Beta
×

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!

Copyright Infringement In the News

michael posted more than 12 years ago | from the we-hate-our-customers dept.

Music 697

Lots of newsbits about copyright infringement today - let's mash them all together with some egg whites and breadcrumbs and see what we get. marklyon writes "The DOJ announced that they are planning to prosecute filesharers under the The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act. John Malcolm, a deputy assistant attorney general, made the pronouncement at the Progress and Freedom Foundation's annual technology and politics summit Tuesday. Cnet has extended coverage." Reader M_Talon writes "According to this article on ZDNET the RIAA is using one of the DMCA's more nasty clauses...the right to subpoena an ISP for a suspected pirate's personal information. They want to force Verizon to reveal the customer's information, and Verizon is refusing on the grounds that the pirated material isn't on their servers." Reader MattW writes "Apparently some theaters are consenting to run anti-piracy ads before movies. After all, these are not a bunch of fat cats we're talking about -- piracy now threatens the livelihood of the rank and file workers of Hollywood. After all, the movie studios are having a terrible year, right?" Finally, the Washington Post (probably one of the last articles we post from their site, as they go registration-required) discovers spoofed files on Gnutella, and public radio is reporting that the RIAA will drop their suit against listen4ever.com, since it's, uh, gone.

cancel ×

697 comments

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

fp? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4114266)

Fist post? :)
I love BeOS btw. :)

Re:fp? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4114318)

my friend, only steers and queers use beos

you don't look like you have any effing horns either! hehhehehe

Re:fp? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4114347)

Moo moo, buckaroo ! :-)

FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4114269)

Fork Pork!

Re:FP! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4114411)

Mork Spork!

Nanoo nanoo!!!!!

Washington Post last link?? (0, Offtopic)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114282)

Finally, the Washington Post (probably one of the last articles we post from their site, as they go registration-required)

Yeah, that sure stopped you from linking to the NY Times...

Re:Washington Post last link?? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4114320)

Troll? Maybe. Flamebait? Maybe. Offtopic? No. I merely replied to a phrase in the article.

Re:Washington Post last link?? (0, Offtopic)

mcknation (217793) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114399)



I agree. If you look down a bit further you will find (4114297) a post that got modded up for the same comment?!!?

Aghh! when I first looked it was a +2 now it's a +3 in a matter of 5 seconds. Dang I wish I had mod points today.

McK

Re:Washington Post last link?? (0, Offtopic)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114462)

yeah, next time I'll just use my +1 bonus, but I guess the point got across and that's what's important.

Re:Washington Post last link?? (0, Offtopic)

Sinistar2k (225578) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114402)

Glad you took the hit for it. I was going to post the same thing. :)

Last post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4114286)

All your DMCA are belong to us!

the RIAA will drop their suit against listen4ever (0, Troll)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114287)

Gone? or merely Slashdotted?

ps, fp

RIAA/MPAA and Communism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4114292)

Am I the only one that sees the obvious connections between what the RIAA/MPAA are doing and the actions of Communist despots? They are using a government that has too much power over its citizens to crack down on them and "send them away" for "re-education."

For that matter, has anybody noticed how much Jack Valenti looks like Chairman Mao? Or how much Hillary Rosen looks like Josef Stalin?

I'm worried.

Re:RIAA/MPAA and Communism (1)

wirelessbuzzers (552513) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114404)

actually, music sharing is more like communism than cracking down on it is... I'd call the RIAA "filthy capitalists" rather than commies.

Re:RIAA/MPAA and Communism (2)

User 956 (568564) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114456)

Am I the only one that sees the obvious connections between what the RIAA/MPAA are doing and the actions of Communist despots?...For that matter, has anybody noticed how much Jack Valenti looks like Chairman Mao? Or how much Hillary Rosen looks like Josef Stalin?

I don't recall either of those people as Communist despots. They were despots, but they dropped the "Communism" act right quick once they had a stranglehold on things. Pick up a history book. It'll do you some good. For that matter, read the Communist Manifesto. It's not as scary as your McCarthy-addled parents obviously taught you.

Under the NET Act... (2, Funny)

wo1verin3 (473094) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114293)

...if the value of the work exceeds $1,000. Violations are punishable by one year in prison, or if the value tops $2,500, "not more than five years" in prison.

I guess this means that we can copy Crossroads (Britney Spears movie).. no way that was worth $1000

Re:Under the NET Act... (4, Interesting)

rockwood (141675) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114374)

Not exactly! if Hollywood calculated estimated sales of ten million videos and they only sold eight million, and meanwhile discovered that you had copied the movie against their wishes - They could turn around and say that the losses were due to your illegal activity.

Don't get me wrong.. I think the movie and record comapnies should all jump off the highest building they own, but stranger things have happened when they start using their money and suing the average defensless Joe.

I figure they could state it in two different manners
1 - If you had the movie stored on your system and also had a p2p program of any type installed - they could say that sales losses where diretly effected by your sharing of the movie.
or
2 - They could state that if you copied the movie (especially if on DVD), and bypassed their.. umm.. 'security' measures, that you most likely shared that process with others. Thereby cutting into their profits.

Either way the movie and recording companies will continue to strong arm the public until the complete foundation falls apart at the seems. And when it does it will creat a mini-anarchy of a turning point in all of this.

Until then, I suggest that we continue to fight and argue and hold on tight for the ride.

Re:Under the NET Act... (4, Funny)

KelsoLundeen (454249) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114440)

Yeah, but the Crossroads with Ralph Macchio (Karate Kid) is pretty cool. It's definitely worth more than the Crossroads with Britney.

BTW, this is off-topic, but ...

Today is a sad day. My Oscar Goldman action figure with the exploding briefcase finally tumbled from my computer. Oscar hit his head. The head cracked.

The briefcase still explodes, though.

Steve Austin, who for 26 years always rode shotgun with Oscar Goldman, has now moved two inches to the right on my "bionic" shelf in order to fill the space that Oscar left. I've still got the Jamie Sommers action figure, the Bionic Transport and Repair Station, and the Maskatron figure. (Although Maskatron has lost his mask.)

Anyway, if you don't know Oscar Goldamn and his exploding briefcase, you're too young.

Now, for something on-topic:

The obvious question -- if this NET act is the law that puts 14 and 15 year olds in the super-high security, DEFCON 1 lockups in Colorado and Illinois for swapping N'Sync and Britney -- is how, exactly, is the $1000 figure calculated?

I'm sure a case could made that each song on each CD -- on the millions of CDs -- are actually worth in excess of one thousand dollars -- each! -- due to distribution costs, royalty payments, hotel bills for executives, Hilary Rosen's swank house in the Hamptons (the price for which has surely been amortized over the millions of Britney CDs littering the land), and MPAA Jack "Maddog ... GRrrrrrrr!" Valenti's ivory golf clubs and matching bath towels.

(And no, I have no idea if Hillary has a house in the Hamptons or Maddog Jack has ivory golf clubs ...)

good news! (2)

crystalplague (547876) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114295)

If the RIAA keeps attacking ISPs like this, especially the big ones who are obviously resisting, it may be their demise. Sure, the RIAA has a lot of money, enough to buy people off and pass legislation but the amount of money they can devote to this pales in comparison to the amount of money the ISPs can spend.

Re:good news! - AOL? (1)

EatHam (597465) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114315)

What about AOL? I know, I know... - how loosely do you really want to define "ISP", but certainly Time Warner would have something to say about that.

Re:good news! (3, Interesting)

martissimo (515886) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114345)

they dont need to keep taking ISP's to court, they just need to get a precedent set that this quote from the article does indeed apply to the situation:

At issue in the RIAA's request is an obscure part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that permits a copyright owner to send a subpoena ordering a "service provider" to turn over information about a subscriber

After the precedent is set most ISP's will just hand over the subscriber's name is my guess... of course there's always a chance that the precedent goes the other way, but it looks like a long shot from the wording of that quote.

Washington Post (0, Insightful)

Dr_LHA (30754) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114297)

...Washington Post (probably one of the last articles we post from their site, as they go registration-required)...


Doesn't seem to stop Slashdot from continually posting links to the New York Times.

Re:Washington Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4114338)

truuuue dat.

Go /., act tough to the WaPost, meanwhile kiss the NYT's ass and post a minimum of 5 articles a week from them. I bet "free reg required, yadda, yadda" is one of the most commonly used phrases in /. article postings.

I call shenanigans, get your broom.

Re:Washington Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4114351)

-1: Redundant [slashdot.org]

Mods! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4114428)

This guy didn't read the posts already done, cause this post is REDUNDANT [slashdot.org] !
Now, you read both and decide.

Re:Washington Post (0, Offtopic)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114481)

Real Question here, not a troll: What problem philosophically do the SlashDot Editors, or SlashDot Community, have with a registration-required site? Why would this prevent its inclusion as a source for editors' stories?

Is this another one of those generational things, like "music must be free," that I've never quite been able to wrap my mind around?

I'm over forty, so explain it to me slowly...

Who decides if it's prosecutable? (5, Interesting)

M-2 (41459) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114300)

From the ZDNet article on the DOJ's actions:
Under the NET Act, signed by President Clinton in 1997, it is a federal crime to share copies of copyrighted products such as software, movies or music with anyone, even friends or family members, if the value of the work exceeds $1,000. Violations are punishable by one year in prison, or if the value tops $2,500, "not more than five years" in prison.
So who decides if it's something they can proscecute? "I ripped the new Flopping GNoberts CD and put it on KaZaA!" That's an $18 CD, so it's not prosecutable until enough people download it to bring the total over $1000? It's another bad use of a law which can be easily abused to deal with the situation. This is the same sort of thing as the Kevin Mitnick case, where Sun claimed that he'd stolen $600,000 of source code... that they were giving away for free. I guess that Hillary Rosen and Jack Valenti thought the DoJ needed more exercise, so they got the guvmint jumping to conclusions again.

Re:Who decides if it's prosecutable? (2)

bricriu (184334) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114359)

Better not make take a picture of your friend standing in front of a piece of modern sculpture... otherwise it's off to the brig with ye!

Re:Who decides if it's prosecutable? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4114365)

it is a federal crime to share copies of copyrighted products such as software...if the value tops $2,500, "not more than five years" in prison.


The Linux kernel is copyrighted. There was a neat little program posted not to long ago that calculated the number of lines and code quality to produce the software's value. I have a billion dollars worth of copyrighted software on my computer I didn't pay a dime for. And I have the source code too! Am I going to prison?

Re:Who decides if it's prosecutable? (2)

RalphSlate (128202) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114446)

So its obvious that they will go after the big file sharers. If you put one CD on KaZaA, they they won't bother with you. If you have 1,000 songs up there, they'll say 1 song = $2.50, 1000 songs = $2,500, and they'll subpoena you.

The law says:

(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000.

That's subject to interpretation though; does a work worth $0.00001 posted on KaZaA fall under this penalty if there are 100,000,000 users of KaZaA? Or do they have to prove that 100,000,000 users actually downloaded it? I'd be willing to bet that since the law says "distribution", that means that $1,000 worth of piracy has to take place. It wouldn't count if the RIAA downloads the same $1 song 1,000 times, they have to document 1,000 different people downloading it.

I'm not in favor of file sharing, I'm just intrigured by this flap.

Riia (1)

g0st (452654) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114308)

RIAA=1984

The RIAA will never get it... (2, Informative)

Newer Guy (520108) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114312)

All they're doing is making themselves look even more like the assholes they sure seem to be... Their whole way of dealing with file sharing will go down in history as one of the biggest P.R. debacles of all time. The really scary thing is that these are (suppositely) smart, educated people. Why then do they act like a bunch of scared school children then? I just don't get it. Will someone please explain it to me - like I was a six year old?

Re:The RIAA will never get it... (2, Insightful)

Giltron (592095) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114375)

"The really scary thing is that these are (suppositely) smart, educated people. Why then do they act like a bunch of scared school children then? I just don't get it. Will someone please explain it to me - like I was a six year old?" They have a monopoloy and it was never threatened with significant change until the internet became popular. They are trying to use the approach of using a gun to kill a fly (or maybe a piano?). To sum it up: Its all about control and dominance. I really do hope to see some backlash from major ISPs.

Washington Post also mozilla-unfriendly (1, Offtopic)

Isaac-Lew (623) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114321)

I don't mind registering for the Wash. Post (after all, it's local to me & my father worked as a press operator there for almost 30 years). However, apparently mozilla has a problem with the new format (even after registering, when going to some pages either you get a blank page or it continuously tries to connect). I wrote them - I received a reply that mozilla wasn't supported (changing the User-Agent in konqueror to IE allowed me access, and I pointed that out in my re-reply).

usenet (2, Insightful)

tiedyejeremy (559815) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114324)

is usenet the solution to p2p networks? shhhh, but why aren't the RIAA and MPAA going after giganews, easynews, etc?

Re:usenet (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114448)

'Cause Joe Schmoe who just got his new Dell down the street, AND his new cable modem never have heard of USENet. It's unpopular, therefor not a threat. Also, USENet has so many actualy legitmate uses that it's not such an easy target. Honestly, besides people pirating music, movies, and pr0n, who uses peer to peer filesharing (excempting of course, use in institutiions, corperations, etc over SMB, etc)? do you REALLY think that people are using kaaza to distribute stuff they can get off of source forge?

Great! (1)

EvilBudMan (588716) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114325)

Great! The govment will shore haf to build mo prisons.

Now I can get a job there.

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4114434)

Incorrect usage
Shore should be sho'.
"The govment will *sho'* haf to build mo prisons."
You are deviating from standard "double-wide" grammar.

Hrm... (4, Interesting)

Auckerman (223266) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114329)

How NOT to get busted.


1. Don't distribute works you don't own the copyright for.


2. Don't distribute works whose total value is more than $999.99US


3. Don't distribute works whose total value is more than $999.99 US for more than 180 days.


The government kinda shot itself in the foot with this one. It will be damn hard to prove that you have distribute works for 180 days whose total value is more than $999.99US.

Re:Hrm... (1)

marklyon (251926) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114346)

Nope, the value is not what it costs, but the damage. The possible loss is almost impossible to put a finger on, but you're correct that prosecuting this will be quite complicated.

Re:Hrm... (2)

jandrese (485) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114417)

Has that ever stopped the RIAA, the MPAA, or even the BSA from making up whatever number they feel like?

I'm pretty sure they'll multiply the cost of the CD ($30) with the number of users who downloaded the client for whatever service you are using (easily > 100,000,000). Isn't that how the BSA used to calculate the "revenue lost" that it always reported to the media?

Re:Hrm... (2)

overshoot (39700) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114403)

The government kinda shot itself in the foot with this one. It will be damn hard to prove that you have distribute works for 180 days whose total value is more than $999.99US.

Nyah, it's easy. The RIAA has someone download 2000 copies and they're there.

Re:Hrm... (2)

Jonny Ringo (444580) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114416)

Or you can just follow #1 and #'s 2 and 3 will apply.

Discrimination. (0, Offtopic)

FreeLinux (555387) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114335)

The last article from the Washington Post, because they are about to require registration??

Registration never stopped you from posting all the New York Times (Free Registration required blah blah blah.) articles. This, inspite of the fact that people were complaining heavily about it.

Wrong Name (5, Funny)

BigJimSlade (139096) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114336)

"The DOJ announced that they are planning to prosecute filesharers under the The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act."


This bill is actually entitled Make'em Stop, Period--No Electronic Theft (MS.NET).

What?!? (0, Redundant)

Evan927 (15553) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114342)

Finally, the Washington Post (probably one of the last articles we post from their site, as they go registration-required) Oh, right, because we all know that Slashdot never posts articles from The New York Times [nytimes.com] , which is also registration-required.

From the NET act. (1)

brandorf (586083) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114343)

"The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works." Personally I find that to be a little bizarre, How can haveing somebody elses comprighted works be of a financial value to me, there is not a legal way to profit from somebody elses copyright, so it sounds to me like the Music Industry wants to cry "because downloading an MP3 is a financial gain for me, it must be a loss for them."

I hate this -- why are we letting it happen? (4, Insightful)

dasmegabyte (267018) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114349)

The majority of Americans want to free music. They want to share.

The majority of Americans do not see digital piracy as theft. The majority of Americans also do not see picking flowers at a public park as theft, or sneaking a grape at the supermarket. The majority of Americans drank alcohol before the legal age. Technically, we should all be in prison, but these minor crimes don't really hurt anybody, and so they are overlooked. Why, then, is the DOJ going after file sharers?

Isn't this a fucking democracy? Why is the majority submitting to laws made by the whims of the same companies that release O-Town records and other toxins into the environment? Why am I the only one sending daily letters to his Senator, that Clinton bitch, begging for support for our digital lifestyle?

I don't want to go to jail for pirating the new Pearl Jam or Queens of the Stone Age albums. I bought them anyway, but since I didn't clean them from my WinMX serving directory, i'm technically abetting piracy. This laxness could get me 5 years in a federal "pump me in the ass" prison, and that is wrong. I don't think I deserve it. I don't think my crime is that bad. I don't think that I'm depriving anyone of actual property or actual money they might have actually made, and I don't think the majority would argue with me.

So why are we letting it happen?

Because we have to do it this way, thar's why! (4, Insightful)

Marx_Mrvelous (532372) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114430)

At different points in the United States, the majority also thought that Women shouldn't be able to vote. Not too long later, a majority of the US thought that segregation was legal, and that discrimination was fine. However, the governemnt stepped in and determined that, in these cases (and many, many more) the majority of the US was wrong. We live in a democracy, but we are not ruled by a mob.

In other words, we listen to the majority but protect the individual from that same majority. We have copyright laws for a good reason, and they should be protected.

Re:I hate this -- why are we letting it happen? (1)

perrin5 (38802) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114460)

>Isn't this a fucking democracy? Why is the majority submitting to laws made by the whims of the same companies that release O-Town records and other toxins into the environment? Why am I the only one sending daily letters to his Senator, that Clinton bitch, begging for support for our digital lifestyle?

Not to be a contrarian, but:
1) Doing what you want is NOT in the constitution. You have the right to pursue "happiness", but that's not the issue there is it?
2) The law has ALREADY been passed. If they pass another one, it'll just get thrown out if it conflicts with one that has already been passed. The issue here is one that needs DEFINITIVE clarification by the supreme court. I would love to see a DMCA case go to the supreme court, and if it passes the majority judgement, I'm moving to australia. But I think you're barking up the wrong tree trying to influence Hillary "censorship" clinton to help you rescind the DMCA.

That said, Why ARE we letting this happen? Why isn't anyone brave enough to start rallies? Anyone?

Re:I hate this -- why are we letting it happen? (3, Insightful)

M.C. Hampster (541262) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114472)

Isn't this a fucking democracy?

No, it's not. It's a constutional republic, and you're response shows exactly why that is. Just because the majority want something from the minority doesn't mean you get it. Do you think it was OK when the white majority in this country held the black minority in slavery?

I'm sure I'll get flamed away and modded down for even making such an extreme analogy, but it holds. Just because these companies make millions of dollars a year, doesn't mean it becomes OK to steal from them.

Re:I hate this -- why are we letting it happen? (2, Informative)

(H)olyGeekboy (595250) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114480)

Isn't this a fucking democracy?

As a matter of fact, it's not. It's a Democratic Republic. Which means that the majority of our elected representative's views become law and are enforced, for worse and for worser, by the executive branch.

If you want this to stop, vote for statesmen instead of lawyers and politicians. Voice disgust over the evident usurping of legislative power by John Ashcroft and his Assistant Attorneys General. Creative enforcement of questionable code of law is NOT what the executive branch is charged with.

People are too damn lazy anymore. Speak up and be heard... the first step may have to be convincing the businessmen and special interest lobbyists who buy the politicians to see things our way (think EFF), while slowly replacing the politicians with real statespeople who have a freaking clue and are not swayed by their payola, but instead genuinely represent the interests of their constituency.

Re:I hate this -- why are we letting it happen? (4, Insightful)

koreth (409849) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114497)

No, it's not a democracy, and that's fine by me. The alternative is mob rule -- "whatever the majority thinks, goes" means any minority that the majority doesn't like is pretty much screwed. Regardless of the merits of this particular case, I think it's desirable for a government to protect wronged parties from the whims of the majority.

And you're not the only one writing to your representatives about this, though I doubt many others are doing it daily.

Re:I hate this -- why are we letting it happen? (2, Insightful)

Osty (16825) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114499)

The majority of Americans do not see digital piracy as theft. The majority of Americans also do not see picking flowers at a public park as theft, or sneaking a grape at the supermarket. The majority of Americans drank alcohol before the legal age. Technically, we should all be in prison, but these minor crimes don't really hurt anybody, and so they are overlooked. Why, then, is the DOJ going after file sharers?

Your examples are bad. Sure, you can pick flowers for free in a public park (though watch out for the park rangers, and if everybody did this there would be no more flowers left to pick), but unless you have the skill, you can't get a professional-quality flower arrangement for free, nor should you expect to. You can sample a grape at the grocery store, but if you want the whole bunch you have to buy it. Same for if you want a salad containing grapes (either buy the grapes and make the salad, or buy the salad). You're confusing constituent pieces (musical notes and words, for lack of any better way to break up a song) versus a complete product (a finished song or album). I can see a case being made for filesharing to "preview" an album (although most online places where you can buy CDs also allow you to sample those CDs, as do many brick&mortar stores). However, it's a very easy step from "I'll just download this one song to see if I like it" to "I'll just download this whole CD, because I don't want to pay for it". (Let's not make this an argument about CD prices -- yes, they could and should be lower. If you don't like that, vote with your money and don't buy. However, that doesn't give you the right to then go and steal the music anyway.)


Isn't this a fucking democracy?

Nope. It's a republic. You vote for people you think will represent your views properly, but that does not mean that they will. And if they don't, then you don't vote for them again.


I don't want to go to jail for pirating the new Pearl Jam or Queens of the Stone Age albums. I bought them anyway, but since I didn't clean them from my WinMX serving directory, i'm technically abetting piracy.

Simple solution -- clean those out of your WinMX directory. Quick, simple, and saves you from a trip to the big house.


I don't think I deserve it. I don't think my crime is that bad.

Nobody ever does. On the upside, you'll fit in very well in prison, where everybody's innocent.


I don't think that I'm depriving anyone of actual property or actual money they might have actually made, and I don't think the majority would argue with me.

Possibly true, but then probably not. If you've downloaded more than a couple songs on an album and kept them around without buying that album, then they've lost a sale (apparently you like the songs if you keep them around and still listen to them, and you would've bought the album if you couldn't just steal the songs). Maybe you didn't have the money to buy the CD, but then that doesn't give you the right to just steal the music. ("Your honor, I was flat broke but I needed a car, so I just took one from the lot. I felt I was entitled to it because I couldn't afford one and I really needed it.")

Re:I hate this -- why are we letting it happen? (2)

unicron (20286) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114501)

Yeah, but what if you started sneaking more than one grape. Let's say you grabbed 5 of them this week, a little more the following week, and let's say that in 3 weeks you're grabbing taking a pound of grapes a week. Now let's say that one day you notice you're not the only one doing this, but instead you notice a great number of people sneaking out a pound of grapes or more. A month later you notice that 3 out of every 4 people is sneaking their grapes out. And you mention this to some out of town friends who say that their supermarket is the same way, and so is the supermarket of all their friends, regardless of where they live on the Earth.

You see how this can get out of hand? Your one snuck grape now has the possibility of putting the grape farmers out of business.

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here, I'm just saying you have to look at the big picture and think to yourself that while what you're doing isn't going to effect the recording industry, a million of you probably will.

I for one think the thing that makes this case so important to the DOJ is money. Grape farmers and people against underage drinking don't have anywhere near the financial backing that the RIAA does. Not to say they have DOJ members in their pockets or anything, but financial contributors come from all walks of life and sometimes you have to grease the wheels a little.

One more thing from my soapbox. When I download a mp3's, it's for the simple and basic reason that I can think of a hundred better things to spend my 15 bucks on rather than a CD. I've never kidded myself into thinking by downloading the latest cool new song or cd that I was in any way any type of freedom fighter or revolutionary. I was at best a cheap bastard, at worst a petty thief, but never delusional.

All this could have been avoided... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4114355)

If you fucking theives had kept your digital hands in your pockets. Thanks a lot fuckers! I stopped distributing a shareware app I wrote some time ago becuse there was 100% sharing and 0% being nice and paying me the $15 I was asking for. So nothing for you!

Copyright Infringement PSA's in movie theaters? (2, Interesting)

AgTiger (458268) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114356)

If I see one of these in my theater, I'm walking straight out to the box office and demanding a refund for the film I was about to see. It's bad enough that I now PAY to get a constant stream of "buy our crap" before the movie I came to see, but to sit there and have my morals and ethics insulted? Feh.

Hollywood is starting to believe their own press and it's time people started to remind them that they are ONLY ENTERTAINMENT.

Re:Copyright Infringement PSA's in movie theaters? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4114483)

it's time people started to remind them that they are ONLY ENTERTAINMENT.

Right on man. They are indeed a luxury, and America is a society built on luxuries. However, when it starts interfering with real, actual core business then someone needs to put them back into place -- methinks it's about time.

I mean, for the love of god just think how many man-hours have been wasted by people browsing /. at work and commenting on these things?!?! It must be billions of $$ total, shove that economic loss into the RIAA's and MPAA's face.

So, once they cut down on "piracy"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4114360)

by throwing enough people in jail, what are they going to blame their reduced CD sales on then?

Meanwhile, actual criminals who kill, rape, and rob people are getting out early because there's not enough room in the prisons for them.

Who are the record companies going to sell CD's to when most of their would-be customers are in jail?

Re:So, once they cut down on "piracy"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4114384)

Don't think of them as prisoners.

Think of them as free labor to make CD's for export.

law creates criminals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4114361)

there ain't no criminals without laws to create them

hrmmmm (2, Interesting)

rhadamanthus (200665) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114363)

Don't you think that putting up adverts in theaters to tell people to "go to the theater, instead of downloading movies" is a little counterintuitive?

I mean, I would assume most people in the theater are ummm... going to theaters?

As a whole though, fuck the MPAA and the RIAA.


MPAA: Movies and TV, generally suck. I only get the occasional movie if its really good. Otherwise your prices don't justify a product I'll watch maybe once or twice.


RIAA: I'm stealing music you stole (more or less) from the artist. What goes around comes around...

----rhad

From the CNet article: (1)

xagon7 (530399) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114373)

"If we have 70 million people in the United States who are breaking the law, we have a big issue."

Then, perhaps the law needs to be changed.

"The computer is to intellectual property what a matter replication device would be to matter." - me

Clever (1)

bre (590722) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114377)

Finally, the Washington Post (probably one of the last articles we post from their site, as they go registration-required) discovers spoofed files on Gnutella

What's so new about this? I've read about spoofed files some weeks ago... (was it with the new Eminem album?)

Anyway, I think this is a quite clever way to stop (at least some) people from copying copyrighted songs. On the other hand, file sharers will surely find a way to go around this...

DoubleSpeak of the year award goes to ... (2)

El_Smack (267329) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114379)


Larry Kenswell, on new formats to combat copying.
Quote: "What we'll see is new media coming out that will have a lot of flexibility built into the format," said Larry Kenswil of Universal Music Group.

Yeah, flexible as in "Flexible to do what WE want it to do in your computer/mp3 player/home audio system."
This statement takes *huge* balls to make with a straight face.

Units shipped fell because unit price has soared (2, Interesting)

forrestt (267374) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114382)

The record labels have been spurred to action by figures they find terrifying: The number of "units shipped" -- CDs sent to record stores or directly to consumers -- fell by more than 6 percent last year, and it's widely expected to fall 6 to 10 percent more by the end of 2002

I'll tell you why I stopped buying CD's. It's because a CD used to cost about $11 when they first came out, and now that the technology is available to produce them for $.05 a piece they cost about $25.

Hey RIAA, stop selling the damn things at such a ripoff price, and we will start buying them again. (And no, I don't burn them either, I just don't listen to the new (CRAP) music that is being forced down our throats.)

Re:Units shipped fell because unit price has soare (3, Insightful)

danheskett (178529) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114441)

I don't buy music from the RIAA or movies from the MPAA or cable from AOL-TW because they are corrupt and pretty much purely evil corporations. I don't begrudge them profits, but I do begrudge them for taking control of fair use, limiting consumer choice, and repeadtly being accused, tried, convicted/settled of price fixing and market manipulation.

But true, $25 is pricey.

Re:Units shipped fell because unit price has soare (1)

tiedyejeremy (559815) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114442)

Agreed. I read an article recently that mentioned the Soundtrack for an Austin Powers movie cost more than the DVD at best buy. That type of craziness is why I mostly listen bands that allow taping and trading. I buy ALL of their albums. Phish and the Grateful Dead have more released albums than you can shake a stick at and I buy them all to support them. The new $20 cds turn me off and i don't buy them to send a message. Radio gives me plenty of their stuff and the price charged is more in line with what I think the RIAA is worth.

Re:Units shipped fell because unit price has soare (1)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114467)

No, CDs cost about $25 when they FIRST came out; and I remember when they were $18 each, cassettes were $7, and the labels were claiming "once we get more printing plants, the price will come down enough to be comparable with cassettes." Nobody bought that one then, either.

Re:Units shipped fell because unit price has soare (2)

KelsoLundeen (454249) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114490)

Yeah, whatever the hell happened to the promise of cheap CDs?

I actually do remember buying my first CD -- and I remember I paid less for that first one ($13.99 at MusicLand store in a local mall) than for the CD I just bought recently ($15.99 at Best Buy).

I mean, I suppose the logic is that, well, the price for artists and distribution have skyrocketed, but AFAIC, that's the last time I buy into something based on the promise of "cheap" things to come.

Re:Units shipped fell because unit price has soare (1)

doctormetal (62102) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114496)

I'll tell you why I stopped buying CD's. It's because a CD used to cost about $11 when they first came out, and now that the technology is available to produce them for $.05 a piece they cost about $25.

That's true for a lot of people (including myself). Organizations like the RIAA (or BUMA here in the Netherlands) are too stupid to realize the real solution: if you don't want people to copy music, give them no reason to do so.
Sell CD's for a reasonable price and more people will buy them instead of downloading.

Not enough room in court systems.... (2)

TibbonZero (571809) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114389)

You know, there just isn't enough room in the court systems to " prosecute filesharers under the The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act. ". Last time I checked Kazaa had some what 20 million downloads of the program or something? I am sure that everyone has downloaded one thing they don't own on Kazaa.. 20 million people in court. Yea right! The cops don't hand out that many speeding tickets each year.

I think that alot of people use these services for legit uses, but not everyone. I think it's absurb though, that I they want to get rid of a service that I can be using for legit purposes just because of some people! It's like canceling the Ice Cream party for the whole class when some kids are bad, even though some of the kids in class are being good (well, it was a good 3rd grade analogy, but that's where the RIAA and MPAA's logic level is)

Bad Year (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114397)

"After all, the movie studios are having a terrible year, right?"

Yeah, with a stinker like XXX (Seen the trailer? You've seen the movie then!) and some of the other bombs I've seen, they can certainly do better. Profitwise tho, they've proven bad economic times drive people to the theaters, despite their best attempts to keep people out with possibly one of the dullest seasons of offerings I can recall.

Let's hope Hulk, Matrix II and some of the Thanksgiving-thru-Christmas offerings are better.

SAVE THE CHILDRENesque!!!!!!!! (3, Insightful)

_ph1ux_ (216706) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114398)

This quote from the anti-piracy PSAs in movie theatres article is way to save the children for my taste:

"downloading movies instead of buying a ticket or a video would hurt the industry's behind-the-scenes workers, including makeup artists and custodians"

Now I am not advocating theft of their property - what I am upset about is the rampant attempts by media to skew your opinions on a subject with emotional connections. Iknow I know... its *always* been happening - but these days it is so much worse than it ever was before - as the causes that the media is used to convey information for are more and more plastic and manufactured.

the media is continually trying to sway public opinion through emotional manipulation. Putting you in a position where if you dont agree with the opinion or dont have the emotions they want you to then you're automatically a terrorist - or hate the children etc....

(I know I am not articulating this as well as I would like... but I think that you get the point) I am just so tired of the slant that is put on all the information out there. Is there no place that I can get information - generic and straight forward without the emotinal buzzwords and hyperbole??

Re:SAVE THE CHILDRENesque!!!!!!!! (2)

pbur (88030) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114437)

To quote George Carlin:

"Fuck the children!"

You are completely right, people drag out senseless emtional things to get other people to do things. Classic sales technique. I for one am sick and tired of "America the Beautiful" being played before a movie starts. I love my country, but what real good is playing a silly crappy remake of that song doing before I watch a movie filled with violence?

Pbur

Hehe. My Plan (5, Funny)

Myuu (529245) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114406)

"Apparently some theaters are consenting to run anti-piracy ads before movies."

My city's big theater already has a poster on their ticket booths saying 'Pirates Not Allowed...blah blah blah...MPAA' with a picture of a pirate.

Our plan is to go into the theater with a video camera and one of us dressed as a pirate and yell out "Arrr...thats discrimation".

Hehe...just something to do to toy with those coporate bitches.

Re:Hehe. My Plan (1)

yelligsc (451575) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114486)

I want a digital copy when you do it!

Fight the power!

That chart to the right. (5, Insightful)

Whispers_in_the_dark (560817) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114407)

Was anyone else a little miffed at the chart to the right of the Washington Post article which seemed to imply that increasing blank CD sales were the cause of the leveling off of CD sales? Could it *possibly* be that blank CD sales rose so much higher because blank CD's were being sold at commodity prices? Now a good number of those blanks may very well have been for pirating, but I'll bet a good number of them were for software backups, saving personal photos, and other legitimate uses.

Music CD's, OTOH, have remained at the same stinking price (for the most part) for the last 5 years. Want to sell more of something when the demand/market share ISN'T increasing? Do you want to actually slow piracy? Charge a reasonable amount for a product that's in LESS demand! These guys just can't seem to understand that the CD buying market itself is not the same as it was 25 years ago -- thers is just too much supply for the demand.

Re:That chart to the right. (4, Insightful)

SuiteSisterMary (123932) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114433)

You know something is wrong when the Soundtrack CD for 'Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery' and the DVD, including commentary tracks, deleted scenes, and all the other DVD goodies, are the EXACT SAME PRICE.

Re:That chart to the right. (1)

DetritusX (319569) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114476)

These guys just can't seem to understand that the CD buying market itself is not the same as it was 25 years ago...

Actually, the demand for CDs is quite a lot higher now than it was 25 years ago...

Return of the DMCA, or the DMCA Stikes Back? (1)

Gaggme (594298) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114409)

Again, legislation being used in a way it was not intentionally ment to be used for.

When will that court case with the Supreme Court happen, that will nullify this law as unconstitutional and let us have our freedom of speech?

I know something is in the works with the ACLU and a college student who wants to crack encrypted web filters

Drop your suit (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114410)

Sounds like what Clinton would ask a female co-worker to do

An anti-piracy ad? (5, Funny)

soulsteal (104635) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114414)

Hmmm, I hope someone puts it up on KaZaa or else I might never see it....

Isn't this what we want? (5, Insightful)

Xenopax (238094) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114419)

<rant>
I know this has been pointed out before, but isn't the whole point that they go after copyright infringers and not the software makers that produce napster and kazaa?

Now, granted, they are doing both. But we can't bitch when the government is going to prosecute the people who are infringing on copyrights. Just because the RIAA is involved, and the term DMCA has been used, does not mean that what is going on is wrong. Say what you will about "but the RIAA is EVIL!", it doesn't make infridging on their copyrights right (as in anywhere close to legal), and they and the justice department has every right to take people who do to court.

Now, you may also have issues about current copyright law. Granted, it isn't very good, but if you want the copyright law changed then bitch about the copyright law to your congressmen or representative. Don't take a stand on this issue, as far as they are concerned everyone who trades music on the net is a criminal, and you can do nothing about that. Convince them that the copyright law is way to long, many of our problems would go away if we could reduce it to something sane like 10-15 years.

And for all of those "we'll make a better system based on trust to trade music files" but don't want to play the political game, you are idiots. Who do you think they are going to prosecute? You and everyone else who uses that system. The only fight we have is in politics, there is no technical solution to this problem. As much as you would like to think you'll win this battle whipping up some code in C, you are going to find there is nothing you can code that will keep the handcuffs off of your hands.
</rant>

from the anti-piracy ad article (4, Insightful)

+_-repo-_+ (315890) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114421)

" Chernin argued that piracy will not only hurt creators of original content but also consumers if movie studios lose so many ticket sales that they begin cutting expenses. He said online piracy does not seem to have the same stigma as shoplifting.

Chernin also decried efforts to download copies of the latest Star Wars installment. About 10 million people tried to download "Star Wars: Episode II -- Attack of the Clones" and "Spider-Man" in the weekend after its release, and 4 million succeeded, he said. "

It just struck me as odd that the two movies the guy is talking about made just a little bit of money. from http://movies.yahoo.com/boxoffice-alltime/rank.htm l

#5 Spider-Man $403,820,726
#13 Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones $298,843,836

America: The only place in the world (2, Insightful)

Eversor (24917) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114422)

where you can get arrested for listening to music.

Is it just me, or has this gone too far. It's time to break out some good old vigilateism on these control freaks. Time to organize.

Re:America: The only place in the world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4114498)

Actually, music was illegal in Afghanistan [216.239.51.100] under the Taleban. Seems the U.S. has something else in common with the ter'ists, mm?

Hah! (2, Insightful)

VivisectRob (550902) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114426)

Gee... Hollywood isn't having a terrible year this year because they release stuff like xXx and Spy Kids 2...nope... it has to be the media pirates...

In related news... (3, Funny)

Necromancyr (602950) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114431)

In related news the RIAA has begun a lawsuit against anyone with the sensory organs known as 'ears' and the throat muscles and tissue responsible for sound creation (refered to herein in as the 'voice box').

This combination allows millions to 'listen' to any music and then replay it back by 'singing' the song. This will allow thousands to hear songs without purchasing them. The ramifications on the CD industry by these criminals is completely real, and must be stopped, according to the RIAA.

The lawsuit is believed to exclude deaf-mutes, though they are being examined for the ability to feel vibrations and possible replay them by tapping the rythm out on any surface available.

NET? (3, Insightful)

sllort (442574) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114444)

No Electronic Theft Act. Ok.

Here's the definition of theft [dictionary.com] :


\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position ; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.


Emphasis mine. That should be easy; no file sharing programs remove files from RIAA hard drives. Problem solved!

This is all good (2)

overshoot (39700) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114451)

Selective enforcement of laws (2600, anyone?) allows them to selectively threaten people for leverage (e.g. making region-free players hard to get.)

Uniform enforcement, on the other hand, or even the widely-publicized appearance of uniform enforcement, brings the issues out of the geek ghetto to where the voting public confronts it.

Best thing that could happen would be for the RIAA to file criminal charges against Aunt Martha for letting her friends copy her Burl Ives recordings.

Delete Files PLEASE (1)

brian_brotsos (602694) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114454)

Gnutella users, if you download a song and it is spoofed, PLEASE DELETE. This will minimize the problem. Also is there a way to block that ip address in future, and maybe create a master list of ips of spoofed files to post for everyone. On a sidenote, if the story is posted with registration, who cares who wrote it why dont you put the link to a sydicated http://www.msnbc.com/news/797030.asp?0dm=C15MT site.

How to make an average pirate think twice (2)

jukal (523582) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114459)

Ok, I used to pirate music and gamez when I was a kid. But since then I have realized that it is just the same as stealing that CD or game from the store. And I don't shoplift. :)

Anyway, I think that they are using a wrong approach to tell people that software or any other piracy is a bad thing. Currently, it seems that they just wish to publish the capture of the big fished. What I suggest, is that they would nail a couple of "innocent" senior citizens with one pirate CD instead. Anyone, who is not nowadays thought as a pirate but still has one or two illegal copies will do. That should make people think.

Meanwhile, they should ofcourse nail the big ones too, but these joe average cases are the ones that should be passed to media, I think.

The Most Frightening Thing About All This (2, Insightful)

SirChive (229195) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114477)

The most frightening thing about all of this is how the corporate copyright holders are redefining the definitions used in the laws.

It's obvious that these laws were passed with the intent of punishing people who copy and sell copyrighted material for financial gain, meaning money. But they are so scared by Peer to Peer sharing that they have simply redefined "financial gain" to cover any exchange of anything by anybody.

People have a deep urge to share. "I'll give you a copy of mine if you give me a copy of yours" is not motivated by financial gain.

But now a law that was designed to prosecute the guy who runs off a 1000 copies of Photoshop and sells them through the mail is being used to make a criminal out of me, my kids and virtually everybody I know.

cost-cutting in economic slowdown? inconceivable! (2)

Dr. Awktagon (233360) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114479)

Chernin argued that piracy will not only hurt creators of original content but also consumers if movie studios lose so many ticket sales that they begin cutting expenses.

Well well. While the rest of us are cutting our expenses and companies are going bankrupt left and right, the darling movie industry can't seem to even comprehend the concept.

I'll start to feel sorry for the movie industry when they actually lose money for a few years in a row. Actually I won't feel sorry at all, I'll feel like the theory of evolution has just been validated.

Sad thing is... (1)

JasonMaggini (190142) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114485)

If the film studios do have a downturn, they're more likely to blame it on pirates that the fact that they're shoveling more and more crap onto theater screens...

What's the ratio now, one good movie for every 37 cinema stinkers like "Crossroads," "Pluto Nash" or "Master of Disguise"?

RIAA/MPAA has a lot to answer for... (1)

sjgman9 (456705) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114488)

RIAA: Care to explain how big radio (infinity, clear channel, emmmis, ect...) more or less forces you to pay them to play crap?
How could a firmly entrenched highly profitable business be so shortsided with radio deregulation that playlists would be decided a very select group of people?

If you want any more money from me, lower CD prices in half. A movie soundtrack should not cost the same as the DVD!
If individual labels had online stores that sold an album for like $10 or a single for $1, I'd buy.
You would save a lot of money in distribution costs. Also, youd save money if you didnt try to sue ISP's, computer programmers, power companies, universities, corporations, individuals, and every other person with an independent thought who doesnt like what you do.

Ever read a history book? A student of US history?
Know what happened with the stamp act? Britain decided to tax the writers, who organized a revolution. Live free of die! Remember the hideous tax on tea? Boston tea party! This is an American Tradition here! Be patriotic or suck it!

MPAA: I dont mind spending $6 dollars to go see a movie in a theater. I can download movies but the quality sucks. Id rather pay for good entertainment then sit on my ass working a computer trying to download a crappy divx release. Dont label me as a criminal when I pay to see movies, rent at least 20 movies a year, and buy a couple DVDs every year as well.
Jack Valenti: Retire dammit. No one likes you. You belong in an asylum.

Hilary Rosen: If big radio has blackmail on you, haha its your ass. Just dont try to take it out on us or else I wont pay for cds!

Give consumers what they want or else you dont have a business. Simple free market darwinism. Play by the rules fairly or do something else!

Youd probably make a very good asbestos laywer. Use your talents elsewhere

Is it my network or yours (2, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114493)

The RIAA has bludgeoned its way into a critical issue here. The subpoena provisions only apply to material covered by 17 US 512(c), material on a service provider's system or network at the direction of users. The question, then, is whether or not a system owned by the user of an ISP is on that ISP's network or not.

My take on it is that it's like the phone system; anything upstream of the NIB belongs to the phone company and is on their network, anything downstream is on the user's network. This works for DSL and dialup, and a similar line could be drawn for cable. Unfortunately, it's quite possible that a sufficently incentivized court could decide that by using an ISP, you are putting your computer on THEIR network, and thus 512(c) applies.

This would be very bad, not just because of the subpoena clause. This would allow 512(c) takedown notices of items stored on your own machine. Host your own website with material the RIAA doesn't like? If it's on YOUR network, 512(a) absolutely protects your ISP from any monetary liability regardless of any takedown notices, and against injunctions in most cases. They'd have to sue you directly to get results.

But if the courts rule that your website is on your ISPs network, they can send a 512(c)(3) takedown notice, and your ISP would have to either cut your website off immediately or risk liability.

corporations writing the laws (2)

GoatPigSheep (525460) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114500)

When the corporations are the ones writing the laws... whats the point of following them?

Unfortunately, the government is now the enemy of the people, the only option is civil disobedience (that is, not changing the habits we have such as copying cd's for our own person use which used to be perfectly legal)

Legalized DOS (2, Insightful)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 12 years ago | (#4114502)

The labels are also supporting a bill, now under consideration in Congress, that would make it legal to "impair the operation of peer-to-peer" networks, such as LimeWire. That could be done, for example, by overloading file-sharing services with so many requests that they slow to a crawl.

And does Congress realize that this will also affect everyone up and down the line, including the backbones, the ISPs, and other users on the same nodes in cable broadband systems?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?