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!

Freenet Creator Debates RIAA

simoniker posted more than 11 years ago | from the free-always-controversial dept.

Software 806

smd4985 writes "Over at CNET News.com, there's a good coverage of a debate between Ian Clarke of Freenet and Matt Oppenheim of the RIAA." In discussing whether it's "legal and moral to create and use Freenet", which is "a radically decentralized network of file-sharing nodes tied together with strong encryption", the RIAA's Oppenheim suggests: "Other than the fact that most infringers do not like to use Freenet because it is too clunky for them to get their quick hit of free music, it is no more of a threat than any of the popular P2P services."

cancel ×

806 comments

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

What would (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384468)

Goatse [goatse.cx] say?

GOATSE IS DUMB -- TROLLS PLEASE READ THIS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384573)

No one is falling for the goatse trick. I know, back in the day when no one knew what goatse was, it was great because people would be genuinely disgusted. Now, it's just old.

You may get the occasional sucker when you post a troll that looks legitimate and throw in a TinyURL that points to a goatse or tubgirl. When I post this troll I'll sit back and see how much I can get modded up before someone lets on to the fact that it's a redirect to goatse/tubgirl/penisbird/what have you. It goes to show how dumb the moderators are around here.

My message to you, fellow troll, is to put a little bit of GOD DAMN CREATIVITY into your trolls. Everyone can see the link and everyone knows what goatse is. The trolls around here are a little bit weak nowadays, what with the "remove Michael from Slashdot" and the "Gay Nigger Association of America". Pretty fucking unoriginal if you ask me. Come on trolls, live up to the name and post some quality shit.

Re:GOATSE IS DUMB -- TROLLS PLEASE READ THIS (0, Offtopic)

Leffe (686621) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384665)

Hmm... I think I should become a troll... ah yes, I am pretty good at coming up with random stupid trollposts, maybe.
I trolled steampowered.com before, it was great fun, everyone else though so too :)

Really Care ? (-1)

varak_mathews (592911) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384469)

Life is a series of rude awakenings. -- R.V. Winkle

FP? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384479)

Filthy penis. Choke on it, you fucking nerds.

The RIAA is in over its head (4, Insightful)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384484)

I think the RIAA is in over its head, again. "At the end of the day, we believe we can find infringers regardless of what network they use to try to cloak their illegal activity." HA HA HA HA HA.

Bite me, *AA beeotches! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384619)

I burn copies of Britney Spears CDs and hand them out at the mall!

Nobody takes the copies of "Crossroads", though. :-(

Re:The RIAA is in over its head (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384679)

"Fo shizzle ma nizzle" is urban for "for sure, my nigger." See also "Fo sheezy ma neezy."

Caucasians should avoid using these terms in the presence of Negroes.

Re:The RIAA is in over its head (3, Interesting)

Leffe (686621) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384718)

Are there any networks where illegal activity is not exercised?

I can not think of any right now. Is that a sign that the laws are wrong or that we are wrong? I would say that the laws are wrong, I actually enjoy pirating, it is great when you do not have anything to do. Just start a 800 Mb download and the afternoon is saved. Praise piracy!

Plain and simple... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384485)

freenets don't trade music, people do.

Re:Plain and simple... (2, Funny)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384562)

Freenets trade Adobe software [openp2p.com] .

Propaganda over rationality. (5, Interesting)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384486)

Some interesting comments in here...

It seems that Mr. Oppenheim likes to contradict himself. Observe:

He says: "By the way, the term "file swapping" is inaccurate. Nobody is swapping, people are making copies.", but later in the same paragraph says "Just as we would never agree that it is right to steal someone's clothes or furniture, it is not right to steal music." I think his second assumption is safe to make, but if he worded it in a way that was consistent with his earlier comment, would it still be as universally accepted? Sure people would protest if you stole their furniture, but would anybody see it as wrong if you copied their furniture? He's right about people breaking the law, but he should at least get his story straight.

I also thought this was interesting:

"Why should copyright holders, who as owners of intellectual property, have fewer rights than somebody who owns televisions or clothing and attempts to sell them? Clearly everyone would agree that the television and clothing retailers should be able to investigate and prosecute shoplifters."

Sure, store owners should be allowed to prosecute shoplifters, but they have to catch them in the act. Nobody should be forced to produce a receipt for their stuff weeks later because the store thinks they're short an item and they have a security camera shot of you looking at it. The question really should be "Why should copyright holders have more rights than somebody who owns clothing or televisions and tries to sell them?"

It seems that even when the RIAA is right (people really are breaking the law and infringing the rights offered to their members by copyright) their propaganda is more important to them than their real and legally defensible position.

Speaking of rights. (5, Insightful)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384559)

"
"Why should copyright holders, who as owners of intellectual property, have fewer rights than somebody who owns televisions or clothing and attempts to sell them? Clearly everyone would agree that the television and clothing retailers should be able to investigate and prosecute shoplifters.""


Why should the owner of a TV have more rights than the owner of a CD?

Copyright owners shouldnt own the information, they should own the right to profit from it.

Just like the TV maker doesnt own the TV once they sell it to you, they own the rights to sell that TV and profit from it.

What I dont like is the fact that as we buy information we dont truely own it, yet when we buy physical objects we own them. This makes no sense to me, I say if we buy music we should be able to do whatever we want with it.

Re:Speaking of rights. (2, Interesting)

Kenja (541830) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384588)

But you DONT buy music. You buy a license to use it.

Re:Speaking of rights. (5, Informative)

angle_slam (623817) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384610)

No. You buy a disc that contains music. There is no license except those that come from the copyright laws.

Re:Speaking of rights. (1)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384670)



What about when you buy an mp3?

And thats whats wrong. (2, Insightful)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384655)


In the physical world, you buy the physical object and you own that object.

Why should music be any different? Why the hell should we buy licenses to use music in the way they tell us to, we dont really own shit do we? I think its wrong. I mean ok when people buy music on CD you can say you were selling the CD and not the music, fine.

But when music companies literally sell an Mp3, which is pure music in its digital form, what right do they have to tell us what we can and cannot do with that mp3? We paid for the mp3 right?

Its these double standards that piss users off.

Re:Propaganda over rationality. (2, Insightful)

Evil Adrian (253301) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384567)

Nobody should be forced to produce a receipt for their stuff weeks later because the store thinks they're short an item and they have a security camera shot of you looking at it.

Your argument is idiotic. Your argument mentions circumstantial evidence, i.e. an item is missing, and they have a video of you looking at it, but no video of you taking the item out of the store.

This doesn't apply to material that requires a license. If you have the material, and you don't have a license, you have broken the fucking law. In the case of music, if you have the mp3's, and you don't have the CD or tape or whatever media you bought it on, chances are you pirated it. Yes, your original CD might have been consumed in a fire or stepped upon, but that is very unlikely all things considered, so if you want to run a discussion about how better to prove licenses, fine, but your argument lacks any thought or depth.

Thats what I dont ageee with. (1)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384577)



Why can we share physical objects, but when we treat information as physical objects suddenly we dont get to own the information we buy the right to use it in.

The RIAA wants absolute control over information and thats like TV and Car companies having absolute control over what you do with your car and TV after you buy it.

Re:Thats what I dont ageee with. (1)

cfscript (654864) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384604)

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DUPLICATE A CAR OR A TV IN A COST EFFECTIVE MANNER.

It's really rather simple. Take music, convert into binary, give away for free. Try sticking a VW into your cd-rom tray and tell me who wins.

Making a copy of something copyrighted or protected intellectually and giving it away for free is ILLEGAL.

there's a reason communism fell, ya know.

Re:Thats what I dont ageee with. (4, Funny)

Istealmymusic (573079) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384620)

Making a copy of something copyrighted or protected intellectually and giving it away for free is ILLEGAL.
Yeah, but its fun!

Re:Propaganda over rationality. (4, Informative)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384647)

This doesn't apply to material that requires a license. If you have the material, and you don't have a license, you have broken the fucking law. In the case of music, if you have the mp3's, and you don't have the CD or tape or whatever media you bought it on, chances are you pirated it.

Your use of the word "fucking" doesn't make your point any more relevant. Why should the RIAA get to demand proof that you've paid them whenever they desire, but the clothing store not be granted the same right? If they catch you sharing files, obviously you're breaking the law and they should go after you. Other than that the only thing they should be allowed to do is to go crying to their mommies. They should have the same rights as everybody else, and that's it.

Re:Propaganda over rationality. (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384667)

Why should the RIAA get to demand proof that you've paid them whenever they desire, but the clothing store not be granted the same right?

Because of the preponderance of "file-sharing?"

Proof should be easy--a CD or membership in a legit online sale service should do it. If further information is required, subponea the sales records for the online service.

'course, for most of us, the cost of RIAA having a PI / Lawyer track us down and interview us vastly outweighs any potential return. If you're one of those nuts with 60 GB of pirated MP3s, then you're out of luck anyway.

Re:Propaganda over rationality. (5, Informative)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384676)

This doesn't apply to material that requires a license. If you have the material, and you don't have a license, you have broken the fucking law.

The bogus concept of software EULAs has confused you.

Copyright has nothing to do with a "licence" to own or use a copy of a work. Copyright involves a licence to copy a work - a right to copy, thus the name.

When there's no copying involved, there is no copyright issue. There's no copying and no licence involved when you purchase a CD from your local record store. (Software EULAs are based on the ridiculous notion that loading a program into memory is "copying". I don't think this has ever been upheld.)

Re:Propaganda over rationality. (5, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384677)

It's my choice to buy the CD, convert it to MP3 (or whatever format I chose), and then destroy the original.

It's not up to me to prove that I bought the CD in the first place, it's up to the RIAA to prove that I didn't.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Now, if they catch me downloading music off the 'Net that is ILLEGAL and come into my computer and find other music then I would assume it's my responsibility to prove myself innocent.

What they want to do is exactly the opposite. They want to come into my computer w/o proof or a warrant (which in most cases would show they had proof I did something wrong) and look at what I have and then ask questions later.

That's what's wrong with the RIAA.

You missed the point. (-1)

I'm a racist. (631537) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384678)

The point is, they have no right to check and see if you have the mp3 (unless they catch you in the act of downloading it. Why should they have extra rights in order to find out if you have the mp3?

Re:Propaganda over rationality. (2, Interesting)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384705)

Music, with regards to this discussion, doesn't require a license. And there are legal ways of acquiring mp3s of it without breaking the law. E.g. the AHRA can -- and I stress _can_, since a lot of people misunderstand it, and it needs to be read carefully, in full -- permit ordinary people to trade copies of music all the live long day, and not break the law.

Re:Propaganda over rationality. (3, Interesting)

The Only Druid (587299) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384594)

Actually, it happens to many people every year that they're asked to produce receipts to account for their physical property when someone believes they may have acquired it illegally. Its called an "audit" and the IRS does it every year.

The difference is this: its actually rather difficult to shoplift anything besides books, CDs and other small objects. Those objects - the small stuff - are priced around this "shrinkage" (just ask anyone in retail) though, because of this. You cant shoplift a car, period. So, since stores know they only have to worry about small (size wise, not cost wise) they establish security mechanisms (such as RIDs, cameras, etc.) to try and prevent that shoplifting.

Now, if you're a copyright holder, how do you do the same thing? If I were a storeowner, I can keep an eye, literally, on all my merchandise. You cant steal from me without being in my store. But with music and other file sharing/whatever you want to call it, you can steal from the copyright holders from anywhere that has internet access. Obviously, this means the only way to prevent theft of this sort is (a) DRM(ooooh, I hear the 'boos' from the /. audience), (b) surveillence of networks (impossible, really), (c) destruction of those networks over which sharing is done (also impossible, really) or something similar. Basically, as much as I dislike DRM in principle, it seems to be the only real way to protect the copyrights.

There's one possible alternative: make it so cheap to acquire the material legally that functionally no one steals it. The Apple Music store is a step in this direction, but the resistance its facing from Artists (such as Linkin' Park, Alanis Morissette, etc.) and Lables (for reasons ranging from protection of the 'album' as a form of presentation by artists, to simple economic protection of markets) makes this quite difficult to accept as the solution.

Re:Propaganda over rationality. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384626)

such as Linkin' Park

What did Linkin' Park have to say about the Apple store? I find that interesting because they expressed they were pro-filesharing.

Meh, it's not like anyone would want to download their music anyway.

Re:Propaganda over rationality. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384698)

They, like Metallica, are against the Apple store selling songs individually, as opposed to an entire album.

silly arguments: "stealing" "music" (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384681)

And people are STEALING MY SOUL when they take photographs of me!!

"Just as we would never agree that it is right to steal someone's clothes or furniture, it is not right to steal music."

"I choose to steal what you chose to show"

I'll steal your fire, too!

The RIAA is right to be worried (5, Insightful)

Raindance (680694) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384487)

If a legal structure such as copyright isn't enforceable, it might as well not be part of our legal system, and indeed will be thrown out.

I think often people too often focus on law and morality in a vacuum and forget that, to a large degree, *might makes right* in our society. To some degree our legal system attempts to fairly distribute power in society (often with 'fairly' defined by those who already have power), but it operates under fairly tight constraints on what sort of distribution of power is enforceable. Freenet is huge for the long-term prospects of copyright laws; if Freenet survives they will be forced to radically change in the upcoming years.

Re:The RIAA is right to be worried (1)

kaltkalt (620110) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384691)

Agreed. Hopefully sometime in the near future copyright will simply not apply to any work fixed in a completely electronic form (deem it not to be fixed in a tangible medium so copyright doesn't apply). It's impracticable to enforce any other way. This means it would be illegal to make copies of DVDs and sell them, but it would not be illegal to upload a DVD to a friend. Anything less just isn't going to work in a world where every single person has what amounts to a "replicator" in their house. If we could replicate our cars, it would not be the same as going into a car dealership and stealing a car from the lot.

Check out Ian's journal (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384488)

Right here [slashdot.org] on Slashdot.

Shady dealings (5, Insightful)

axlrosen (88070) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384489)

Clarke: Matt seems to misunderstand Judge Posner's quote. Posner was referring to those involved in the likely "shady dealings"--not the creators of the tools they are using. To use his own analogy, the manufacturers of a mask used in a bank robbery are certainly not responsible for the criminal behavior of the bank robbers. This notion was reaffirmed by Judge (Stephen) Wilson earlier this year in his ruling in the Grokster case as it pertains to P2P networks saying, "Grokster and Streamcast are not significantly different from companies that sell home video recorders or copy machines, both of which can be and are used to infringe copyrights."

Well that's still not a perfect analogy. For example, if the company added a feature to the ski mask that made it harder to pull off, and advertised this feature for use in bank robberies, they'd probably be held liable for its use in a robbery. Or if they didn't advertise it, but did know that the new feature's overwhelming use would be in bank robberies, then they might also be liable. You could make a similar statement for VCR and copy machine manufacturers.

I think Freenet's a really cool technical problem, and I'd get involved in it, except for these kinds of problems. Even with all its positive uses, the idea of working on what turns out to be an ideal tool for distributing kiddie-porn just gives me the willies. I personally don't feel comfortable in this gray area of providing complete anonymity. A system that had the same benefits of distributed publishing (to avoid the Slashdot effect) without the encryption, I'd be interested in contributing to.

Re:Shady dealings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384527)

So, do you not use PGP because criminals and terrorists can also use it to keep their activities secret?

To me, a tool is a tool, and I'll use if it's appropriate, regardless of how someone else might use it. People are good and bad, tools are not.

Re:Shady dealings (2, Insightful)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384601)

You might use it appropriately and not be doing anything illegal whatsoever, but the mere use of things like PGP can get you on a list of people to watch. Unfortunately in today's social climate, people are willing to sacrifice civil rights for security and government agencies are taking as much rope as you want to hand them. So by not using PGP, you don't end up unfairly held without trial. I don't think anyone would suggest that just because you use PGP, you're transmitting nuclear secrets, but the possibility exists.

For instance, the RIAA views anyone who uses Kazaa as a criminal who is breaking the law - regardless of whether they are or aren't. Without the legal backing, people are forced to take punishment from the RIAA (example: the kid at RPI that made the search engine). It's not easy being a civil rights leader and standing up for your rights. So I guess, long story short - those people currently logged into Kazaa downloading public domain works like how_to_uncap_your_cable_modem.txt are akin to Rosa Parks and other freedom riders of the past generation.

Re:Shady dealings (3, Insightful)

guacamolefoo (577448) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384673)

To me, a tool is a tool, and I'll use if it's appropriate, regardless of how someone else might use it. People are good and bad, tools are not.

I have no beef with your assertion, but the courts do. Certain "tools" or property do create a presumption of criminal activity. An easy one is cocaine -- possession of it (under almost any circumstances) is itself a crime, whether your goal is nefarious (pleasure use) or "good" (pain relief). Possession of a bomb (which you might simply use to blow out stumps) is another example.

Thieves tools (and not just in Neverwinter Nights) create a presumption that you are engaged in criminal activity. Possession of certain "smart cards" (such as those used by Directv) also puts you at risk, even though you may have a perfectly legitimate use (which you will have to document in order to avoid prosecution).

Again, your view is not an illegitimate one, but the fact is that, from a legal standpoint, it is an incorrect and potentially dangerous one. Software is not unlike these other items I mentioned above, and there is no reason that I can see that would prevent legislation from making possession of a software (or hardware) tool illegal. DeCSS, or BackOrifice, or snort could all be made illegal.

Wise policy? I think not. Is there some rule preventing this from being an actual enforceable law (that possession of these items, without actual use, would be a crime)? No.

GF.

Re:Shady dealings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384700)

The difference is that software can be written and spoken at the code level if necessary. And, if you want to restrict speech, you have a lot more work to do due to the First Ammendment. It's easier to outlaw bombs than it is to outlaw instructions on how to make bombs.

Re:Shady dealings (4, Informative)

guacamolefoo (577448) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384560)

Well that's still not a perfect analogy. For example, if the company added a feature to the ski mask that made it harder to pull off, and advertised this feature for use in bank robberies, they'd probably be held liable for its use in a robbery. Or if they didn't advertise it, but did know that the new feature's overwhelming use would be in bank robberies, then they might also be liable.

I doubt it. An anlagous case involving the Tec-9 gun (hard to get fingerprints from and some other features which were allegedly used to promote sales to questionable people) was tossed:

CBS News - Gun Lawsuit Misses Target [cbsnews.com]

GF.

Re:Shady dealings (1)

bofkentucky (555107) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384643)

The dual deck VCR had to have its day in court, but it was declared perfectly legal. I'm not sure about those combo DVD/VCR's I've seen at $ElectronicsRetailer though, anyone know about its satus, or do they disable dvd->VHS recording in hardware.

Re:Shady dealings (1)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384708)

The recent ruling in the Aimster case discussed this exactly. The Judge pointed out that the Aimster argued that any noninfringing use was good enough to protect them, while the RIAA/DOJ/Whoever argued that any infringing use was bad enough to take them down.

Both are wrong, obviously.

Make Freenet Open Source! (1, Funny)

Lieutenant_Dan (583843) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384493)

I think Mr Oppenheim could surpass his previous accomplishments by making Freenet available to the Open Source developer. Their dedication and long-term would be vital for the growth of such a peer-to-peer network on a global scale within an extended period of time.

The RIAA obviously sees Freenet as dangerous threat bigger then when it encountered the file-attachment Network in Zambia or the "Open FTP" criminal ring in lower-Slovakia. The Open Source developer community would be an impartial moderator in this long-term battle while adding support for BSD and Ogg Vorbis.

Only when create a global database of international ID3 tags can we overcome the low quality musical output from BMG.

Re:Make Freenet Open Source! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384532)

Interestingly, countries like China and North Korea also think of programs like Freenet as "dangerous". I guess its no surprise that the RIAA thinks the same way.

Re:Make Freenet Open Source! (1)

Aliencow (653119) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384534)

I thought Freenet was already open source.. I thought the java code was available.. is it?

Freenet IS Open Source! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384565)

making Freenet available to the Open Source developer

i know you are trolling but if you can't find the source its not for you

http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/fre enet/freenet/ [sourceforge.net]

Re:Freenet IS Open Source! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384644)

How I get this compiled with QBasic or Watcom Pascal? Please advise, thank you.

Crack smoking again? (2, Funny)

thrillbert (146343) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384578)

I think Mr Oppenheim could surpass his previous accomplishments by making Freenet available to the Open Source developer

Oppenheim is the Sr. Vice President for the RIAA's Business and Legal Afairs.. how do you figure he could surpass his previous accomplishments by doing this?

Karma Horing while on crack?

---
If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Re:Make Freenet Open Source! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384593)

Somebody please mod this troll down. Oppenheimer has nothing to do with Freenet and freenet is already open source.

Actually it's more of a threat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384498)

When the RIAA feels threatened it just gets it's lawyers after people, with freenet who will they go after?

Infringers (2, Interesting)

desenz (687520) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384502)

Not customers, infringers. Guess we lost the right to a name too...

Say WHAT? (4, Funny)

Lane.exe (672783) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384503)

...quick hit of free music

So now people who download illegal MP3s are crack junkies?

"Man... I'm jonesin' for my latest fix of Metallica... gimme the good stuff!"

Re:Say WHAT? (4, Funny)

Evil Adrian (253301) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384518)

Metallica? Good stuff? Not since the 80's.

Re:Say WHAT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384546)

J-O-K-E

Re:Say WHAT? (1)

Istealmymusic (573079) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384653)

Metallica? Good stuff? Not since the 80's.
You can download older music on peer-to-peer software.

Re:Say WHAT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384551)

Didn't you see yesterday's article [slashdot.org] ? Music is a form of information, and I'm an addict!

Re:Say WHAT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384571)

"Man... I'm jonesin' for my latest fix of Metallica... gimme the good stuff!"

What does good stuff have to do with Metallica? I just think they suck now and have always sucked.

Yeah I know about Metallica and their stance on P2P services.

Re:Say WHAT? (1)

Glamdrlng (654792) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384625)

The problem with bands and their stance on p2p is this: Consumers, like women, find desperation unattractive. The harder you try to get me to buy your CD with one or two singles that have a catchy beat but little or no artistic value, the less likely I am to purchase your music.

It seems to me that there's a correlation between bands that pour their heart and soul into the music they make and bands that could care less how their music is experienced.

Re:Say WHAT? (1)

CrazyDuke (529195) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384682)

"So now people who download illegal MP3s are crack junkies?"

What else do you expect from rich people that snort coke?

Good job they don't consider freenet a threat... (3, Interesting)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384504)

...as I use it to grab a lot of stuff. It would be a real pisser if they recognised what it could do to them and shut it down before it was (technically and mind share wise) ready to go underground.

Re:Good job they don't consider freenet a threat.. (3, Insightful)

IthnkImParanoid (410494) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384576)

They do recognize it as a threat, but they can't say "Freenet is the most dangerous P2P app out there, because it protects the user's anonymity! If everyone used it, we'd be in even bigger trouble!" because then everybody would start using it, and they really would be in bigger trouble. The RIAA shill describe Freenet as "clunky" to the average user more than once in that interview. He's simply trying to keep any average Joe's reading that article from making the switch from KaZaa.

This is actually interesting... (4, Insightful)

SuperDuG (134989) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384509)

The whole point of peer-to-peer is to share files with others. Just like the whole point of a car is to drive it. Let's "roll" with this analogy for a bit:

There are millions of driving related accidents and homicides that take place every year across the world. Bank robbers, car theives, and demolition derbies cause the cars to be used for reasons other than they were originally intended.

My question: Where are the lawsuits against GM and other car manufacturers for providing tools of crime? Why aren't we going after the root of all evil, the car manufacturers? Why is it that we still see cars all over the planet?

Just think about it ...

Re:This is actually interesting... (3, Insightful)

Glamdrlng (654792) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384569)

For that matter, isn't carpooling a crime?

Carpooling results in less wear-and-tear on your vehicle, thus resulting in lost or delayed sales for the automotive industry. Plus, it means you use less gas, thus stealing money from Shell, Exxon, BP, etc.

It's only when you compare copyright laws to any other type of business ad nauseam that you can see how truly fux0red the system is.

Re:This is actually interesting... (3, Insightful)

angle_slam (623817) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384579)

Stupid analogy. There are many uses of cars that are legitimate. In fact, the vast majority of uses of cars are legitimate. That is not true with P2P trading. While Kazaa, et al. CAN be used for legitimate purposes, everyone knows that 90+% of material on Kazaa are not legitimate.

Re:This is actually interesting... (1)

Istealmymusic (573079) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384686)

While Kazaa, et al. CAN be used for legitimate purposes, everyone knows that 90+% of material on Kazaa are not legitimate.
By file size, file count, unique or aggregate?

There's sure a lot of freeware, anime, and home-made pornography on KaZaA. Legitimately.

Reverse that. (3, Interesting)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384622)



Do car companies sue you when you share your car with other people by giving people a lift? Do car companies require each person you give a ride to, to pay a license fee?

I hate the fact that if we are going to treat information as physical property, that unlike real physical property, in which the person who buys it truely owns it, when it comes to information theres a double standard, the person who buys it actually is paying to listen to it, and its in a very strict fashion

In my opinion no company has a right to tell you how to use something you paid for.

Re:Reverse that. (1)

angle_slam (623817) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384692)

For the most part, there aren't restrictions to CDs. You can tape them, you can let friends borrow the CDs. While some of those activities may be technically copyright violations, no one really cares. P2P puts everything on a much larger scale. It's not just letting a friend borrow your CD or even burning a copy for your friend. It's allowing millions of people throughout the world copy a CD. How can that not effect the music industry.

Re:This is actually interesting... (2, Interesting)

Frac (27516) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384650)

The whole point of peer-to-peer is to share files with others. Just like the whole point of a car is to drive it. Let's "roll" with this analogy for a bit:

There are millions of driving related accidents and homicides that take place every year across the world. Bank robbers, car theives, and demolition derbies cause the cars to be used for reasons other than they were originally intended.

My question: Where are the lawsuits against GM and other car manufacturers for providing tools of crime? Why aren't we going after the root of all evil, the car manufacturers? Why is it that we still see cars all over the planet?

Just think about it ...


because the illegal uses of cars is overwhelmingly small compared to the legal uses of cars? (as a form of transportation)

If 90% of the car uses were related to crimes (9 out of 10 cars on a highway are used as getting away from another scene of a crime), you bet the lawsuits would be everywhere.

Just think about it ...

Re:This is actually interesting... (1)

keller (267973) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384680)

There are millions of driving related accidents and homicides that take place every year...

But then again there are billions of people using their car for just driving around the neighbourhood. Those cars never do anything illegal (yeah I know people speed...) and theres your difference. If the majority of the cars in the world was used for criminal purposes, they would also be banned in civilized countries. Fact is that most P2P activity is illegal filesharing. - Bad analogy, period!

Re:This is actually interesting... (1)

Average Joe (99250) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384695)

Thats right. And numerous studies have shown that you are much more likely to survive an accident if your car isn't travelling more than 30 mph. Its quite simple to put a governor on an engine to prevent it from allowing your car to exceed 30mph, so car manufacturers are negligent for not puting this safety feature on all cars. Think of the billions in damages they are liable for, I wish I was a trial lawyer.

Freenet is awesome (2, Interesting)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384516)

I have to say, I don't really like freenet now, but there are still some very very cool ideas in it that I think we'll see evolving into something more practical over the next few years, maybe by the guys at freenet, but maybe not. Personally I have great respect for Ian Clarke for having the guts to start in on a project this large and also for the fact that it's resulted in a product which is right now useful in its own right even if it's not as good as it could(/will?) be.

Re:Freenet is awesome (2, Insightful)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384704)

My main bitches against freenet are #1 it's written in Java and quite honestly it performs like shit on every system I've tried it on and #2 the freenet developers have some sort of thing against anybody having very many files shared (even if they legally own them all).

The first problem is easy to fix just by developing other clients. I don't really see it as a problem if the dev client is written in Java.. which certainly has some benefits. The second issue is what made me lose interest in freenet. They total refused to make any effort towards making it easier (or possible?) to share large groups of files. Not only that but they made plain that they didn't think anybody should put so many files on freenet.

How can freenet be immoral? (5, Interesting)

dobedobedew (663137) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384520)

So freenet is an ethical dilemma? Next thing you know, we won't have our right of free speech!

Oh wait, nevermind....

Re:How can freenet be immoral? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384566)

I find it ironic that the riaa is trying for the moral high road. using his analogy, the bank robber would be sony and the other record companies. the consumers would be the bank. and the artists would be the ski mask manufacturer. please, we're not taking money from the artist, the record company is.

No more of a threat??!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384526)

I thought Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf had gone to work with Al Jazeera. Have we been misled?

FREE STUFF FOR EVAR!!!!!!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384537)

W3 n03 wh0 j00 ar! w3 w1LL a1w4yz g3t evarything 4 FR33!!!!!!!11111111 if j00 try t0 m4k3 us st0p w3 w1LL k1LL j00 and y0ar famileez. g0 ah34d adn t3mpt f4t3 j00 fuqrz!!!!!!!11 J00 w1LL f33l teh p41n.

Save fileroller! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384539)

What happened to file roller? Why is it crippled! Please complain [gnome.org] as soon as possible

So... (1, Troll)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384547)

Why does 'Oberführer Von Oppenheim' keep popping into my head?

There is no theft of music involved. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384554)

"Just as we would never agree that it is right to steal someone's clothes or furniture, it is not right to steal music.""

It was impossible to steal anything with Napster. It is impossible to steal anything with Kazaa and Freenet. You'd think he'd know the definitions of words better.

Really, Mr. Oppenheimer? (4, Informative)

Surak (18578) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384556)

Other than the fact that most infringers do not like to use Freenet because it is too clunky for them to get their quick hit of free music, it is no more of a threat than any of the popular P2P services.

Really, Mr. Oppenheim? I don't think you understand exactly *how well* Freenet preserves anonymity. It is *impossible* to tell where any given file is coming from over Freenet, due to the fact that data is scattered and encyrpted across the network.

With Freenet, you *can't* go after filesharers, because you don't know who the filesharers are? What are you going to to do? Take every single freenet node to court?

You'd most certainly lose that battle, Mr. Oppenheim. Just like the courts ruled that Kazaa could not be taken down because it has legimitate, uses, so to does this apply to Freenet.

And if you succeed in scaring people off the gnutella and kazaa, this is just where the hard core will turn: Freenet and distributed systems like it.

Give it up, Mr. Oppenheim. Your days of controlling music distribution are numbered.

We, the citizens of the Internet, will prevail.

Re:Really, Mr. Oppenheimer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384637)

He is saying it is not a threat because it is too slow and clunky to be worth anything. I have been using (or trying to use) freenet and frost for 2 years on windows and linux and even with the latest version it is still way too slow and unreliable to be worth much. If someday I can reliably download something larger than a 1 MB then maybe it will replace Bearshare (my gnutella of choice).

Did the RIAA guy just admit P2P wasn't a problem? (5, Interesting)

KU_Fletch (678324) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384574)

"it (Freenet) is no more of a threat than any of the popular P2P services."

The tone of that statement seems to imply that P2P is not a threat to the RIAA... which seems contrary to their entire defense.

I have to say, the Freenet guy came across very well in that debate since he was able to flow between humor and fact. The RIAA really needs to hire some PR people that don't seem so angry all the time. As long as they keep up this approach to PR, the more the public is going to go against them.

Bye Bye Dinosaurs! (5, Interesting)

smd4985 (203677) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384585)

I think Clarke really hits the nail on the head when he says:

"Just as the motor car replaced the horse and cart, so will the Internet replace most of the roles performed by today's recording industry."

The whole RIAA rant is useless because the RIAA is on its way to obsolesence. They can hip and holler all they want, but in 15 years they won't even exist. Even the legal system and/or Congress won't be able to protect them for long - we live in a capitalist society, and in the end efficiency rules.

Re:Bye Bye Dinosaurs! (1, Insightful)

sig cop (661590) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384685)

we live in a capitalist society, and in the end efficiency rules.

Shouldn't that be "we live in a capitalist society, and in the end, the owners of the capiatal rule"?

grin/duck/run

Oppenheim is a moron (0, Redundant)

rmiley (686756) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384591)

In the article he suggests that the term file swapping is an incorrect usage since "file-swappers" are actually copying files and not swapping them. But in his earlier response he deems the usage of P2P networks as "stealing" music. When are they going to get it through there heads and people who download music are NOT stealing anything??!?? They may be infrining on copyright, but there is no theft involved.

Good and ill (2, Interesting)

axlrosen (88070) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384613)

News.com: Is it moral to create a general-purpose, anonymity-preserving tool--a file-swapping system that can be used for good (publishing political tracts) and ill (trading copyrighted music)?

Clarke: If it is moral to make guns, knives or anything else that can be used for both good and ill, then it is certainly moral to create something which tries to guarantee a freedom that is essential to democracy.


Doesn't it seem a little silly to divide everything in the world into exactly 3 categories: those that can only be used for good, those that can only be used for bad, and those that could be used for either? Doesn't it make sense to say that there are some things that are much more often used for good than for bad (e.g. knives), so they're fine? And some, such as guns, where the trade-off is a lot more questionable? (So in most countries they are significantly regulated.)

Freenet may eventually contain a political treatise from the oppressed citizens of a dictatorship, but it will probably contain copyrighted songs, movies, porn, etc. by a factor of a hundred thousand to one. Supporting anonymous political speech is more good than illegal copying is bad, but by a factor of 100,000?

It just would take time (0, Troll)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384618)

I don't understand how the developer can be so confident with people's lives. Yes, human lives. He brags about how the Chinese government could not work its way into FreeNet to find who has been posting and downloading material. He's mistaken. Any defense can be penetraded with time. What happens when the Chinese government finds out how to do so? What happens to the people who believed they were safe, but instead find themselves either in the Gobi desert in a work camp or facing a firing squad?

Let's show some humility here.

Re:It just would take time (1)

proj_2501 (78149) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384690)

Those unlucky users have hopefully taken the risk understanding that they may be caught. They are responsible for guarding their lives, not the FreeNet developers.

Funniest Quote: (5, Insightful)

ih8apple (607271) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384630)

Funniest Quote:

RIAA's Oppenheim: "How does this have anything to do with corporations? This has to do with artists and creators"

Yeah, Right... Last time I checked, the RIAA web site [riaa.com] stated that it "is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry", not the artist community.

Re:Funniest Quote: (3, Insightful)

CrazyDuke (529195) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384710)

It's thier version of the "think of the children!" red herring argument.

From the article (1, Informative)

Khakionion (544166) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384634)

How does this have anything to do with corporations? This has to do with artists and creators. Artists and creators, like anybody else who creates something, should have the right to sell what they create

Corporations are getting filthy rich from the artists' will to express themselves. Remember that Napster's website spewed random quotes from popular artists who not only thought that music file-sharing was a great idea, but it helped the artists, rather than hinder them.

Too clunky? (1)

Second_Derivative (257815) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384638)

In the 80s Mobile phones were dismissed as 'too clunky'. Shut up, lie down and let the gentleman take the measurements for your coffin already you cretin.

(I've got a sneaking suspicion that this CD I've just bought has some sort of "protection" on it, seeing as I've spent the past few hours booting cdparanoia in the head. I'm a wee bit fucked off. Can you tell?)

Legal and moral... (3, Insightful)

pubjames (468013) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384641)

discussing whether it's "legal [and moral] to create and use Freenet"

Of course it should be legal to use freenet.

There must be a distinction made between making acts illegal because they are bad and making things illegal because they can be used to do bad acts.

Driving very fast is dangerous and can kill. That does not mean we should make cars illegal. That would be ridiculous because cars are useful and can also be used for good/useful acts. It also does not mean that cars should be technically capped so that they can't go fast. The existance of laws against the act of fast/dangerous driving should be enough.

We get onto more morally interesting ground with this argument with guns. According to my argument, surely guns should not be banned because the existance of laws against shooting people should be enough? My argument to that would be simple - guns can't really do anything useful other than kill and main, so in the case of guns it is reasonable to ban the technology. Does that mean that it is reasonable to ban DeCSS, as that can only really usefully be used for illegal purposes?

Damn, now I've confused myself. I'm just going to lie down for a few minutes...

Re:Legal and moral... (-1)

Khakionion (544166) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384687)

Guns can be used for self-defense, not only from other people but from animals. Not everyone lives in a suburban household with an SUV.

He said it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6384648)

most infringers do not like to use Freenet because it is too clunky for them

i couldn't agree more,
people dont want to use an application that takes more ram than the operating system, java is an awful clientside choice for a consumer p2p

no search facilites, so no one has any idea whats on the system, unreliable in the extreme, buggy slow yada yada yada

and the internet is WORLDWIDE , billions of people dont care about the RIAA, ask China,Vietnam,hong kong , japan etc etc etc

Preaching to the choir (3, Insightful)

SamNmaX (613567) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384672)

I know this point comes up countless times, but just because something can send files doesn't make it illegal. If anything, Freenet is less of a threat than both FTP and HTTP for sending around MP3s/videos, as it was not particularly designed to send large files. FTP and HTTP aren't illegal, so why should Freenet be? There is no reason any file sharing system should be illegal unless it's intent is for piracy (which is why Napster got in trouble, due to the emails floating around about that fact. Why aimster got in trouble, I still don't understand and I hope they win on appeal).

Oppenheim seems to suggest that Freenet is just as much a threat as any file sharing tool, no matter the fact that it's "clunky". I've always thought that the best the RIAA can hope for is to make this kind of music piracy clunky, as there will always be some sort of file sending service and copy protection can always be broken (audio-in to audion out). The RIAA and the music industry need to come up with realistic view of the world, before they lose all their sales to services like Kazaa.

My One Remaing P2P Question: (3, Insightful)

Ieshan (409693) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384701)

Suppose I have a friend over for dinner and I'm listening to a burned copy of a CD I legally own. It's playing over the stereo in the kitchen.

I get up and leave the room, needing to go check on the burgers on the grill. My friend is the only one listening to the music.

Is this copyright infringement, because my friend is listening to a copied CD that I'm willingly playing for him? I've made an authorized copy and I'm playing it for a friend - that's all I've done so far.

Suppose we take it a step farther. My friend really likes the band, and he swipes the CD while I'm not looking. I don't notice because I was too busy fiddling with the burgers, and he switches on the radio in it's place. Am I guilty of copyright infringement because my friend's taken my CD, or is he guilty of theft from me, for which I'm certainly not going to prosecute if I ever find out, or is my friend guilty of copyright infringement, taking a legal copy of a CD from me?

I'm lost on where the copyright infringement happens in this situation. If it happens while my friend is listening to my music, virtually every CD owner everywhere is guilty of copyright. If I'm guilty when my friend takes my CD, *I* become guilty of copyright infringement for the sins of my friend; and if my friend is guilty when he takes my CD, then he's going to be the most heavily prosecuted thief in the world: when's the last time a shoplifted was prosecuted for illegal possession of a copyrighted work?

If there's NO copyright infringement at all in this situation, then what happens if I set up my computer to transfer files, I've got legal copies on my computer, and someone else takes them without me having given explicit permission?

stealing bibles? (5, Insightful)

lordcorusa (591938) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384709)

The RIAA representative feels very strongly that people should not steal anything, be it songs, movies, chairs, etc...

However, at one point in the debate, he mentions that some people distribute the Bible on Freenet and dismisses that saying, "we can all get that from the motel we most recently visited..."

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but those Gideons Bibles found in motels are supposed to stay in the motels, right? I always thought that you were not supposed to take them. Now I know that many people do take them, but isn't that considered stealing? So didn't the RIAA representative just suggest that we should all steal Bibles from our local motels rather than get them online from Freenet?

FreeNet Clunkiness (0, Offtopic)

Merk (25521) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384717)

I feel roughly the same way about FreeNet as I do about Java itself. I really like the concept but hate the implementation. The one time I tried to get FreeNet up and running it was a painful, painful process, and then it munched up far too much memory.

Have these issues been addressed? Is it going to remain a Java-only effort or is the spec such that an implmentation in another language is do-able? What about the installation process. Is ease-of-install and/or configuration a priority?

Finally, what are the prospects for a firewall-friendly type of P2P application? Both at work and at home, I'm stuck behind NAT boxes. I'd like to be able to be part of a network like this, but FreeNet and other similar things seem designed for always-on, non-NAT boxes. In theory it should be possible to design a program so that it can both download and upload from behind a NAT, using some kind of polling-type mechanism for the upload-side. Has anybody put any effort into this? I'm sure the number of users would jump if something similar were made available.

The Missed Point (5, Insightful)

Dark Paladin (116525) | more than 11 years ago | (#6384719)

From what I've seen, Freenet is not about "trading files". Oh, that's a part of it, to be sure, and perhaps what it's built around.

But Freenet is about freedom of information. How many times did Clarke have to repeat that? It's a way for a person in China to be able to say to someone else "Maybe it's just me, but our government is less a socialistic ideal and more a dictatorship." It's a way for a teenager to say "I think I'm pregnant, but where I live I'll be stigmatized if I have an abortion, or even look for one - what information is there for me?" It's even a way for a programmer to say "You know, I've got this idea for a cryptography system, but some people in certain businesses might sue me if I even talk about it (whether it's legal or not) - so here's a way to present the information without getting myself in trouble."

That is what Freenet is about - not trading music, or movies, or the like. Yes, it can be used like that - the same way a car can be used to run someone over. Last time I checked, though, most people are just using their cars to get stuff Point A to Point B.

I think the gentleman from the RIAA either didn't get the point - or didn't care (and I believe the latter). In his mind, privacy is not important - though I'd agree with Mr. Clarke. Anonymous exchange of information is important in a democracy. It allows people to speak without fear of reprisal. Without it, people would be terrified to vote for fear their enemies would hunt them down and chop off their limbs. (I had a roommate who was so irritated that Clinton the first time, he wanted to go down the street and beat up people he discovered had voted for him. I was grateful for "secret ballots" at this time.

Eh - but that's just my take. I could be wrong.

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>