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!

Grokster Case Aftermath: Busy times Ahead for EFF

Hemos posted more than 9 years ago | from the but-of-course dept.

The Courts 194

Tractorjector writes "Mad Penguin has published part two of their MGM vs Grokster interview series (the first part was featured on Slashdot on 2005-06-27). This time the focus is on EFF Director Shari Steele. A very compelling (and somewhat concerning) interview."

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

Let the infowars begin! (0, Offtopic)

Trigun (685027) | more than 9 years ago | (#12979832)

It sounds like a johnny mnemonic style future.

Hit me!

Typo? (2, Interesting)

xhorder (232326) | more than 9 years ago | (#12979835)

Concerning or Disconcerting?

Re:Typo? (4, Informative)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#12979900)

Concerning:

(1) that causes anxiety or uneasyness (this EFF article is concerning)

(2) to engage the attention of (this EFF article is still concerning)

(2) to be interesting (this EFF article keeps on being concerning)

On the other hand:

Disconcerting:

(1) Upsetting, embarassing (this EFF article isn't disconcerting, apart to Microsoft perhaps)

(2) Frustrating (this EFF article isn't disconcerting, even for Microsoft)

So, no, no typo there...

Re:Typo? (4, Informative)

xhorder (232326) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980003)

But here it is being used as an adjective, and concerning is not an adjective...

After a quick google search:
The Oxford English Dictionary has a limited amount of evidence for concerning as an adjective meaning 'causing concern; worrying; important; weighty'. Their first example is from 1649, and the most recent is from 1834; it's marked "archaic."

reduce the phrase to "a very concerning interview", and is just sounds wrong... /end of pedatic discussion

Re:Typo? (0, Redundant)

joepeg (87984) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980260)

Disconcerting, because this is an actual statement from TFA:

We need to respect copyright, if do the same if we expect respect the world to respect the GPL.

huh?

The whole thing is very clear (5, Insightful)

ReformedExCon (897248) | more than 9 years ago | (#12979854)

The basic point of the ruling is that you need to be able to have plausible deniability when it comes to promoting illegal actions.

Bitorrent, for example, is able to get away with aiding mass piracy because the primary use for it is to disseminate large binary files. Those files can be anything, but one major use of bitorrent is to ease the spread of Linux distributions and other Open Source binaries.

Grokster (and its workalikes) is designed, advertised, and used as a way of illegally distributing copyrighted materials. The court just found that if you run a service designed to help people break the law that you will have some amount of responsibility in the acts.

I'm not saying that I think that "bullet makers" should be held responsible for the actions of a select few of their customers, but I do think that there is a certain amount of discretion that companies riding the razor's edge ought to employ.

Re:The whole thing is very clear (1)

pr0nbot (313417) | more than 9 years ago | (#12979994)

Grokster (and its workalikes) is designed, advertised, and used as a way of illegally distributing copyrighted materials. The court just found that if you run a service designed to help people break the law that you will have some amount of responsibility in the acts.

Wouldn't this also apply to Apple's "Rip. Mix. Burn." campaign? Also, does it just apply to software, or to hardware also, e.g. my PVR?

Re:The whole thing is very clear (4, Informative)

argent (18001) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980029)

Wouldn't this also apply to Apple's "Rip. Mix. Burn." campaign?

Copying music for your own personal use is explicitly legal. Apple is very clear that the goal is to give you control of your own playlist, not to aid piracy. Their packaging and advertising is full of statements like "iTunes is licensed for reproduction of non-copyrighted materials or materials the user is legally permitted to reproduce. The music tracks shown are for demonstration purposes only."

Re:The whole thing is very clear (3, Informative)

digidave (259925) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980658)

"Copying music for your own personal use is explicitly legal"

I've heard repeatedly that this is not the case, as in there is no law that makes copying for personal use legal. It's only the Betamax ruling that makes it legal.

Re:The whole thing is very clear (2, Informative)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980905)

I've heard repeatedly that this is not the case, as in there is no law that makes copying for personal use legal. It's only the Betamax ruling that makes it legal.

That "Betamax ruling" was the US Supreme Court interpreting federal law to say "there's no rule against time-shifting, and it should be allowed."

And since Congress hasn't succeeding in baring the practice, it's legal. Sterling legal.

Re:The whole thing is very clear (1)

digidave (259925) | more than 9 years ago | (#12981056)

Fair enough, but that is most definitely not explicitly legal. More like "legal because nobody said it's not".

Re:The whole thing is very clear (2, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980922)

I've heard repeatedly that this is not the case, as in there is no law that makes copying for personal use legal. It's only the Betamax ruling that makes it legal.

And even that is a dubious interpretation. The supreme court pretty much said:
(1) Timeshifting is legal under fair use
(2) The use of timeshifting is substantial
(3) Substantial non-infringing use is enough

The decision pretty clearly described the process of building a video library as infringing, I don't recall personal copying being discussed much at all. But extending the decision, private copying is probably legal because of timeshifting, the recipients are responsible for handling that copy in a non-infringing way.

Also note that back then, they were dealing with free/ad-based OTA signals. It is questionable if private copying would be legal if this means that the recipient is avoiding paying subscription/PPV fees. Under the redefinition of "commercial gain" to also include access to other copyrighted works, two buddies taping shows from each other's subscription channels might be considered commercial. That in itself does not make it illegal, but it is one of the four factors deciding if something is fair use or not. Obviously, commercial counts against it.

Kjella

Re:The whole thing is very clear (1)

Titusdot Groan (468949) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980520)

Wouldn't this also apply to Apple's "Rip. Mix. Burn." campaign?

No. Since 'Rip' pretty explicitly means you have the CD to burn from ... ripping is fair use, not a breech of copyright.

Also, does it just apply to software, or to hardware also, e.g. my PVR? No, again because a PVR records for time shifting purposes which is fair use.

You seem to be carrying some unfortunate memes... (4, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980001)

You have the right idea, but you seem to be buying in to some unfortunate memes that really should be scotched: "plausible deniability", "promoting illegal actions", "get away with aiding mass piracy"... Bittorrent is promoting legal actions, it's aiding the distribution of software, it doesn't need to "deny" anything. The problem is that there's a limited amount of bandwidth, the solution is a Usenet-style store-and-forward distribution system.

If Bittorrent had come first, and these systems had started out like Usenet as a way for people to share information (discussion boards, open source software, and so on) nobody at the EFF would dream of defending Grokster on the grounds that they're only making their money from "arms length" piracy, just like nobody sane would call an ISP a censor for refusing to carry alt.binaries.warez.

There's nothing new about peer-to-peer networks. The Internet is a peer-to-peer network. Usenet, UUCP, Fidonet, peer-to-peer networking has been the nerve fibers of the community that slashdot is part of since long before the Internet has been available to carry its traffic.

So it's a damn shame that Napster and its successors were created to take advantage of the limited anonymity of peer-to-peer networking rather than its bandwidth-accelerating capabilities... to uise the technology as a cut-out so they could make money from mass copyright violations rather than sharing legal material. Because they may have ended up poisoning the well for good, given the way even defenders of systems like Bittorrent are using this kind of language.

Re:You seem to be carrying some unfortunate memes. (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980351)

To blame napster for poisoning the well is just too much. Shawn Fanning was just some 19-year old college kid on a pet project. I don't think anyone looked that far ahead.

Re:You seem to be carrying some unfortunate memes. (3, Funny)

LilGuy (150110) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980787)

Thanks Tom Cruise. Go take your L. Ron Hubbard vocabulary somewhere else. You've got no business preaching that word "meme" around here. ;)

Re:You seem to be carrying some unfortunate memes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12980893)

just like nobody sane would call an ISP a censor for refusing to carry alt.binaries.warez.

Just what do you call such an ISP? IMO, any ISP that does this should be required to police all its traffic, and not be considered a common carrier.

~~~

Re:The whole thing is very clear (4, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980005)

The basic point of the ruling is that you need to be able to have plausible deniability when it comes to promoting illegal actions. Bitorrent, for example, is able to get away with aiding mass piracy because the primary use for it is to disseminate large binary files.

Hey, that's a great idea!

Ok everybody, hear this: I am on a certain channel, on a certain IRC server, and I'm proposing to exchange Linux binaries (wink) via DCC CHAT. The distro I have here is called Linux Reloaded (nudge nudge), and it fits on a standard bootable DVD. I'll let you download Linux Reloaded if you can let me have GNU in the Shell (the "innocence" release). Leave me a message on this here board with your email addy and I'll let you know which IRC server/channel I'm on so we can exchange these insanely great, erhm, open-source softwares (get it? say no more, say no more *wink*).

Re:The whole thing is very clear (1)

teksno (838560) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980321)

well i have the new "chronicles of linux" distro with an xvid crypt...wanna trade distros?

not to mention all releases of the blade distros... blade 1.0 (best imho),
blade 2.0 (good but not as good as 1.0),
blade 3.0 (too close to apple if you ask me)

Pirates or Free-loaders? It's all the same... (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980355)

Pirates or Free-loaders? It's all the same...

What's interesting about your funny, and indeed this whole discussion, is that people here are clearly saying that a primary purpose of P2P is software theft. Yet, quite often here at Slashdot, whenever that issue is pointed out, the poster will soon be modded "flamebait" or "troll".

Ey matey, I think there be some pirates about! Well, OK, maybe just free-loaders.

Re:Pirates or Free-loaders? It's all the same... (1)

SlashDread (38969) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980642)

Ok I wont mod you ;-)
replace "purpose" with "usage" and you wont BE a troll! (or flamebait, pick yer stupidity)

OK... (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980917)

For BitTorrent, and BitTorrent ONLY, I agree with you (although the Way Back Machine revealed some incriminating statements from young Bram Cohen, we can attribute that to youthful sarcasm...). Most or all of the rest are strictly warez tools.

Sure thing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12980464)

>>Leave me a message on this here board with your email addy

piracy@mpaa.org

Re:The whole thing is very clear (2, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980797)

The distro I have here is called Linux Reloaded (nudge nudge), and it fits on a standard bootable DVD. I'll let you download Linux Reloaded if you can let me have GNU in the Shell (the "innocence" release)

A fun posting. But Ill take it as well as a gentle reminder that plausible deniability is an easier sell on Slashdot than in court.

Re:The whole thing is very clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12980018)

I'm not saying that I think that "bullet makers" should be held responsible for the actions of a select few of their customers

Just wondered, gun-howto-manuals must contain tons of warnings?

Re:The whole thing is very clear (2, Interesting)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980174)

The basic point of the ruling is that you need to be able to have plausible deniability when it comes to promoting illegal actions.

No. The point of the ruling is that if a judge & jury think that you're trying to encourage illegal activity, you'll be responsible for it when it happens.

BitTorrent gets buy because Brian DOESN'T encourage illegal use of bittorrent. He may not DISCOURAGE it, and he may even utilize his technology that way, but he doesn't beat a drum for folk to use BitTorrent for illegal file sharing.

IMO, all that anyone who develops a file-sharing tool needs to do is to encourage LEGAL use of their tool. Such as, for example, encouraging and facilitating creative commons verification within the tool.

Re:The whole thing is very clear (2)

Xarius (691264) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980755)

Hehehe, Brian...

Re:The whole thing is very clear (1)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980817)

So we should sue the guys who invented the internet, TCP/IP, HTTP, FTP, IRC... Let's go for it, I can't think of anything better to make with our money :)

Re:The whole thing is very clear (1)

salesgeek (263995) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980226)

The basic point of the ruling is that you need to be able to have plausible deniability when it comes to promoting illegal actions.

Perhaps more wise would be not to promote illegal actions at all...

Bitorrent, for example, is able to get away with aiding mass piracy because the primary use for it is to disseminate large binary files.

Bitorrent does not cause mass piracy or get away with anything. They provide a file distribution tool that servers a specific purpose.

The court just found that if you run a service designed to help people break the law that you will have some amount of responsibility in the acts.

And how is this news?

but I do think that there is a certain amount of discretion that companies riding the razor's edge ought to employ.

It's far simpler than this: don't promote illegal activities. Recruiting a team to rob a bank is just as criminal as robbing the bank.

Re:The whole thing is very clear (1)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980621)

It is news because it now applies the "accessory", "contributory", and "accomplice" sort of legality to things on the internet.

That hadn't happened before. It sets a precedent. Now people cannot simply claim "common carrier" or "there's no way to know" status every time someone sues them for their service becoming a bed of "infringement"...

It wasn't as simple as the bank robbery recruiting activity. There are legitimate uses for P2P. The court could've labeled P2P as being promoted for "infringement", and then all items that can be classified as P2P would be considered criminal, even though they may not have been intended for such a purpose. Thankfully, they limited their scope to Grokster and Morpheus (iirc), and thereby not effectively "outlawing" P2P.

BitTorrent has tons of infringing activities (you can google them for yourself.) The key isn't whether it CAUSES mass piracy, but that if it is DESIGNED and PROMOTED to cause piracy. Big difference. Read the ruling.

This sort of misinformation is what is causing so much confusion about the ruling. Seriously, people. Read a little bit and don't rely on the evening news to give you the summary. EVERY news outlet got it WRONG in their broadcasts.

Re:The whole thing is very clear (1)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980704)

The court could've labeled P2P as being promoted for "infringement", and then all items that can be classified as P2P would be considered criminal

I think this would upset Microsoft. They know own [internetnews.com] groove [groove.net] , a "collaboration tools" for work teams disconnected from their corporate network. Uses P2P inside the work team. I'm sure they could also share mp3s with it ;)

Re:The whole thing is very clear (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12980313)

Plausible deniability may not be enough. It's far better not to promote illegal actions, period. Judges and courts aren't generally stupid, it's not a technology issue, it's a matter of intent.


With grokster in particular, it was gross, not only did they encourage illegal actions, they bragged about it and used it as a selling point. EFF shouldn't defend these guys, I won't give them another dollar if they do.


Bitorrent isn't in the line of fire yet but it very well could be. Attitudes need to change. How many large trackers have gone done because they had pirated torrents? They claimed to not be liable for what people uploaded but that didn't fly and it won't, they need to be responsive and take some precautions, simply saying don't upload pirate stuff, winking and then looking the otherway is not responsible enough. The search engine might need to be rethought as well. At some point, if (like I believe it is) most torrent traffic is pirated and companies start making requests for bitorrent to help them correct that and they don't take any precautions then they could be a target also.


This is as much a cultural problem as it is anything else, I'd be wary if my company was trying to profit from it all though. If that's the plan I'd start crossing my T's and dotting my i's and make sure I was taking some precautions against piracy and I'd make damn sure that nobody in house was pirating stuff with the technology. That'll bury you when you're knowingly doing nothing about it.

Manners (2, Interesting)

vrimj (750402) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980345)

There was an intersting exchange on Slate about Grokster. One of the points made it that the rule announced is basically a rule of etiquette. This seems a good analogy, and points out the limited effect.
What will be intersting is when this ruling is put up against non-commerical products. Commerical speech is subject to a lower level of protection. Non-commerical speech is not as limited, and I don't know that applying this ruling to a non-commerical sitution would be more of a speech problem.

Re:The whole thing is very clear (1)

dnoyeb (547705) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980416)

Grokster (and its workalikes) is designed, advertised, and used as a way of illegally distributing copyrighted materials. The court just found that if you run a service designed to help people break the law that you will have some amount of responsibility in the acts.

You were correct up to this point. It disagrees with your point #1. The courts findings have to do with how you market your product, not how you design it.

Re:The whole thing is very clear (2, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980436)

I'm not saying that I think that "bullet makers" should be held responsible for the actions of a select few of their customers, but I do think that there is a certain amount of discretion that companies riding the razor's edge ought to employ.

Or, in the words of George Bernard Shaw:

What on earth is the true faith of an Armorer?

UNDERSHAFT. To give arms to all men who offer an honest price for them, without respect of persons or principles: to aristocrat and republican, to Nihilist and Tsar, to Capitalist and Socialist, to Protestant and Catholic, to burglar and policeman, to black man white man and yellow man, to all sorts and conditions, all nationalities, all faiths, all follies, all causes and all crimes.

Re:The whole thing is very clear (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980506)

The basic point of the ruling is that you need to be able to have plausible deniability when it comes to promoting illegal actions.

Plausible deniability means you can create doubt about whether or not you did it. If you argue for both legal and illegal uses, that is not plausible deniability. To completely shut up about illegal uses aren't plausible deniability, because then no promotion of illegal acts have occured. Basicly what they said was "Don't promote illegal acts. If you do, you can be sued. If you don't, and they still occur, you are probably protected by the Betamax shield."

Kjella

Re:The whole thing is very clear (1)

pHatidic (163975) | more than 9 years ago | (#12981013)

I agree completely. I wrote the same thing in this essay [kuro5hin.org] on Kuro5hin.

EFF is great! (4, Interesting)

tetrahedrassface (675645) | more than 9 years ago | (#12979867)

We need to top piracy, but we should also encourage authors/songwriters/performers/composers, to do what the BBC did the other day.. Namely release a copyrighted work for personal use..

Sure there were strings attached but when isn' there?

I really don't understand why these companies think thier stuff is the only media to be had. They think they have us over a barrel, and currently they do..

As a community we should shun copyright infgringement, but at the same time we should encourage the copyright holders to release their material for personal use..

Thats how I do my stuff.. My songs are copyrighted, or CC, but they have "no profit" without permission clause.. You are free to have them as long as you don't sell them.. Its really really simple.

Since I started posting my little songs up on the net I have contacted by BMI.. I am going to join, but only because they can help me if an artist took something i have written and recorded it/ changed it. etc and proffited without compensation or permision from me..

I need the EFF to ensure that I have the right to make my stuff available. They fight the good fight for us honest little people.

Long the the EFF!

Re:EFF is great! (1)

tetrahedrassface (675645) | more than 9 years ago | (#12979931)

Sorry for all the typos..im just passionate about this stuff..

Re:EFF is great! (2, Funny)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980161)

We need to top piracy

Yeah, we should start stealing babies! That's much worse than "stealing" software and music. That would top piracy for sure!

Re:EFF is great! (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980461)

Yeah, we should start stealing babies!

I'm so glad someone is finally thinking about the children on this one...oh...wait..

Re:EFF is great! (1)

IrishMASMS (786650) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980831)

I love babies - smothered in BBQ sauce!

Re:EFF is great! (3, Informative)

ContractualObligatio (850987) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980276)

I don't understand what you need the EFF for in this case. You've always been free to give away your songs. The rule remains that as soon as you write something original, you have the copyright. While there are chargeable services around to help you establish said copyright, this is only to provide proof of copyright should it ever become a legal necessity to do so.

As for what the BBC did, those works aren't copyright! Copyright on old Beethoven's symphonies ended a long time ago. The BBC Symphony Orchestra's performance is copyrighted, but seeing as I'm a Brit paying the BBC's license fee, I think it's perfectly correct they should be publically available.

None of this addresses how an artist makes a living out by pursuing their art. You mention posting "little songs" - presumably you are not trying to make a full time living out of this? I respect the dedication of the pure artist (my login is testament to the fact that I've sold out to business get by, the obligatio part being that I had to give up partying and earn a living - ain't life a bitch?) and in particular the struggle it is to earn enough money to live on. For the EFF or anyone else to support businesses whose actual intent was to benefit from people breaking the law is ridiculous. So I don't have a problem with the recent ruling.

You want to give your songs away for free? Fine. You want to earn a living out of music? Great - and you deserve all the help and respect that can be given. You want to write some P2P software so that people can communicate, share free songs and Linux distros etc? Fantastic.

You want to benefit (get money/ friends/ contacts/ misguided respect/ whatever) from advertising a system with the intent and knowledge of infringing on other people's rights - well, you're basically being a selfish bastard at this point, aren't you? It's not as if Grokster has made any effort to support musicians, like providing a forum to sell music with a way to track what you've downloaded in order to pay the relevant artist. Anyone who's played in a band or watched someone try to set up an indie record label knows just how fucking hard it is to bring in the money to do so. If Grokster had some real decency, they'd have made a real effort to find out how to help all these kinds of people. Now as well as major labels always looking to keep the money for themselves, there's other bastards looking to make it impossible to get people to pay money in the first place.

If you don't want to or can't afford to buy music - don't. Go see a local artist. Download material deliberately released for free by the artist or even record label. The fact that this is legal isn't particularly relevent. There's more good and free music available via the internet than you could ever get hold of before. Rip CD's from your friends - not legal, but a nice little grey area that acts as an effective self throttle against using the power of the internet to dodge your obligations. Just show some respect to artists, and with any luck it would also contribute to the financial starvation of the commercial shit clogging up the charts and atmosphere...

The EFF is a joke (1, Insightful)

MushMouth (5650) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980284)

Grokster has such a great scam going. They build a piece of software, which they know darn is of questionable legality. They plan to profit in the millions on this software off they backs of copyright holders, see the internal memos. (have they offered anything to those who hold the copyrights both the RIAA people and the songwriters who have statutory mechanical royalties?). Then they get you schmucks to foot the bill for their legal defense. In the end the worse thing that happens is they go belly up fold the corp and the founders don't get to cash in when the company sells (I wonder what these guys are giving themselves for a salary.) Man I gots to get one of these schemes going.

Creative people aren't rare anymore (2, Interesting)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980286)

I really don't understand why these companies think thier stuff is the only media to be had. They think they have us over a barrel, and currently they do..

No they don't have us in a stranglehold. Maybe they believe they do, or the public does, believing it is forced to buy certain items. But I think this may be just a result of history, and the role of copyrights. Basically, a game of numbers. How many people there are (world population), how many of those are creative spirits, and how well people are connected.

Imagine a primitive world with only 5000 souls, where only 1 in 1000 is exceptionally gifted/smart/genius. Then you have only 5 of those to provide that world with new creative works, scientific breakthroughs and so on. The discovery/birth of another genius would be a major event. And in a primitive world, anything new could take a long time before it reaches remote corners of the world. An inventor that takes a secret into his grave, makes a great loss for society. A copyright system that puts a lock on the works of those few, can make a huge difference in that world's development. I think that copyright as a concept is mostly based on the idea that creative spirits are a rare commodity.

Fast forward to here and now. With a world population of 6 billion+, modern mass media, and a general high-tech base to start with, the picture isn't anything like the above. That same 1 in 1000 people would mean 6 million creative spirits in this world, and anything they come up with, reaches far corners of the world in no-time. Then a single genius isn't as important as it used to be. Rather, you have some sort of 'environment', where scientific knowledge and creative works move in certain directions. At some point in time, the next step/development will become 'obvious' (read: very likely), and then... somebody (one of those many gifted folks) will do it. If that specific individual wouldn't, somebody else would. An inventor that takes a secret into his grave, doesn't make much difference to society.

Copyright has a totally different meaning and effect in that situation (IMHO, something that is only about economics, and/or politics). Not to say that brilliant individuals don't matter anymore, but there's always enough of them to go round, copyright locks or not.

Help support the EFF [was:EFF is great!] (2, Informative)

IrishMASMS (786650) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980859)

When supporting the EFF in words, how about with funding? There is theSummit 2005, on Thursday July 28, 2005 in Las Vegas...

At the end of Black Hat [blackhat.com] and the beginning of DEFCON [defcon.org] this year is theSummit 2005 - bringing together DEFCON [defcon.org] & Black Hat [blackhat.com] speakers from past/present, as well as well known names in the computer security world. We all come together in a small, private venue for the evening summit to meet and discuss the important topics and socialize.

Note that there will be no more than 200 tickets sold (including featured guests), and all proceeds go to the Electronic Frontier Foundation [http://www.eff.org/ [eff.org] with the sponsor covering event overhead.

theSummit is our gathering of BlackHat / DefCon speakers and big thinkers in the Information Security realm. Anyone interested in supporting the EFF, are highly encouraged to attend; meet with fellow Information security professionals, and talk with big thinkers from the Information security world in a more private and informal setting. Too many times people want to ask questions, or have ideas that cannot make it to the big thinkers. This is either because of time conflicts or they are nervous to come up and talk. This event plans to pull out the stops, and allow the free form of conversation to flow.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation [http://www.eff.org/ [eff.org] is a nonprofit group of passionate people -- lawyers, technologists, volunteers, and visionaries -- working to protect our digital rights.

Where: Ice House Lounge, 650 S. Main Street, Las Vegas, Nevada
When: Thursday July 28, 2005, 9:00PM - 12:00AM
Tickets: $30 (pre-sale) $40 (at the door, if available) All Ages welcomed!

For more information, and to purchase tickets for the event:
http://www.dc702summit.org/home/ [dc702summit.org]

Event is sponsored by the Hackajar Foundation [hackajar.com] , and by the members of DEFCON 702 [dc702.org] .

We all hope to see you there!

(as posted in the Livejournal DEFCON community [http://www.livejournal.com/community/defcon_defco n/323.html [livejournal.com] ])

How to increase Linux penetration (5, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#12979869)

From TFA:

We also look at the effect of piracy and ask whether piracy can ever be beneficial to Microsoft. This extension was motivated by analyzing data on a cross-section of countries on Linux penetration and piracy rates. We found that in countries where piracy is highest, Linux has the lowest penetration rate.

I have an idea then: why don't they make Linux insanely expensive, put it on a CD with a small manual that has a shiny Tux hologram on it, require the user to read a long boring EULA and enter a very long serial number, then have the Linux box display a Teletubbies-like background and make it contact an activation server at www.kernel.org? That way, pirates will just jump on it, distribute it like there's no tomorrow on P2P, and Linux will eventually displace Windows.

Re:How to increase Linux penetration (0)

dawnread (851254) | more than 9 years ago | (#12979887)

Or we could perhaps make it *good*?

If people only use it to save money it's hardly the most glowing recommendation is it?

Re:How to increase Linux penetration (4, Interesting)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#12979950)

But people need to think they beat the system! heck, I keep a Windows 95 CD with the serial written on the disk just the the sake of remembering the pleasure I had in the mid-90s when I though that, after all, I didn't pay for the steaming pile when I finally ditched it (which, incidentally, probably helped me ditch it earlier: if I had paid for it, I'd probably have put up with it much longer than it deserved).

Re:How to increase Linux penetration (1)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980454)

In other words: even if (possibly) inferior, a product may be considered more valuable if customers have to put up with paying more, inputting serial numbers, downloading cracks, and so on?

Sentimental value, or value attached because people don't want to waste the extra time/effort/money they invested earlier? Extra value attached simply because products are 'protected' with serial numbers, or come with a higher price on the label, regardless of actual qualities? Something like: "I don't care what it is, but just because I found it in a safe, it must be good/worth a lot".

Hmm... I think you may be onto something. If I had mod points, I would appreciate a "weird, but insightful" option here.

Re:How to increase Linux penetration (5, Interesting)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 9 years ago | (#12979975)

That quote is BS, at lest in Thailand. Piracy is in the high 9x% (98.5 a few years ago), and Linux is huge there. Heck, my brother-in-law told me that he wants Linux because the Prime Minister uses it and says that Windows is old technology. You can't walk into a subway newsstand without seeing Linux for sale.

Re:How to increase Linux penetration (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980184)

Heh I thought I was the only one who thought "Teletubbies" when I saw the XP background - in fact I feared being jumped by a teletubbie if I turned my back on the machine.

Thats why I'm using linux, those damn teletubbies just can't be trusted!

Re:How to increase Linux penetration (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980884)

Some of these warezmongers are indeed that stupid. Hell, I bet MOST of them are that stupid.

I have a "friend" who is a warezmonger. He tried to give me a copy of XP, but I told him I didn't use it. He tried to give me a copy of MSOffice and I have him the same answer. Ditto for Photoshop, Acrobat, and several other applications. Ditto for several hundred games.

Finally, just as he was about to dismiss me as hopelessly moral, he offered me a copy of Redhat. I told him to go away, because I used Slackware at the time.

"I can get you that too!"

Long term it's a good thing we last (5, Insightful)

backslashdot (95548) | more than 9 years ago | (#12979894)

We need broad public, and congressional pressure .. not judicial rulings. Remember judicial rulings can be overruled by constitutional amendments and other means such as judge replacements etc.

A long term, permanent solution requires informing and winning the public.

Re:Long term it's a good thing we last (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 9 years ago | (#12981113)

We need broad public, and congressional pressure .. not judicial rulings.

And just where is that to come from?

The film and video industry alone directly employs 360,000 people, mostly in Los Angeles and New York. That excludes employment through independent contractors, support services and all distribution channels except the multiplex.Motion Picture and Video Industries [bls.gov]

The industry is well organized and strongly positioned in the nation's cultural and financial capitals, red and blue states alike. But a politician doesn't need much encouragement to support a clean industry that provides jobs at all skill levels and generates billions in domestic and foreign sales.

Remember judicial rulings can be overruled by constitutional amendments and other means such as judge replacements etc

The decision in Grokster was unaminous and you'll not see anything better emerging from the House or Senate.

Not too concerned about this (2, Insightful)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 9 years ago | (#12979897)

The article comes to false conclusions:

We also look at the effect of piracy and ask whether piracy can ever be beneficial to Microsoft. This extension was motivated by analyzing data on a cross-section of countries on Linux penetration and piracy rates. We found that in countries where piracy is highest, Linux has the lowest penetration rate. The model shows that Microsoft can use piracy as an effective tool to price discriminate, and that piracy may even result in higher profits to Microsoft!


This makes no sense. Linux has lower penetration in areas of high piracy because people who just want a free operating system rip off Windows instead of using Linux. How does that contribute profit to MS? If they use it as a price discrimination tool and raise the price in high priracy areas (presumably thinking that "low Linux penetration" means less competition), more people will pirate it!

In fact, Linspire has been nervous about the Grokster case, because they are concerned that erosion of P2P could undermine their ability to distribute code via their one-click download service, called "CNR" for Click N Run. The same applies to lots of variations on Debian's apt-get solution.


In what way to "CNR" ot apt-get foster piracy for commercial gain?

I think the ruling is correct. If you deliberately set up a business that relies on copyright violation, then you deserve to get hauled through court.

Simple: Market share in developing markets (1)

expro (597113) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980006)

How does that contribute profit to MS? If they use it as a price discrimination tool and raise the price in high priracy areas (presumably thinking that "low Linux penetration" means less competition), more people will pirate it!

Two words: market share. Get market share now, crack down later. Piracy is a thing which they publicly oppose and denounce, but if they are copying anyone's work for free, they would much rather have it be Windows than Linux.

Piracy promotes monopolies... (5, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980108)

Linux has lower penetration in areas of high piracy because people who just want a free operating system rip off Windows instead of using Linux. How does that contribute profit to MS?

It means that the people who are now stealing Windows, in five years, or ten, whenever they are better off and have their own assets at risk and their own wealth to protect and when the price of Windows is something they can afford, they will be familiar with Windows and be more likely to buy Windows than to switch to Linux.

This has been a tremendously valuable tool for Microsoft over the years, in the US and abroad. Combined with their proprietary file formats it's helped them keep the market for competitors to Office down... someone who can't afford Office is a potential market for a $50 word processor, except that it's easier to "borrow" Office from the office... so there's no low-cost competition to Office any more and even free software has a rough ride.

I suspect that's one reason they didn't put any effective copy protection in Windows prior to XP. Once they had the market penetration, they could go wild.

I oppose piracy not because it harms big companies, but because it helps them.

The same thing is true for music. There are some tremendous musicians out there doing amazing work, and promoting themselves through free music and listings on MP3blogs like 3hive. They're hurt by Grokster, because a huge chunk of their potential market is swallowed up by the P2P networks. I suspect that if the networks did go down, the labels would just find themselves facing a whole new threat from independants who are right now taking a bigger hit from P2P than the labels are.

Re:Piracy promotes monopolies... (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980209)

Oh, yeah, I'd forgotten about that.

Actually, looking back at the article, that quote was pretty tangential anyway and isn't impacted by the ruling. It's a "This is why free software developers oppose piracy" thing, which upon second reading I'm entirely in agreement with.

Re:Piracy promotes monopolies... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980810)

so there's no low-cost competition to Office any more and even free software has a rough ride.

In my experience, that is not true. Two years ago, sending out resumes in PDF led to several "wtf? send .doc" replies, now there are none (here in Norway). OpenOffice has made great headway, and is happening in many new installations. They will not replace their old system like that (and old office suites do their job), but when the next cycle occurs, it is always being evaluated. OpenOffice 2.0 may very well be the break to gain critical mass here.

Kjella

Re:Not too concerned about this (2, Insightful)

schon (31600) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980383)

This makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Even Steve Ballmer [ufl.edu] agrees with it.

How does that contribute profit to MS?

Two words:

increased brainshare.

You might well have asked "Why do companies spend millions of dollars each year advertising their products - how does that contribute profit to them?"

Re:Not too concerned about this (1)

bfields (66644) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980789)

Linux has lower penetration in areas of high piracy because people who just want a free operating system rip off Windows instead of using Linux. How does that contribute profit to MS? If they use it as a price discrimination tool and raise the price in high priracy areas (presumably thinking that "low Linux penetration" means less competition), more people will pirate it!

I agree, Microsoft doesn't want to sell at higher prices in poorer countries--the kind of "price discrimination" they want is the reverse, selling at *lower* prices in poorer countries.

By enforcing copyright more or less depending on the wealth of the country, they effectively perform a kind of price discrimination, making it on average cheaper (in terms of sticker price and legal risk) to acquire a copy in a poor country than in a rich country. And they still do make *some* money in the poorer countries--governments and businesses that can afford legal copies, and that are susceptible to anti-piracy pressure, will still buy legal copies, especially since the country's existing install base (even if mostly illegal) will make it difficult for them to adopt anything other than Windows.

--Bruce Fields

EFF (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12979902)

People generally have strong views about EFF. To get immediately to the point, EFF refuses to come to terms with reality. It prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. EFF's claim that the worst kinds of resentful jerks there are are more deserving of honor than our nation's war heroes is factually unsupported and politically motivated. If some people are offended by my mentioning that EFF has always promoted the trendiest causes, the causes that all of the important people promote, then so be it.

Piracy (4, Insightful)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 9 years ago | (#12979909)

I'd agree that the OSS community does need to shun piracy. OTOH I think people take things that Richard Stallman says, that software should be free, and try to equate that with "they want to steal stuff." That M$ would profit from piracy I think has long been established. Accusations like this were made years ago concerning usage in Central America. It was believed that M$ had let a dependence on Windows grow then cried fowl on piracy. It's a very effective tactic that has been used for ages by other sordid groups. Now it seems to be the modus operondi in East Asia.

Re:Piracy (2, Funny)

bobintetley (643462) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980639)

then cried fowl on piracy

What? Like "Chicken!" or something?

Re:Piracy (2, Insightful)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980918)

OTOH I think people take things that Richard Stallman says, that software should be free, and try to equate that with "they want to steal stuff."

That's not to hard to understand. If you really take his philosophy to heart, then you have to view any warez trading is merely "moral civil disobedience."

The biggest difference between the Free Software and Open Source communities is that the first says "your software that you produce must be free", while the latter says "my software that I produce must be free."

Not the only effects of the judgement... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12979925)

Re:Not the only effects of the judgement... (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 9 years ago | (#12981001)

"British man sacked for having opinion"

No, British man sacked for voicing an opinion that is in direct contravention of his employer's main mode of business on national TV.

I work for a telecoms company. If I went on Newsnight and announced that I was against telephony, and thought that everyone should communicate face to face, I'd not be too surprised if my employers started to doubt my suitability for my job...

From the article... (2)

NaCh0 (6124) | more than 9 years ago | (#12979945)

It's one thing to bang your hand on the table for copyrights. It's something else to bury your head in the sand when a company like Grokster is effectively a copy infringement network.

Irony (5, Funny)

cscalfani (222387) | more than 9 years ago | (#12979993)

Am I the only person on the planet who finds that the EFF's director's name Shari Steele (Share & Steal) is ironic?

Re:Irony (1, Flamebait)

IntergalacticWalrus (720648) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980514)

She's probably related to Darl McBride.

Fundraiser fearmongering. (4, Insightful)

lheal (86013) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980040)

The Grokster decision was Good.

The ED of the EFF wants to stir up the masses and make us skeered the gummint gonna take away our P2P by letting the RIAA sue anyone who writes a P2P program or runs a peer-based download service.

People who advertise a tool expressly for its illegal purposes were already liable for those eventual uses. The Grokster case merely, and rightly, applied that old-as-the-hills principle to file-sharing services.

EFF is fearmongering for donations.

Re:Fundraiser fearmongering. (1)

Sheepdot (211478) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980623)

People who advertise a tool expressly for its illegal purposes were already liable for those eventual uses.

Then why wasn't this a criminal case of aiding and abetting?

Re:Fundraiser fearmongering. (1)

lheal (86013) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980769)

It was a civil case.

With corporations, you generally don't see criminal prosecutions. Limited liability is one reason why people use corporations. I don't know whether the Grokster folks would have been held personally liable for their corporate actions.

But hey, I'm not a lawyer.

EFF is a Failure (1, Interesting)

sakusha (441986) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980089)

EFF has never won any significant legal battle it has taken on. In fact, some of the cases the EFF fought most heavily have been lost in a manner that substantially weakens the EFF positions. It is my opinion that the EFF should disband before it does more damage to our civil rights.

Re:EFF is a Failure (4, Insightful)

spisska (796395) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980192)

EFF has never won any significant legal battle it has taken on. In fact, some of the cases the EFF fought most heavily have been lost in a manner that substantially weakens the EFF positions.

You mean like the broadcast flag?

Re:EFF is a Failure (0, Troll)

sakusha (441986) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980449)

Broadcast flag wasn't a legal case, it was a piece of proposed legislation. There never has been a broadcast flag, so it is hardly plausible to celebrate the EFF for its continuing nonexistence.

Name one lawsuit that the EFF filed or was amicus curiae that was won in a manner that expanded freedom or civil rights. You can't do it. All their cases have failed miserably, most notably Eldred, which failed so miserably that it slammed the door on future attempts to liberate copyright. The EFF and their golden boy Lessig should give up before they screw us all permanently.

Re:EFF is a Failure (1)

gimpboy (34912) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980556)

You read the article, right? She mentions two cases which the eff won:

MP: So give us a little history of the EFF. Who were those Internet pioneers who started the EFF?

SS: Back in 1989, the United States Secret Service decided that it was going to go after some individuals who were passing around a very important document that had been copied from a Bell South computer that described the emergency 911 system. This document was being passed around on electronic bulletin board systems throughout the country, and probably throughout the world. They were tracking this document, and it ended up being published in an on-line news journal at the time, an e-zine called Phrack. One of the recipients of Phrack was a small games company out of Austin, Texas, called Steve Jackson games. They made fantasy games books, they weren't even doing electronic games at the time. They sold things like "Dungeons and Dragons" type books.

The Secret Service, in its infinite wisdom, decided to just go into Steve Jackson Games and remove all of its computers. They removed disks, removed its printers, removed its modems, and pretty much everything electronic. The Secret Service didn't know what it was doing back then with these kinds of electronics. They didn't have guidelines, and so they didn't know what was going on. Steve Jackson Games was a book publisher, so by removing all of the company's disks and computers, the Secret Service prevented Steve Jackson's pending publications from being released on time.

Steve Jackson had to lay off a bunch of his work force. It really interfered with his business. Ironically, as it turns out, Steve Jackson never received the Phrack newsletter, and it wasn't on their computers, but in the course of looking through all of the computers, the Secret Service found electronic mail from bulletin board of Steve Jackson Games' users, and the Service proceeded to read and delete every single message stored on that bulletin board.

In response to this action by the Secret Service, those Internet pioneers I was talking about started to formulate a plan. Actually, at the time the Internet was not really the Internet as we know it today. It was bulletin board systems, where people were dialing into computers that other people were running, and folks on those bulletin boards, such as the WELL, the Whole Earth Lectronic Link, were talking about what should be done. Mitch Kapor, John Perry Barlow, John Gilmore, Steve Wozniak, and a bunch of other Internet pioneers thought that it was ridiculous that the electronic mail that these people passing back and forth were seized and read and deleted as part of a witch hunt that the Secret Service was going on.

So that group of pioneers went to the ACLU and other organizations to try to find an organization that was going to litigate this attack on Steve Jackson Games. They found none, and so they formed an organization and called it the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

From the day that they announced the formation of the EFF, July 10, 1990, they also announced that they were suing the US Secret Service on behalf of Steve Jackson Games. That was our very first lawsuit, and we won big time. Now, the US Secret Service, and all other governmental agencies, needs to get a warrant that particularly describes the email files that they're interested in reading before they can read any emails that they take off of computers. The Secret Service has also since learned that you don't need to seize modems and printers and all sorts of other things. They're very careful about what they seize when they go in and seize things.

MP: Tell us about the Bernstein case and the First Amendment.

SS: In that case, a mathematician cryptographer came up with a little piece of code that he wanted to put out on the Internet for fellow cryptographers to critique, in peer review fashion. It turns out that his posting the encryption code was considered an export of munitions by the US government! He was told that he needed to get an arms license in order to be an arms dealer before he could put this little piece of code up there.

We brought a suit against the United States government again, telling them that the export control laws on encryption were a violation of the First Amendment. We litigated that very successfully. We brought it all the way up to the Ninth Circuit, which held that indeed he had a First Amendment right to put his code up on the Internet, and that the export control laws limiting his right to do that were unconstitutional.


Perhaps she is lying.

Re:EFF is a Failure (0, Troll)

sakusha (441986) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980656)

What a load of total bullshit. The "victories" by the EFF are nothing but a list of cases where they fought for the rights of corporations to make a fast buck. Cases like JibJab.com suing to establish their right to make a buck off a Woody Guthrie song. Excuse me if I don't think this is a "victory" for the common man. Maybe the EFF should fight for something besides corporate interests.
You failed to note my criterion: cases that expanded freedom or civil rights. Any cases even REMOTELY resembling that result are cases where the EFF participation was so minimal that it was insignificant. But that doesn't stop the EFF from claiming other plaintiffs' victories (i.e. ACLU) as their own.

Re:EFF is a Failure (3, Interesting)

David Price (1200) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980627)

First: the broadcast flag was a legal case: Am. Library Ass'n v. FCC [publicknowledge.org] , decided by a unanimous panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. You're right, there never was a broadcast flag - thanks to the efforts of EFF and Public Knowledge [publicknowledge.org] . If they hadn't intervened, the broadcast flag would today be the law: the FCC had ordered it to go into effect on July 1, but the result of the litigation was a finding that the FCC's order overstepped its legal authority.

Second: EFF legal victories [eff.org] since its founding - from the Steve Jackson Games Secret Service raid to the Diebold memos. Has EFF won every case? No. Few advocacy groups do. But you don't get to throw around statements like "[a]ll their cases have failed miserably" without some facts to back you up. You don't have them.

Re:EFF is a Failure (1)

sakusha (441986) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980682)

OK, I'll bite. Is the EFF legally named "American Library Association" or "Federal Communciations Commission?" Because I searched the PDF you cited and there was no mention of EFF.
The ALA doesn't need help from the likes of EFF, they successfully fought and won the case all on their own. But the EFF is always ready to jump in and take credit for other peoples' work.

Re:EFF is a Failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12980200)

EFF is just like UN, bunch of communist terrorist-lovers.

Re:EFF is a Failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12980266)

i've heard they are stinky long-haired hippies too, they wear birkenstocks and eat lots of vegetables and stuff.

Re:EFF is a Failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12980353)

Right, get a bunch with better blood-thisrty sharks like the Scientologists or Bnai Brith.

These leeches sue, threathen and intimidate with the best of them.

Re:EFF is a Failure (1)

arbitraryaardvark (845916) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980511)

Parent post is modded "3 interestingly wrong".
It should modded down, overrated or perhaps troll.
A single counterexample out of dozens:
Reno v ACLU
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-511.html [findlaw.com]
EFF's attorney was Mike Godwin.
Maybe you've heard of him.

Re:EFF is a Failure (1)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980536)

How is the EFF related to the ACLU? (I really don't know.) If there's no relation, what does a victory by the ACLU have to do with the effectiveness of the EFF?

Re:EFF is a Failure (2, Informative)

arbitraryaardvark (845916) | more than 9 years ago | (#12981037)

Reno v ACLU was a set of consolidated cases. Congress passed the Exxon-Coats bill which would have prohibited online indecency. A flock of people sued. By the time it got to the supreme court, the lead counsel were Ann Beeson for the ACLU, Mike Godwin for EFF, and I think David Sobel for, was it EPIC or CPSR. Reasonable question.

Re:EFF is a Failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12980952)

Charles, you are such a fucking troll. Why don't you disband before you crawl up your own asshole and leave a black hole behind?

Re:EFF is a Failure (1)

sakusha (441986) | more than 9 years ago | (#12981115)

You can do better than that, Mark.

Re:EFF is a Failure (2, Informative)

Rucker (39335) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980968)

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but wtf?! What are these? http://www.eff.org/legal/victories/ [eff.org]

What do you recommend in the EFF's place? (3, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980998)

EFF has never won any significant legal battle it has taken on. In fact, some of the cases the EFF fought most heavily have been lost in a manner that substantially weakens the EFF positions. It is my opinion that the EFF should disband before it does more damage to our civil rights.

I don't buy your argument that the EFF hasn't won any battles. But let's assume for a moment that I do. You've convinced me that the EFF is counter-productive. Given that there are many corporate and political interests in the US that want to limit our civil liberties and control what we can do online, how will removing the EFF from the battle help us, and what would you propose in its place?

Did you know? (1)

Fantasy Football (886971) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980258)

Larry Lessig hardly makes any appearances these days without asking GNUsters, penguinistas, and suits to spend about as much money supporting organizations which work for greater openness as they do on Comcast, Disney for the kids, Verizon Wireless for your phone, and other products and services offered by the copyright cartel.

Sorry (2, Insightful)

CaptainZapp (182233) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980319)

And with all the sympathy for the EFF and the fine work they're doing I just can't muster any empathy for the Grokster folks.

The supreme courts decision is a sound one. Those folks tried to freeload on the work of others and only thought of the "non-infringing use [ha!ha!]" when they where dragged to court.

Let me add that the direction copyright legislation is taking worldwide and specifically in the US is appaling, but that doesn't make it right to get rich quick on the expense of others.

Even if those others are such a depicable, rotten and corrupt organization as the RIAA.

Re:Sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12980631)

Copyright != Work.

It doesn't matter, doesn't matter, DOESN'T MATTER! (0, Flamebait)

Halvy (748070) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980388)


Because nearly everyone on the earth, except the greedy, megalomaniac, Bill Hates type at the Riaa, wants to be able to download music either affordably, and if not, then freely!!

So TOOOOO BAHHHHHHD!!

That is what WE want (the people), so go have a stroke if you can't deal with it.

Puting a few kids in jail and ruining their lives, and the expense of a handful of scum ceo's, is not going to do anything, but solidify the *Community*.

I just hope that the so-called illegal downloading becomes SOOOOOOO widespread, that it actually does put the scumbags out of business!!

This is all part of the culture war that is brewing on the earth. You have the ceo's & the Riaa's relying on the corrupt and illegal government(s) to do their bidding, with the Un-Jewdicial System.

What the Real Criminals don't realize is that when there is a war- anything goes, and the victor goes to the people who are willing to IGNORE laws written by the enemies :)

Re:It doesn't matter, doesn't matter, DOESN'T MATT (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 9 years ago | (#12980945)

Because nearly everyone on the earth

Way to dismiss the billions who don't have interenet access. And the hundreds of millions who respect the law.

Oh, and it's not "so-called illegal downloading." Copyright infringement to avoid buying the album was fairly recently made a federal crime.

What the Real Criminals don't realize is that when there is a war- anything goes, and the victor goes to the people who are willing to IGNORE laws written by the enemies :)

Nooo. When there is a war, things get violent. And victor goes to the side that's better able to organize, gather, and execute its forces.

Re:It doesn't matter, doesn't matter, DOESN'T MATT (3, Insightful)

PsiPsiStar (95676) | more than 9 years ago | (#12981091)

Organization + gathering helps the more powerful adversary.

But when you're a weak enemy fighting a strong enemy, hierarchical organization means that your leaders get targeted and killed. The key is to coordinate movements without becoming too organized.

In these kinds of wars, most people are often innocent civilians. The weaker enemy can sometimes gain an advantage by coaxing the stronger enemy to attack blindly. The effect is to radicalize the otherwise innocent and apathetic population when bystandars are killed. This is what Sinn Fein did, for instance, in Ireland.

Nothing is going to change until we shoot the bast (1)

RecycledElectrons (695206) | more than 9 years ago | (#12981022)

Nothing is going to change until we shoot the bastards.

Andy Out!

advocate piracy ?= no DRM ?= Linux armageddon??? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12981035)

Okay, what I want to know is this: what do they mean by "advocating illegal use"? Will Linux eventually be attacked as a piracy tool because it does not have effective DRM? I presume the copy protection schemes which are starting to show up on music CDs are windows-specific, and Linux/FOSS will allow infinite workarounds to this (I'm counting on it, for when holding down SHIFT as I pop in the CD stops working - I don't up/down load, but I want total control and ownership of the 35.5 GB of music I payed thousand$ for). The grokster ruling seems to say you have to advertise your product/service as a piracy tool - but that looks like a thin defense to me. What if the vendor never specifically says to use product-X for piracy, but word spreads virally that X has that use, and then it becomes the predominant use of X? What if millions of kiddies start burning Knoppix DVDs for no reason other than to break the DRM on their CDs and DVDs? It'd be great from a Linux-adoption standpoint, but will there *be* any Linux left to adopt, after the big RIAA/M$-funded lawsuit? I assume Novell and RedHat would just bolt DRM into the kernel and keep on chugging, but what happens to free / source distros like Gentoo?

Oh yeah, and how representitive is Slashdot considered to be of the FOSS community in general? Could a court look upon the pro-piracy / anti-DRM/RIAA statements and articles that show up here as evidence that the whole Linux thing is a criminal enterprise? Will moderation count, or will they just print ALL the posts? ;-)

I better go eat breakfast, low blood sugar makes me paranoid.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?