Freenet Creator Debates RIAA 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."
The RIAA is in over its head (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA is in over its head (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
Re:The RIAA is in over its head (Score:5, Funny)
Do you ever speed? BAM! you just broke the law.
Ever do your girl-friend in the poop-shoot? BAM! you just broke the law.
Did you ever drink alcohol before age 21? BAM! you just broke the law.
Re:The RIAA is in over its head (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The RIAA is in over its head (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if that would hold up in court.
Re:The RIAA is in over its head (Score:5, Funny)
It was more like 'File trading BAD! You can run but you can't hide. P2P==EVIL' followed by 'Yadda yadda yadda can't hear you....'
Jeroen
Re:The RIAA is in over its head (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The RIAA is in over its head (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA is in over its head (Score:5, Insightful)
Once you rip and distribute, you create a trail, and all the RIAA needs is a few high-profile cases that take Freenet users and run them through the wash for distributing songs.
However, the RIAA is doomed, and there's a simple reason. When we get to the juncture that it's reasonable for my DVD player, CD player, etc to be played REMOTELY by another rendering device (amplifier, TV, etc) then the RIAA is going to have to very carefully define their terms. I don't think they're going to be able to stop Joe Teen from sharing a new CD with everyone in his school. I also don't think that their business model will survive a 2-10x shrinkage when that becomes reasonable for your average non-technical teen.
Can you imagine "hey, Joe can I borrow the new XDestroyWindow CD?" "Oh, sure Jim it's in my streaming collection, log in any time."
Yeah, that's gonna hurt....
Re:The RIAA is in over its head - WHAT? (Score:5, Interesting)
Excuse me, but...hypothetically (don't try this at home kids) I go to a CD store and buy the top CD for cash. Then I come home, rip it using (take your pick) direct digital rip, analogue hole, special software to bypass copy-protection, take your pick, and place the results out on all 57 or so P2P networks. You can't miss that it's out there and rapidly proliferating faster than you can trace.
How does any watermark in existance trace that mass produced piece of silver plastic back to me?
I didn't even mention that I cut this baby lose using the local WiFi hotspot while enjoying an extra large cup of coffee with endless free refills.
I also burn Briney Spears CDs but.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The RIAA is in over its head (Score:3, Informative)
-uso.
Plain and simple... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Plain and simple... (Score:3, Funny)
Which just proves... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, I realize there are a bunch of libertarians around here who want their guns and file-sharing. ;)
Propaganda over rationality. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
"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. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Speaking of rights. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Speaking of rights. (Score:5, Interesting)
Since it's the RIAA's alegation that I'm not buying music, I'm only buying a disk and acompaning license to play the music on the disk, I have paid legitimately for a licence to that music, so when the disk became unusable I retrieved my validly licensed content from the only available source, Napster.
Blank CD's cost a quarter. If the RIAA had supplied me with an avenue to obtain a replacement copy of my damaged media I would have had no need for a file sharing service. Without them I would have had to pay for a second license (in which case one would assume that since I own two licences I could make enough copies to match the number of licenses I've obtained).
Even Microsoft has a replacement media program. If your disks are damaged in some way and unusable you can send them to Redmond and they'll ship you another copy.
Re:Speaking of rights. (Score:5, Informative)
But that's because you are buying a license when you buy software. You can read the terms of the license and decide whether or not you agree with the license. With CDs, there is no license. You buy a CD and you receive the contents of the CD. You have fair use rights to create personal copies, but are otherwise limited in your ability to distribute, perform publicly, create derivative works, and copy. The limitations are in the copyright statutes.
Heres the key problem, Distribution. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does the RIAA limit our ability to distribute? Because they know they wont be needed if we become the distributor.
This isnt about Artists or Consumers, its about the RIAA protecting their business. P2P is distribution, free distribubtion. The RIAA however wants control over distribution.
I'm not saying we should have a right to sell mp3s we didnt make, I'm saying we the people should distribute music, and musicians can profit from this in a number of ways.
Why do we need the RIAA to buy copyrights fro
How does Kazaa make money? (Score:3, Interesting)
The same way Kazaa, Grokster, Napster and others make money off consumers distribution. Advertisements and other little things.
Do the calculations, artists would actually make more money off this system than the current system because they'd still own their copyrights and would take in 100% of the profits made.
Example1 [iuma.com]
Example2 [harvard.edu]
Currently artists dont profit at all off distirbution and record sales unless they sell 500,000 records, in the new system even if you sell 1000 records you'd get something beca
Re:Speaking of rights. (Score:4, Interesting)
While I have not read the document in its entirety, I would like to draw your attention to a particular portion:I have yet to find an analysis of what works are covered under this Act. However, it would appear that all works whose creators are compensated by this fund are eligible for home copying. It truly is a royalty that you pay when you buy "Audio" CD-Rs.
Re:Speaking of rights. (Score:5, Insightful)
No ones talking about selling MP3s. See thats what you dont understand, the RIAA's business model is dead, the RIAA is not needed anymore. PERIOD.
Kazaa, Grokster, Napster and all these other services can PROFIT, thats right PROFIT off of us sharing mp3s.
Musicians can get a share of the PROFIT, and get paid for their work.
Whos missing here? Happy consumers, happy musicians, wait, no RIAA influence!
Thats the key.
Re:Speaking of rights. (Score:5, Insightful)
But you DONT buy music. You buy a license to use it.
The most recent music CD I purchased came with no license, nor did I need one. At least in the United States, first sale doctorine [12.108.175.91] says that when I purchase a copyrighted product (eg. a book, or a CD), I own the physical product, and have a right to enjoy the use of it, and resell it as I see fit. The copyright holder has no right to limit my quiet enjoyment of my purchase.
Copyright Law restricts my right to make and distribute copies of the work, and derivative works. If I wish to do something with my CD that would be in violation of Copyright Law, then and only then I would need to obtain a license from the copyright holder.
There is no legal basis for an implied license with a CD/Book/DVD, nor is there any need for one.
Computer software is different, because you almost always have to copy software at least once to make use of it (from the media to the computer). It's also different, because software (both shrinkwrap and Free) is traditionally shipped with a license in some form you can see and read. So, basically, if you see a license, you (may or arguably may not, that's a different issue though) have a license; if you don't see one, you definately don't have one.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. The above is not legal advice. Eat your greens.
Re:And thats whats wrong. (Score:3, Interesting)
Now if they try to tell me that I can't create a copy of a CD for personal use - whole different story.
Re:And thats whats wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
When you share your car or your TV, you no longer have posession of the car or TV. Unlike audio, when you send a file to someone, you still have the original and are not denied the ability to use it.
Re:And thats whats wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Data duplication is fundamentally different from physical goods. The system of laws societies have built up around production and distribution of physical goods simply is not suitable for applying to information that can be duplicated with standard consumer equipment.
The sooner people realize this and find an economically and socially viable solution, the better off humanity will be. As long as people are locked into thinking of information in terms of physical media (eg, a CD instead of music) we'll be stuck with an information economy that spends resources on things that are generally unproductive (copy prevention schemes and lawyers).
Eventually we are going to start making steps toward the general assembler, where regular people at home have a device that can create from raw materials and software nearly anything we need. No one will buy objects made of plastic, glass or metal, these objects will simply be made on demand. New kinds of things will be defined simply with a data file that one could share with ones friends. Electronics won't be far behind simple mechanical devices. Forget buying an MP3 player, just borrow the definition file from a friend and print your own, in whatever color you like.
Imagine what it would be like if large corporations cripple these kinds of technologies with DRM. Thats exactly whats happening now with music and video.
Yes, governments need to protect the rights of content creators, but they also need to be aware of what will eventually be possible with technology in the near and no-so-near future, and plan their course through history as appropriate. Governments exist partially because individuals tend to do what is best for themselves right now, not what will be good for people three or four generations down the line.
Re:Propaganda over rationality. (Score:4, Interesting)
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
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.
Literally? (Score:4, Funny)
You must have some really messed up eyesight. How do you deal with all those eyes lying around?
Re:Propaganda over rationality. (Score:3, Interesting)
You have it backwards (Score:5, Informative)
They could care less what you are buying or if you bought it or not, they only care when you are claiming it towards your taxes.
They can use a visual inspection of your home as an attempt to prove that you may be underdeclaring your income (say you report an income of $25,000/year but have two Ferrari's in your front driveway that are registered in your name) but they can't simply order you to produce a receipt on any old purchase that you may have made.
DRM does NOT protect copyrights. DRM protects copy restrictions. Why? Well look at CSS as the case of DRM-light. It keeps the normal person from viewing out-of-region material or using non-approved viewers. It doesn't do a thing to stop the technically savvy copier/user.
Re:You have it backwards (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, the dot com bust hit us all hard.
Stealing (Score:3, Insightful)
Not everyone likes to break out a dictionary and reveal every technical aspect of a word. When generalizing, it is easier to say "you are stealing music" then "you are infringing upon this record label's copyrights by downloading copied music". When most people think of stealing, they think of people taking stuff that isn't theirs. They don't
Re:Stealing (Score:5, Insightful)
The point here, and the reason it keeps getting brought up, is that this isn't some kind of hair-splitting quibble -- the word ``theft'' means something, and that something is all but completely unrelated to copyright infringement. The people who wave their hands and ignore this central and obvious fact are not, I'm sorry to inform you, the intelligent ones.
Re:Stealing (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason that (illegally) 'copying' music has come to be called 'stealing' music is because of the RIAA's deliberate manipulations of language. Six years ago, everybody would have referred to it as copying, which it is, so it is not too much to ask people to use the correct verb.
If you want to reflect that it is illegal, call it "illegal copying" (since some copying is legal (for backup), while some copying is illegal).
It is not only nerds that care about language not being abused and sloppy thought.
Re:Propaganda over rationality. (Score:5, Informative)
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. (Score:3, Interesting)
Now they want the same rights when searching for us "criminals".
Re:Propaganda over rationality. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm also appauled that anyone would even consider this theft, or lisencing, which is absolute bullshit. It's fairly standard; you get the media, you can do anything you want with it within fair use and unregulat
Re:Propaganda over rationality. (Score:5, Interesting)
The BSA is doing it today. Why is it a stretch to think the RIAA will be doing it tomorrow?
Second of all, if a clothing store wanted to, it could go to your house, and say "show us the receipt for the shirt you're wearing or we'll take you to court," and if you didn't show them the receipt, they could file a lawsuit.
If they want to force you to produce a reciept they have to convince a judge to force you to produce it. That probably won't happen.
How are they gaining any rights? Anyone can take anyone to court for anything!
Reading comprehension 101. The quote I was refering to is from an RIAA official who was implying that they needed more rights than they have now to investigate infringement. You have effectively argued my point for me. They have all the rights they need already. Now, stop being a fucking idiot and go annoy somebody else. (Was that up to your rudeness standards?)
Re:Propaganda over rationality. (Score:5, Informative)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
And, (Score:3, Interesting)
Copyright law gives you some freedoms with the work you just purchased. You are not required to keep your proof of purchase around forever, sorry
we're not talking about corporate software licensing here, we're talking about buying cds and records in the store, which is a standard, normal sale...
I repeat, there is no license agreement... implied or othe
Re:Thats what I dont ageee with. (Score:5, Funny)
What you think we dont know its illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)
So what, sharing is still right.
When a speaker transmits sound to a group of people at a party, its illegal!
None of them own the CD and paid for these songs.
Is it right? Yes its right to share music. Its just illegal.
You share TV as well, and I dont hear anyone debating if thats right or wrong because the TV companies arent suing everyone left and right. If TV companies installed cameras in your home and fined you every time more than one person was in front of your TV, you'd think it was right because its the law. The law is always right to people like you.
Re:Show me this right, show me the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
Playing music at a private non-commercial party is no more illegal than having some friends over to watch a prerecorded movie. Those are both private performances that are allowed because copyright law only forbids public performances.
And on that score, public performances, at least for music, are covered under a compulsory license. Wh
So Waste and Direct Connect are legal. (Score:3, Insightful)
Because both Waste and Direct Connect would be considered private performances.
So if people were to use these services, such as Waste, it would be impossible to sue them right? Its a private performance.
Re:Thats what I dont ageee with. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Propaganda over rationality. (Score:3, Insightful)
If Oppenheim needs an analogy to make his point, he doesn't understand his point clear enough to make it. If he thoroughly and correctly understands both parties stances, and is trying to win the debate
The RIAA is right to be worried (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Check out Ian's journal (Score:5, Interesting)
Shady dealings (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
I remember that case. One of the things that is *rarely* mentioned in all the coverage is that selling a gun as "fingerprint resistant" is viable. Fingerprints on guns cause rust. A fingerprint resistant gun is less prone to rusting than other guns.
Re:Shady dealings (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Say WHAT? (Score:4, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Good job they don't consider freenet a threat... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good job they don't consider freenet a threat.. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is actually interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:3, Insightful)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
Reverse that. (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:This is actually interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Freenet is awesome (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Freenet is awesome (Score:3, Insightful)
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 t
How can freenet be immoral? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh wait, nevermind....
There is no theft of music involved. (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a very simple fix that will make all P2P networks useless. Industry and government will get together and come up with a plan to cap all residential broadband upstream bitrates to the low kilobit/sec range (uncapped service might be offered for say $50/month extra; very few will buy it). Educational institutes will be pressured to do the same on student accounts. Businesses w
Did the RIAA guy just admit P2P wasn't a problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
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! (Score:5, Interesting)
"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.
Good and ill (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Funniest Quote: (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Legal and moral... (Score:4, Insightful)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say that it's pretty damn useful to "kill and maim" someone who intends to kill or maim you, and will certainly succeed in doing so if it's a simple contest of muscles.
Re:Legal and moral... (Score:3, Insightful)
"kill and maim" is not the intrinsically immoral things you seem to be making them out to be. Few people would say that "killing" a deer with the intent of eating it is immoral. (Such people do exist, yes, but I think "few" is an adequate description of their numbers.) Few people would say that killing or maiming someone attacking you or your children is immoral. (Again, people who
Re:Legal and moral... (Score:3)
Perhaps, given the premise that killing is always illegal. But in real life, it isn't. There aren't laws against shooting people; there are laws against murder, assault, etc. If someone shoots at you (or displays a credible threat that he is going to shoot at you) without justification, then it's justified (and even legal, in most parts of th
Preaching to the choir (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:stealing bibles? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:stealing bibles? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hm, that's a really good analogy.
I'm sure if you stole a bible from a motel (personally I'd sooner lift a _book of Mormon_ from a Marriot myself :), the motel *could*
choose to perse^H^H^Hprosecute you.
Or maybe they would decide that their church is the better for it, and they will fervently pray that you study it. And come to a service and drop $ in the plate
Re:stealing bibles? (Score:3, Funny)
Incorrect... (Score:3, Informative)
The Missed Point (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Debate the right word? (Score:5, Insightful)
Clarke clearly does not care about illegal use of his system due to an obvious religious zeal for free and anonymous speech (which, as an American it's hard to disagree with).
Oppenheim, on the other hand, completelely (and obviously willfully) ignores the idea that the debate is about anything other than the protection of IP rights; Corporate control of government and free speech aren't even issues worth discussing to the RIAA (gee, wonder why?).
Still, though I'd hardly call this a debate, it's nice that someone beside the directly involved parties still cares enough about these issues to present both sides.
Open Q on speach rights in relation to artical (Score:5, Insightful)
Now my question is, how can trading mp3s of R.Kelly and Britany Spears be considered free speach (which was the argument that Clarke used in the second question for freenet's existance)? Step aside from the mentality of "I want to get free music" and "the RIAA is full of $hit and we need to undermind them as much as possible" and consider how is this justified as free speach? If they are going to win, it has potential to be with that.
Last but not least, if freenet has a basis to stand on free speach being protectable over mp3 copyright infrengement (not theft Matt... the US Courts dont see it as theft), then the argument *could* turn towards Phil Zimmerman and how PGP came under fire in the mid 90s which I believe was for similar reasons.
Openheimr = idiot & liar (Score:3, Insightful)
What about someone who types in Xenu? That sure as hell isn't available online (not without alot of hastle from clambake).
Not sure, but I believe that P2P networks could easily be configured to allow for searching the text of documents.
Oh yea, he claims that there is little potential for non-infringing use and that there is little non-infringing use, and most of it infringes music copyright? Bullshit. I had my entire hard-drive offering on Kazaa. Guess what the most common upload items were? Anything and everythingg rated triple-X.
Oh yea, there happens to be these guys called Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach. Beethoven -- some 200 pieces. Mozart -- some 600. Bach -- some 1,200 pieces. That's a hell of alot of very popular non-infringing music (all of which is better than the best of the modern crap that you can get now).
Aside from that, Openheimer continued to fail to meet on the playing field. He always tried to make this interview about P2P apps like Kazaa. It was about FreeNode, not Kazaa. FreeNode is particularly designed for anonymous communication, not file-sharing...until it gets a search engine that's relatively fast, it will be poor for file-sharing.
Re:Openheimr = idiot & liar (Score:5, Insightful)
Fast forward to today, and go to an open-mic night at a jazz club. Do these people make money? No. Are they artists who love to create? Absolutely. I firmly believe that the lack of financial incentive is what keeps music good - those who are driven by their own desire to create typically create better music than a professional songwriter who spends the work week writing what he/she thinks will appeal to the largest demographic. And while the former explores and provokes, the latter strives to spit out exactly what Joe Consumer, aged 21-34, is used to listening to on his favorite ClearChannel radio station.
I happen to be one of the musicians who is driven to create. I've spent far more than I've made, and it will probably stay that way for the rest of my life, but it hasn't stopped me yet. I made about $100 in royalties from a song recorded in 1995. My current band has mp3's freely available on our website (see the sig) and we would rather play a low-paying/free gig than not play at all. The art is the incentive, not the $0.14/album royalties that the RIAA pays its "recording artists." But the RIAA is only thinking about the executives and the Pop Star Factories that are only in it for the paychecks.
How late can the Music Industry be? 5 years + ? (Score:3, Interesting)
I may be alone, but i believe that people would spend considerable money to download music. First, the price must be right. 99 cents for a song sounds pretty damn good to me. 50 cents sounds even better.
As a lifelong music collector with over 50 crates of vinyl albums (no idea how many that is) and at least 100 gigabytes of mp3's, I can say that If such a system was in place, I would gladly pay to purchase digital music. I am not trying to cheat the system when I download music, I am trying to avoid ripping the vinyl that I have purchased. Vinyl must be ripped in real time. I could never rip my whole collection. It is just impossible.
My parents would pay for downloaded music. My sister would pay for downloaded music. My friends would.....
RIAA why are you wasting time going after these people. Present the world with a legitimate alternative and draw the line between criminals and law abiding downloaders.
Piracy hasn't hurt microsoft one bit. There will always be pirates and theives. You are not trying to sell product to them. The lord knows that I would rather pay for a
Yet here we are, 5 years down the road from napster, and a computer company has taken the initiative that the music industry is frighened to death of.
This is just further evidence that no matter how great the art form is, the BUSINESS of music SUCKS!
In the immortal words of Q-Tip
Industry Rule #5080 : Record company people are shady.
Another Sign that the RIAA is Lacking Intelligence (Score:3, Informative)
Ah I can tell someone has never used Freenet. The majority of content in Freenet is not really searchable, it's more of a blog-based environment. Freenet won't even release a tool to search it. A 3rd party had to. I think Matt has been using a bit too much KazAa if he thinks every P2P network has a little search bar on the side, with options for Audio and Video...
Consider this from the other direction (Score:3, Insightful)
Article Summary (Score:4, Funny)
Question 1
Freenet: Thoughtful, valid answer
RIAA: It helps people steal music
Question 2
Freenet: Thoughtful, valid answer
RIAA: It helps people steal music, won't someone please think of the poor starving artists.
Question 3
Freenet: Thoughtful, valid answer
RIAA: It helps people steal music, but the term fileswapping is incorrect because they aren't swapping, they're in fact COPYING the music, and of course copying=stealing.
Question 4
Freenet: Thoughtful, valid answer amounting to "The RIAA's business model is fuxx0red and they will go away soon enough."
RIAA: He's STEALING OUR POOR ARTISTS' MUSIC, QUICK, ARREST HIM!!! WHY IS NOBODY LISTENING?!?!?!?!
Yes, I may have taken the liberty of condensing it down quite a bit......but its still dead on.
A pox on both yer houses... (Score:4, Interesting)
If Freenet thinks its main role is going to be making nice things happen in China, and saving pregnant teens, he's either the most naive technologist who ever stepped into the sun, or he wins the Eddie Haskell award.
If the RIAA thinks they can find everyone, they're just as naive. They do have the law on their side on the face of it - and I would rather they find a way to pay-and-get in a modern fashion than bullying the world out of bad habits.
The videotape/VCR analogy loses here because you have to ship tapes around and make them in real time - it is economically obnoxious to do so, so everyone has a vcr, everyone tapes off the air / time shift views and virtually nobody ships tapes around to from their homes to anyone who wants it. The rental system does what we need in that regard.
So far, Apple's got it about as right as anyone has - we'll see if people actually will support it though - in this way the whole how-do-i-get-digital-music thing is rather like 'the prisoners' dilemma' - cooperate/gain a little and everyone gets someting - default, steal, cheat, or get greedy, and everyon gets screwed.
A few things eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with this whole file sharing music p2p blah blah fiasco is that, well, the logistics surrounding "copying" were very different when copyright law was drafted. This here is a whole other situation.
I think we can all agree, more or less on a few things.
1) You can't just look at the act of copying anymore, to determine if something is morally correct or not. My web browser caching stuff, or my making a backup of my own stuff and putting it in a safe place, nobody with any common sense would tell me that it should be illegal, or that I'm harmful to society for doing it.
2) I should be able to let my buddy listen to my music, regardless of whether that mechanism involves a "copy" or not.
3) I should NOT be allowed to give away or sell copies of my music so that others don't have to purchase music, ever.
So.. the problem is we have no way to really define what's allowed and what's not.. digital makes it so easy to move music around, that we can't just look at 'copies' or 'streaming -vs- non streaming' or whatever.. we have to look at someone's overall actions. Perhaps, like some, sorry to say, drug laws, it should depend on the amount of copyrighted material you are trafficking in. Personal use woudl be a valid defence. Perhaps we should ban IP altogether, and go for purely technical solutions. I'm for the other.. having strong laws, and open technology.
Crack smoking again? (Score:3, Funny)
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:The RIAA advocates stealing Bibles? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, they DO say you can take them if you want. That's what the Gideons do -- provide free Bibles in the hope that you'll actually read them. The Gideons were way into "information wants to be free" long before Free Software / Open Source.