demostrates this pretty well.

1) Have software declared illegal

2) Rabidly pursue and shut down any site that even links to it.

ARGH!#% (2)

MattW (97290) | more than 13 years ago | (#406987)

(Score: -1, Redundant)
Napster hopes to operate under a plan in which it will pay recording companies $200M a year. But recording companies are "cool to the plan, saying they are moving ahead with their own online plans".

All I want to know is: why the hell do the labels have lawyers that move at warp speed, and engineers that move like snails? If they'd gone ahead with their online plans a bit faster, they would have had results that convinced them it wasn't even necessary to sue Napster. I don't really want to go back to having to swap mp3s over ftp and irc.

They should spend more effort on progress, and less on suing people.

Re:Napster users are all theiving criminal scum. (2)

Christianfreak (100697) | more than 13 years ago | (#406988)

What really needs to happen is a way to compensate artists for their music and not the RIAA. Thats the inherent problem, the artists are still being stolen from the RIAA is just mad because now the users have figured out how to steal from both the artists and the RIAA.

The best idea I can think of is for some of the big artists to go off on their own and make their songs availiable for a small fee (50 cents?) without giving one red cent to a record company. In the end everyone would win. We would get (almost free) music, the artist gets compensated and the greedy executives that control the RIAA are out of jobs. (which is a very pleasing thought).

"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

Re:Supreme Court decision? (2)

Winged Cat (101773) | more than 13 years ago | (#406989)

Pick one:
  1. RIAA is so confident that They Are In The Right that they take the upcoming Supreme Court decision for granted. (But I thought we were the only moralists here.)
  2. RIAA has paid enough to enough SC justices that they take the decision for granted. (Not likely: SC isn't that bribeable.)
  3. RIAA is trying to cause Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, just like whippersnapper Nephew Microsoft. (Which explains why Microsoft never bothered to patent that particular business practice.)

Re:Isn't this irrelevant? (2)

bfree (113420) | more than 13 years ago | (#406994)

ok, the US courts determine that anything Napster must be blocked at all levels. The RIAA starts suing ISPs, bandwidth providers, international router hosts. The ISPs, bandwidth providers and international router hosts all start to close ports and scan packets and spend lots of money doing it. The US citizens get higher ISP charges to pay for the lawyers and techniques blocking their access to a service. The software maintainers incorporate common random port usage with compressed/encrypted packets. Rinse, lather and repeat. non-US citizens have a lovely distributed music (file) sharing system and US citizens are starting to try and figure out just when they started to lose control of the internet (about the time it became quicker to dial-in to a canadian/mexican/irish server for internet access, until the phone providers started to block it to avoid paying the RIAA any more settlements).

Re:Supreme Court decision? (2)

Fishstick (150821) | more than 13 years ago | (#406997)

4. The AC who submitted this confused the Supreme Court with the United States Circuit
Court for Ninth Circuit, District of California, which is what the RIAA's email mentions.


Re:This is like suing Google over MP3 web sites (2)

ryuko (158055) | more than 13 years ago | (#406998)

If all judges were reasonable, Dubya wouldn't be in office. ;)

It is just like that other slashdot story about how a NY ISP is paying due to the content they hosted.

Ever lovable and always scrappy,

Re:Supreme Court decision? (2)

darthpenguin (206566) | more than 13 years ago | (#407004)

Dammit! My ISP gladly cut my DSL line because of my Alternap server, but they didn't notify me. After 3 days, they still won't tell me why they cut my account! I guess I need to find out from slashdot. Time to switch ISPs! []

Re:The cat is out of the bag, dudes (2)

Alatar (227876) | more than 13 years ago | (#407007)

they wanted 35k for that suv. i said to myself "self, they are trying to screw you... it's ok to just steal it". since they were going to try to charge me too much, self and i decided to steal the car.

This is, in fact, exactly how things work in Eastern Europe and Central America. Cars are ridiculously expensive, so they are stolen in neighboring prosperous countries, transported, and sold at substantially below market value. These thieves would be out of business in a second if car makers charged reasonable prices.

Scare tactics (2)

RandomPeon (230002) | more than 13 years ago | (#407008)

I'm really getting sick of the MPAA trying to pretend like it's some sort of all-powerful organization.

First claim - nobody cracked SDMI. All reports to the contrary are completely false.

Reality - the unwatermarked data has to exist in memory somewhere. It's inherently insecure. And all the claims that the scheme was cracked are falsehoods?

Now - "Meanwhile, Sherman said his group had ideas about ways of dealing with Gnutella, but wouldn't discuss them publicly."

Reality - umm, how? Aaah, so they'll shut down the Internet in the Name of Holy Copyright.

next will be irc servers! (2)

romey (259459) | more than 13 years ago | (#407011)

next they will be after irc servers... sheesh. we can't have anything cool anymore without someone crying that they aren't making money on it.

Re:Napster users are all theiving criminal scum. (2)

Flabdabb Hubbard (264583) | more than 13 years ago | (#407013)

Don't I have the right to, somehow, get that audio back?

Not if it involves breaking into to your local Sam Goodys, and stealing a new copy of the disc, which is analagous to what the criminal Napster users are doing.

Were you expecting otherwise? (2)

Chuck Flynn (265247) | more than 13 years ago | (#407014)

  1. Unenforced legal rights are lost.
  2. Missed legal suits are actionable in shareholder lawsuits.
  3. Our combatative accusatorial system of justice requires that each side zealously play its cards, in the hope that the truth will be found somewhere in between.
  4. If Napster has lost, then blame Napster for screwing up. Don't blame the RIAA just because they fought a better fight and prevailed.
What were you expecting Napster to do? This is prudent corporate strategy and par for the course.

Re:Doesn't matter your wrong (2)

onepoint (301486) | more than 13 years ago | (#407016)

The model of napster has proven to be profitable. The record comapnies want that profit. So what are they going to do? Chase after there money.

1) there going to send form letters to each and everyone that is running an OPENNAP type application. and remind those hosters that it is a letter from a lawyer.

2) They will also CC every ISP.

3) they will for there own hidden spies amoung the OPENNAP type groups. to catch every underground they can.

4) We will see someone fall and do jail time because of it.

that's my view on how it will be handled in USA side. Europe it might be the same.

Now here is the tricky part. If they scare the ISP they might be able to control it. I don't Think any ISP would like to have negative press while the US stock market is jittery about internet stocks.

How can you fight it.

1) Download from registered (legal) sites.

2) buy the CD

I know if I owned a Record company I would hound you till the ends of the earth.

Many people on this board think that record companies make money all the time but they also take alot of risk with artist, So please try to look at both sides of the problem.


spambait e-mail
my web site hip-hop news
please help me make it better

Re:Doesn't matter your wrong (2)

Dr. Prakash Kothari (314326) | more than 13 years ago | (#407017)

My point being that if/when Napster is shut down, there will be +-30 million users with the lust for free music fresh on their minds. Due to the inherent adaptive nature of the internet, they'll find somewhere to go, and if that place get's shut down, they'll find somewhere else.

This all harkens back to the pre-napster days of MP3 sharing where a Warez site would spring up, and a week later, it would be shut down only to turn up hosted on another server on another ISP. These people WILL find a way to get what they want. There's no stopping 30 million determined Americans.

Isn't this irrelevant? (2)

Heidi Wall (317302) | more than 13 years ago | (#407019)

It does not matter 2 cents if gnutella is declared illegal, because it is a decentralised system. I thought that the entire point of gnutella is that it is beyond the bounds of control of government, being run by the people for the people, in the American cooperative tradition.

I would be happy if all other forms of music sharing were declared illegal, as it would mean that the resources of the Open Source community would be flung into decntralised gnutella type systems.

Of course, the quality of gnutella, as it stands, leaves much to be desired, but when wider bandwidths become more commonplace and as the software and methodologies are improved, the situation will get better.

In the end, governments can regulate until they are blue in the face. The simple fact is that there is a demand for a free internet music sharing system, and it will be fulfilled, whether that is morally correct or not.

It is better that they regulate for this new reality, than that they regulate for an old and redundant reality. If they regulate as though we are in the 1980's, they will be regulating themselves out of power, not the end users of such systems, who will simply move on to the decentralised nirvana.
Clarity does not require the absence of impurities,

Re:Doesn't matter your wrong (3)

jafac (1449) | more than 13 years ago | (#407023)

1) You're probably right about the undercover bit. And the RIAA will probably do it themselves, just to get it done more efficiently than the cops will. And the RIAA will probably offer bounties to anyone who's willing to sell-out his former trading buddies.

2) I simply will not accept this abridgement of my fair use rights. People will challenge this and challenge this until somebody finally listens. In America, we have a captialist system, and as a consumer, I was raised to believe that a consumer does capitalism a great disservice by allowing themselves to be screwed over or cheated by a seller - therefore it is a consumer's MORAL DUTY to be informed, not be misled, and make sellers WORK for a living.
About a year ago, I found some songs online by a 70's rock band. Some of their songs that were on the radio, I remember, were phenominally great. You don't ever ever hear ANY of these songs played on the radio anymore, even on most "classic rock" stations. I always thought it would be great to own all of their albums. I downloaded them, but never had time to listen to them, except for a couple of the songs that I liked. I recently sat down and listened to the whole lot - and found that only the few songs that I remember were really great, the rest was kindof just filler. (sound familliar?) I mean, what if I HAD gone through all the trouble to locate these albums, likely out of priint, likely $20 a pop, likely not available at any local record store - and found out that it was mostly crap? I would have gotten screwed over, and with my dollars, I would have been supporting a system that screws over consumers, and done a grave disservice to other consumers because I was enforcing a system that encouraged uneducated consumption. exploitation. I then deleted the whole lot. Disk space is cheap, but not cheap enough to waste on crap. It basically wasn't even worth my time to burn them onto a CD for posterity.

Same thing happened with a 60's band (and lots of other music) - and I ended up tracking down and buying 4 CD's from that group.

Like it or not, free MP3 distribution IS an essential part of the music industry's distribution model. Like it or not, it's here to stay. You can't lock an idea.

Re:Scare tactics (3)

Syberghost (10557) | more than 13 years ago | (#407025)

Reality - umm, how? Aaah, so they'll shut down the Internet in the Name of Holy Copyright.

Don't laugh. After all, they tried to shut down radio, and tried to get a cut of the sales of all blank recording media.


Fairtunes (3)

tbo (35008) | more than 13 years ago | (#407026)

Check out Fairtunes [] . It's a way to ensure all your money goes to the people who earned it--the artists, songwriters, etc.

Re:Appeals Court decision against Napster (3)

rkent (73434) | more than 13 years ago | (#407027)

Right on. Personally, I think Sean Fanning shot himself in the foot a long time ago when he said (in writing) "this is piracy and we're going to take down the RIAA." Okay, that's a paraphrase, not a quote, but you get the point.

Of course, that's when he was about 2 steps beyond messing around with his friends in the dorm; they didn't know it was going to bite them in the ass so significantly later on. But any viable replacement for Napster (and there will be one) must stress NON-INFRINGING uses from the beginning. Ideally, there would even be a company who would deal with some musicians directly, getting them to put their songs up on purpose... we want to show people that this is a viable distribution system, no matter what the RIAA whines.

Of course, I think the system should also make it difficult (nay, impossible!) to track who's doing what, so we won't have this problem in the future. Probably the focus should be on anonymity for privacy's sake, though, and not to concientiously protect "pirating" like Fanning intended to do all along.

Re:The Sony Decision Doesn't Apply Because.... (3)

Seth Finkelstein (90154) | more than 13 years ago | (#407029)

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

More seriously, for the pragmatic reason that the decision SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC [] doesn't apply, I think it has more to do with:

The District Court concluded that noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement. It emphasized the fact that the material was broadcast free to the public at large, the noncommercial character of the use, and the private character of the activity conducted entirely within the home. Moreover, the court found that the purpose of this use served the public interest in increasing access to television programming, an interest that "is consistent with the First Amendment policy of providing the fullest possible access to information through the public airwaves. ... Even when an entire copyrighted work was recorded, [464 U.S. 417, 426] the District Court regarded the copying as fair use "because there is no accompanying reduction in the market for `plaintiff's original work.'"

Honestly, the same can't easily be said about Napster-based exchanges.

Sig: My Latest Censorware Essay:
What Happened To The Censorware Project ( []

Re:Doesn't matter (does it?) (3)

Deamos (108051) | more than 13 years ago | (#407031)

Will they? If they do how long can it last? How many people are willing to have lawyers threatening them?
I certaintly don't mean this as a flame or troll of any sort, I do ask it as a question though.
While shutting down your server after a week or a day of operation is no big deal, eventually you are going to run out of loyalists that are willing to take the risks of lawyers banging at the doors because your doing something that a huge corporate entity doesn't want you to do. Personally, I have enough stress in my life that I would just as assume not have a lawyer send me a letter. Who needs that, and supposing that there was some trial down the road, then I really wouldn't want them having my real name and information. Would you?
I don't like the shutdowns of OpenNap, and I certainly don't condone them, but while lots of people are idealists (is that even the right word?) at heart, their fear of the reprocussions will hold them from actions that would bring trouble, even if its only possible trouble, down on their own heads. So I ask you, how long will people be ready and willing to bring themselves before the corporate sharks just to keep OpenNap going?

Gnutella isn't the answer (3)

Magila (138485) | more than 13 years ago | (#407034)

It seems whenever a story regarding Napster is posted everyone starts talking about how it'd be so much better if everyone moved to gnutella. Hello? gnutella will never become anywhere as popular as napster becuase it just too damn inefficient and slow. It is absolutly ridiculous that each and every client serving files also has to route searches, and searches would have to be sent (directly or indirectly) to every freaking client on the network in order to be sure you've gotten every possible hit. No non-nerd types are going to put up with searches that can take several minutes and still not turn up what your looking for even if it's availiable on the network.

A much better system would be to have a gnutella like cluster of "servers". Clients could connect to one of the servers by getting a list of servers from a known source (just like connecting to gnutella) and then upload a list of all the files they're sharing to it. The servers in the cluster maintain a list of the files all the clients connected to them are sharing as well as ips and sharelists of other clients which they periodicaly download from other servers, the server could also set some limit as to how big their client/shares DB gets. Ther server would also periodicaly ping the clients they have sharelists for so when the client exits it can remove their sharelist from it's DB. Searches would be handled in a similar method as gnutella except that because the servers are dedicated to routing searches and because each server contains the sharelist for multiple clients, searching would be much faster and produce better results. With this system clients serving files no longer have to route searches and the system is no more vunerable than gnutella to legal attacks.

If you ask me the ideal P2P filesharing system is something truly distrubuted like Freenet or Mojo Nation. But niether of thoes are ready for prime time and this kind of system has to reach a critical mass befor they can provide reliable/fast downloads.

Re:Napster users are all theiving criminal scum. (3)

MaxGrant (159031) | more than 13 years ago | (#407035)

some of the big artists to go off on their own and make their songs availiable for a small fee (50 cents?) without giving one red cent to a record company.

I think if you examine the affair logically you will see this is exactly what the RIAA is afraid of. The recent record sales certainly aren't slagging off enough to warrant this attack. There have always been pirates, and there's always been home copying, and it's never damaged them in the slightest before. What never existed, and what the Internet brings, is a wide, rapid distribution system that the RIAA cannot control. This allows the artists, if they have half a brain, to do a complete end-run around the useless middlemen of the recording industry. Let's face it most of them probably don't make much more than 50 cents per unit off their CD sales today so having a reasonable distribution system that didn't include the bloodsucking record companies would be a giant bonus. With digital recording technology prices falling into the basement it's only a matter of time before an act makes it really big without ever having to put a CD in a record store. Ani DiFranco is probably the scariest example for the RIAA in recent memory.

Re:Scare tactics (3)

grammar nazi (197303) | more than 13 years ago | (#407038)

Actually Syberghost, they didn't just try, the did get a cut of the sale of all blank recording media.

At least until computer recording media became available.

blah (3)

diamondc (241058) | more than 13 years ago | (#407039)

The mp3s I mostly download are all old obscure 60's tracks that are hard to find in stores without mailordering. It's mostly about preserving those songs so other people can hear them, not ripping off any artist's money. Just the other day a member of a band called the Tigermen messaged me on Napster and saw I had one of his songs on mp3s and was glad and surprised that people still listen to that stuff. I DO have that song on vinyl I bought a while ago, but it's quickly losing it's quality.

And who really cares if somebody's trading a britney spears mp3? It's not like we hear Eminem, Britney Spears, Offsprint, etc, enough on the radio.

Re:Supreme Court decision? (4)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#407042)

Yes, you are quite correct that it was the Ninth Circuit court, not the Supreme Court. Here is a sanitized version of the letter that is being circulated.

Subject: unauthorized distribution of sound recordings
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001


February 20, 2001

RE: IP Address:

Dear XXX:

We are writing concerning the above referenced system being made available
at an IP address assigned to XXX. The Recording Industry Association of
America, Inc. (RIAA) is a trade association whose member record companies
produce, manufacture and distribute approximately ninety (90) percent of all
legitimate sound recordings sold in the United States. Under penalty of
perjury, we submit that the RIAA is authorized to act on behalf of its
member companies in matters involving the infringement of their sound
recordings, including enforcing their copyrights and common law rights on
the Internet.

Our investigation has revealed that XXX is hosting
or otherwise making available a Napster-like (OpenNap) server that is
operating a peer-to-peer file copying system. The system is located at the
above-referenced IP address. This system allows users to search the file
libraries of other users connected to this system and facilitates the
copying of files between users. In order to access this type of system, a
user must download specialized client software such as Rapigator
( or FileNavigator (

This system, which we accessed on XXX, offers directories of downloadable
digitally-encoded files containing sound recordings. The vast majority of
these sound recordings are owned by our member companies, including songs by
such artists as XXX. We have a good faith belief that the above-described
activity is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
We assert that the information in this notification is accurate, based upon
the data available to us.

The system provided at the above IP address is almost identical to the
system Napster provides. You may be aware that the United States Circuit
Court for Ninth Circuit, District of California issued a ruling in RIAA's
lawsuit against Napster, finding that Napster is actively facilitating
widespread copyright infringement and, in doing so, directly affecting the
legitimate market for copyrighted works. The Ninth Circuit ruling upheld a
United States District Court's issuance of a preliminary injunction against
Napster. You may obtain a copy of the Ninth Circuit decision at

We request that you immediately remove or block access to the infringing
material offered via this server. In addition, we ask that you inform the
operator of this server about the illegality of his or her conduct and
confirm with the RIAA, in writing, that this activity has ceased.

This letter does not constitute a waiver of any right to recover damages
incurred by virtue of any such unauthorized activities, and such rights as
well as claims for other relief are expressly retained.

Finally, if you or your users wish additional information concerning
copyright law as it applies to sound recordings, please feel free to visit
and/or link to our web site at

You may contact me at RIAA, 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 300,
Washington, D.C., 20036, Tel. (202) 775-0101, or e-mail, to discuss this notice. We await your response.

Jonathan Whitehead
Anti-Piracy Counsel

Re:The cat is out of the bag, dudes (4)

gimpboy (34912) | more than 13 years ago | (#407043)

The fact that people go to Napster et. al. for music is just an effect of the prime cause -- CDs are too damn expensive. Until that is "fixed", any number of solutions will be pursued by those who love music, but think they are getting gouged paying for it.

yeah i had a similar problem. it was with a new car. they wanted 35k for that suv. i said to myself "self, they are trying to screw you... it's ok to just steal it". since they were going to try to charge me too much, self and i decided to steal the car.

well when they arrested me i tried to explain to the judge, but she said something to the effect of "self if you cannot afford it, you can't just steal it". to make a point she told everyone in the court room that they could go over to my house and point to things. i had to tell them how much i thought it was worth, and if they thought the number was too high they could just take it...

i guess it's a two way street. so where exactly do you live?

use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that

A better analogy (4)

jorbettis (113413) | more than 13 years ago | (#407044)

to make a point she told everyone in the court room that they could go over to my house and point to things. i had to tell them how much i thought it was worth, and if they thought the number was too high they could just take it...

How about this: the judge had a magic photocopier than could copy anything perfectly, and everyone went over to your house and photocopied everything you own, leaving the original in your house unharmed.

But you didn't like that, because you have a magic photocopier too. You wanted to photocopy all of your stuff at a cost of $~0.30 to you, and sell the copies at the full retail cost of the originals. Because you believe that don't just own the toaster, you insist that you own the idea of the toaster.

US != world (4)

mickwd (196449) | more than 13 years ago | (#407045)

"...some of the servers are located overseas ... it will be more difficult to enforce compliance with a shutdown request".

Too damn right it will. Especially if no national laws are being broken in some of those countries.

So they'll have to make do with threats instead.

Re:Isn't this irrelevant? (5)

drsoran (979) | more than 13 years ago | (#407047)

You know, PBS was running an interesting program last night about how the media is directly to blame for influencing the cultural of American teenagers. It was quite interesting and showed in detail and behind the scenes how these huge media monopolies directly target shit to teens that they think will be "cool" based on their market research. In the end, most of the time, what turns out to be "cool" for the mainstream is what these mega media monopolies are pawning off. They're feeding off their own shit like some sewer dwelling parasite. After seeing the amazing job PBS putting this all together and seeing what a disgusting atmosphere American corporate media giants have brought upon us I'm inclined to say "no more."

No more of your shit. No more force feeding us the music you think we want to hear. No more of you marketing violent movies to 11 year olds. No more selling a sexual image to pre-teen girls as the model to follow. No more bullshit. I think it's time for the world to stand up and say "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore." MPAA? Fuck you. RIAA? FUCK YOU TOO. Take your cookie-cutter bubblegum rockers and your homoerotic punk metal clown possies and shove them up your ass. Take your idiotic teenie-bopper horror slasher flicks and put them where the sun don't shine. It is time for us to wake up from this crazy capitalist induced nightmare that has resulted in us only having 5 huge mega-corporations being responsible for the sales, marketing, and creation of over 90% of the music, movies, and media in the world! What kind of sick society have we become where we allow this to happen? We exist to feed the fat overbearing media gods. Our only purpose in life is to make them profit so they can turn around and force more garbage down our throats.

The Motivation to Create (5)

codermotor (4585) | more than 13 years ago | (#407048)

Gee, what happens when people get so tired of this nonsense that they just quit going to movies, watching TV, buying music, etc?

Will that ever happen? The cynical say "Never". But, at this rate, such commercial "entertainment" (a term I use loosely, usually preceded by the word 'mindless') will, in the not-too-distant future be affordable only by those who own and control it.

Maybe it's time we revert to the practice of people producing art because they are compelled to, not because they are paid to. When artists are paid only on commission, or for a live performance. That is, they earn their living like the rest of us, based solely on the merit of their work - as judged by others.

And don't anyone spout that tired old line about how no one will create without getting paid to do so. That would mean that no one, anywhere, ever created purely for the joy and satisfaction of seeing their imagination realized - not to mention such a theory invalidating the whole Free Software movement.

Art is not an endeavor in which one should expect to "Earn a living". It is a gift which the artist willingly and lovingly shares with others. His expected reward comes from self-satisfaction, and, hopefully, the appreciation of his audience.

Any artist who would give up his art because no one would pay for it, is most likely a very poor artist.

Or a fool.


Re:blah (5)

swb (14022) | more than 13 years ago | (#407049)

Isn't this basically the same argument that we get away with all the time at when it comes to software? We're licensing the intellectual property from the vendor, not the fsck'n media. In fact, we've lost/damaged the media to applications and called the vendor (we "registered" the software) and they sent us new media for a nominal fee (like, $10 or something on a $3k license). In fact, when we buy multiple licenses we only get 1 CD and are expected to dupe it or otherwise copy it to other distribution media ourselves.

Why doesn't this apply to music? I can accept the idea that an album originally sold on vinyl that has been put onto CD *AND* that has gone through extra special processing or contains extra material is different than the original. But when it's just a transfer to CD from the *same* masters used to make the album I don't see where it's any different than supplying an application on floppy vs. CD ROM. The intellectual content is otherwise the same, just delivered differently.

Re:Isn't this irrelevant? (5)

rw2 (17419) | more than 13 years ago | (#407050)

It does not matter 2 cents if gnutella is declared illegal, because it is a decentralised system. I thought that the entire point of gnutella is that it is beyond the bounds of control of government, being run by the people for the people, in the American cooperative tradition.

Except that the net is IP based and, if found illegal, it would be easy to have the courts demand that ISPs cooperate with turning in the gnutella users. Fine them each $500 a pop and you end up with something a lot like speeding. People do it, but only within reason and only when they have a good chance of not being caught. This is precisly what the RIAA wants. Free advertising, but nothing so pervasive as to cut into profits.


Supreme Court decision? (5)

DoorFrame (22108) | more than 13 years ago | (#407051)


I don't remember there being a "U.S. Supreme Court decision against Napster" so if the RIAA's letter really did refrence it, there's some interesting legal points to be analyzed.

More likely this guy just confused that Circuit court that made the Napster ruling with the Supreme Court.


Appeals Court decision against Napster (5)

Seth Finkelstein (90154) | more than 13 years ago | (#407052)

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.

It's important to read The Appeals Court decision on Napster []

This decision discusses Napster and contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. A key part:

We observe that Napster's actual, specific knowledge of direct infringement renders Sony's holding of limited assistance to Napster. We are compelled to make a clear distinction between the architecture of the Napster system and Napster's conduct in relation to the operational capacity of the system.
Sig: My Latest Censorware Essay:
What Happened To The Censorware Project ( []

A somewhat funny letter I sent RIAA (5)

x-empt (127761) | more than 13 years ago | (#407054)


Mr. Whitehead,

The OpenNap efforts of many individuals are not about piracy. OpenNap only
indexes and allows easy searching of content already available online.
Instead of wasting your money going after servers and hosts, you should
target the individuals who host content.

Since the servers do not enable or promote piracy which was not already
available to other clients, they only index content, they do not have to
accept any terms given them by you. Of course there are more individuals
than there are servers, which explains your flawed strategy of attacking
OpenNap servers, because servers are not in violation of any legislation ...
only the clients sharing your files are.

I must question what RIAA has plans to do as more secure, anonymous,
sub-networks are developed that do not rely on single-host entities that
index content. RIAA is throwing money out the window in efforts to stop the
sharing of information.

Things are changing in today's world. Software is becoming free. Large
corporations are being turned upside down by the availability of that
software. Information is being made free, for all to use, not just the
people that have a big wallet. RIAA cannot accept these changes and RIAA's
business model is flawed in that it cannot deal with such changes. RIAA has
attempted to utilize the court systems to stop such changes in society, but
it will only hinder one aspect of it... that hinderance will lead to
stronger weapons against RIAA.... like Freenet. The massive media attention
RIAA has gotten from these series of bull-shit legal battles has lead to
RIAA's own destruction.

You have kicked the chair out from under you and now the rope has
tightened... it will be over in a few seconds.

It looks like 90% of the "legitimate" sound recordings in the United States
are being shared... something music was made for. Ohh my.

If I record the sound of my own fart, will it be "legitimate" ? Probably
not... Why don't you write what you mean, instead of trying to scare people
off by saying they do illegitimate things and attempting to scare them with
legal terms and shit. If you want the people to listen, speak their
language. It is okay to cry sometimes and say "We have a failed business
model, we need to find a better way to make money besides sueing everyone
up-the-butt for excessive amounts of money that will never be paid."

Sorry to say this, but ...

Get a new job, Mr. Whitehead.


Your friendly mentor,
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>