Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Napster is Dead. Long Live File-Swapping!

By MattOly in Internet
Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 11:38:41 AM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

The courts were able to shut down Napster, the embroiled file-sharing network started by stoned college students, but instead of marking an end to copyrighted-file-swapping, it will do more to usher in powerful alternatives to piss Metallica off. By using the Force.


"If you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you could ever imagine." This Obi Wan Kenobi line from Star Wars is, of course, the single greatest metaphor for what's happening in the world of file-trading. Napster is the Rebel Alliance, a collective of freedom-loving individuals who regard personal rights above restrictive laws and money-hungry 'zecutives. The RIAA is, of course, Darth Vader. Large, powerful, and scary looking, it was out to crush the independent masses and restore the order that was previously enjoyed.

But there was a rebellion brewing.

Like the Jedi, Napster had great things going for it. The idea was simple. You share, I share. It had been proven with HotLine time and again. Make some of your files accessable to others, you get theirs in return. On top of that, it was easy to use. Type in Metallica, download a song, Lars gets pissed. Like the Rebel Alliance, it was about freedom without intervention.

But it couldn't last forever. The giant RIAA machine thought it would be easy to destroy file-swapping of it's music. If you kill Napster, the criminal swappers will be lost and disoriented and cease their Un-Imperial deeds. But what ended up happening is something far better.

Napster is now a martyr. Though still around, and with a new CEO, the company is forced to put on a face of legitamacy. But the spirit is still alive, and there are already other file-sharing apps floating around users desktops to finally bring the Return of the Jedi.

Which of these file-trading programs will be the Deathstar-destroying Luke Skywalker of the next few years? There is, of course, Gnutella, started by disgruntled AOL employees and then sent through space to land who-knows-where.

OpenNap is popular for it's ability to use Napster-style networks while bypassing Napster itself. eDonkey2000 can even trade movies across such networks. Here comes the flood of porn.

Unfortunately, many of these Padawan Learners are still in the Beta mode and are quite buggy. But that ensures a future for the technology. Also, some others are "professional", issuing subscription-based swapping to make amends to the Empire. I mean, RIAA.

The question is, of course, can the New Republic that will emerge last? Can we successfully keep file-swapping alive without the RIAA doing even more to ballyhoo it's position in the economy? Is there any future left for the stances of the Empire?

Only time will tell. Perhaps the RIAA will realize that it has been greedy and power-hungry too long, and with it's last breaths of self-importance, make up with the people who really matter when you talk about music: The People.

"Let me look on you with my own eyes."

This story is mirrored on K5's cousin, Satanosphere, another Scoop site.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Next Up:
o Gnutella 46%
o eDonkey 2000 11%
o OpenNap 18%
o WinMX 16%
o Aimster 7%

Votes: 54
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Scoop
o If you kill Napster,
o and with a new CEO,
o Satanosphe re,
o Also by MattOly


Display: Sort:
Napster is Dead. Long Live File-Swapping! | 45 comments (36 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden)
Perhaps the RIAA will realize... (2.90 / 10) (#4)
by Pac on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 05:47:03 PM EST

CNN Special Report: RIAA calls it quits

Just two days after the first ice shipment from Hell reached Saudi Arabia, in a day when all attention was turned to tomorrow's historical encounter between Richard Stallman and Bill Gates for the joint Microsoft-FSF launch of the Free Windows and the Free Office, RIAA has called a emergency press-conference to announce that it "realized it has been greedy and power-hungry too long".

RIAA spokesperson also informed that the former evil association was looking into ways to "make up with the people who really matter when you talk about music". He also apologized for the inconvenience.

Evolution doesn't take prisoners


What is it gonna be? (2.27 / 11) (#5)
by darthaya on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 05:52:39 PM EST

What is the future you envisioned to be? Everyone gets everything for free?

I thought that was called Communism.


Re: What is it gonna be? (3.60 / 5) (#8)
by Wolfkin on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 07:05:06 PM EST

Everyone gets everything for free?
I thought that was called Communism.

Naw, communism is when people say that everyone will get what they need, but what actually happens is a few people get everything they could want, and the rest get just a little less than they need (for a low value of "need").

When you have no restrictions on people charging what they can get for a product, though, you typically find that "what they can get" is pretty small, and gets smaller with time. This is known as a "free market", and it makes everyone rich, given time.

Randall.



[ Parent ]
Yeah,... (2.50 / 2) (#26)
by Kaki Nix Sain on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 04:21:40 AM EST

... unfortunately, it just doesn't always tend to spread out the higher-end amounts of wealth among a greater percentage of the people.

That would make more people happy, and increase general contentment. At least I think that is how humans work.



[ Parent ]

Hehe (none / 0) (#40)
by Wah on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 09:03:36 PM EST

This is known as a "free market", and it makes everyone rich, given time.

Know anyplace where this is in effect? And if you say the U.S. I'm gonna slap you.

This smacks of the idea known as "market fundamentalism"* which is just as scary and flawed as most other fundamentalists.

* = the free market will cure all ills.
--
Some things, bandwidth can't buy. For everything else, there's Real Life | SSP
[ Parent ]

Slap me, but read first. (none / 0) (#41)
by Wolfkin on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 10:29:04 PM EST

Well, the US is where the free market had an early implementation. That was so effective that the US is still coasting up on the economic momentum from ~150 years of mostly unfettered free markets.

For a more recent example, take the area formerly known as Somalia. Most people there are far better off than they were when they toppled the State; it remains to be seen whether they can resist the siren song of government long enough to become rich by US standards.

Randall.



[ Parent ]
It depends. (4.66 / 3) (#13)
by delmoi on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 08:08:51 PM EST

Everyone gets everything for free?

What do you mean by 'everything'? Everything that they are told they can have, or Everything thet want?

The former might be called communism the latter would be called Utopia
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Nice... (4.00 / 1) (#25)
by Kaki Nix Sain on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 04:16:17 AM EST

... only, we might what to be careful. One of the worst things that some futuristic, wizz-bang robots could possibily do is "any and everything we tell them to."

Could get dangerous with all of those other extremuspotent humans running around. :)

I came to understand this from this song.



[ Parent ]

what...? (4.00 / 12) (#6)
by klamath on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 06:41:58 PM EST

Napster is the Rebel Alliance, a collective of freedom-loving individuals who regard personal rights above restrictive laws and money-hungry 'zecutives.
How does one respect 'personal rights' by (illegally) trading songs on the Internet, without the authorization of the songs' copyright holders? Wouldn't that violate the 'personal rights' of the copyright holders? Since laws (and the Constitution) are the fundamental means for the protection of individual means, and since file swapping is illegal, don't Napster users undermine individual rights?

Copyright is market regulation, not a "right& (3.00 / 3) (#9)
by Wolfkin on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 07:28:40 PM EST

I guess you haven't noticed that US law (and indeed, law in many countries) is typically on the side of the rights violators, these days.

Copyright is a bogus sort of right; a right to a class of objects, not a certain object. Creating a class of object (Metallica's "Black Album", for instance) does not give you the right to control objects that aren't created by you. It only gives you the right to control those objects that you created, and to make contracts with people regarding them.

Anyway, the US is less and less a place I want to live. Earlier this year, I got out. I plan to visit occasionally, but Mr. Slyarov's predicament has certainly made me think more than once about that.

Randall.



[ Parent ]
arguable! (3.33 / 3) (#10)
by klamath on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 07:40:07 PM EST

I guess you haven't noticed that US law (and indeed, law in many countries) is typically on the side of the rights violators, these days.
No need to be condescending. Indeed, I have noticed it and it is a serious (and deeply-entrenched) problem.

Copyright is a bogus sort of right; a right to a class of objects, not a certain object.
You may well be right (err.. correct ;-) ). One could view it as an extension of the right to property: since I own my cognitive faculties and the materials I use to produce something, how can the result *not* be 'mine'?

But that's an argument I'm not too certain about. So basically, I agree with you ;-) However, that doesn't change the fact that the law is the law; you can't unilaterally disgard it because you don't agree with it.

[ Parent ]

arguing! :) (3.50 / 4) (#16)
by Wolfkin on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 09:08:49 PM EST

No need to be condescending.

My apologies. :) Sometimes I get carried away.

One could view it as an extension of the right to property: since I own my cognitive faculties and the materials I use to produce something, how can the result *not* be 'mine'?

I don't dispute that the result is yours. However, I don't think you can own the information content of the result, only the material involved. That is, you can keep the result secret, but you can't both sell it and keep it secret. Of course, you can attempt to do this through contract, and I have no objection in principle to that; I just don't think that it will be practical for the vast majority of things. One consequence of that path is that the individual who released the secret becomes responsible for all the lost revenue, calculated in whatever way the contract specified. I think most people will shy away from contracts like that.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the law is the law; you can't unilaterally disgard it because you don't agree with it.

Sure you can. :) People do this every day. Most people drive at greater speeds than the legal limit regularly. If people disobey publicly (i.e. civil disobedience), sometimes the laws are changed or repealed. If not, something more sinister happens: we reach a state where new draconian laws aren't opposed even by those affected, since there are already so many laws that they don't follow -- what's one more?

While it would be difficult to prove, I'd bet that each and every adult in the US is a criminal. There are just too many laws. Many of these people don't even realize that they break the law every day, week, or whatever. But this creates an environment where anyone can be prosecuted; the State only has to find out what they are doing, not whether they are doing something.

This has already gone well offtopic, so I'll stop. :)

Randall.



[ Parent ]
Not so recent. (4.00 / 3) (#14)
by mbrubeck on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 08:20:27 PM EST

I guess you haven't noticed that US law (and indeed, law in many countries) is typically on the side of the rights violators, these days.
"These days?" Yes, in recent years the copyright term has been made ridiculously long, and laws like the DMCA and UCITA have eroded the fair use provisions of the law. But you are arguing against the most basic concepts of copyright, which were established by the Constitution at the founding of the nation. You can hardly cast this as a recent development.

You are correct that copyright is not considered a "god-given" right like those in the First Amendment, but it is a fundamental legal right, granted by the government to its citizens by direct authority of the constitution. Its purpose is practical: To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8).

Do you believe that all information should immediately be placed in the public domain? This isn't just rhetoric; I consider the position perfectly valid, but I'm curious how you then deal with the practical difficulties. How then should we fund projects that are purely information-based (e.g. journalism, software, academic research), and how should artists earn livings?

There are other potential solutions to these problems, but I would prefer to stick with the simple and perfectly good one established by the constitution: grant exclusive licensing rights to the creator of any original work, for a limited time. I think that this can remain a valid approach to intellectual property, and we should focus on restoring its traditional protections for users and consumers of information: fair use and reasonable expiration terms. I think that this is more reasonable than abolishing intellectual property entirely.

[ Parent ]

Insufficient separation of concepts (5.00 / 4) (#17)
by Wolfkin on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 09:49:02 PM EST

But you are arguing against the most basic concepts of copyright, which were established by the Constitution at the founding of the nation. You can hardly cast this as a recent development.

Nor was I attempting to. Copyright, it seems to me, is symptomatic of the defects of the system that the US Constitution writers set up. It's a law that purports to benefit the public, but in fact benefits a special interest at the expense of the public. (I realize that the term "special interest" is a recent one). The root of the problem is the State itself, but that's a much longer argument. :)

Do you believe that all information should immediately be placed in the public domain? This isn't just rhetoric; I consider the position perfectly valid, but I'm curious how you then deal with the practical difficulties.

I believe that all information should be in the public domain if the owner wishes it. The term "owner", here, is a reference to the person owning any specific copy or copies of the original work, or the original itself. I think that most people agree with me regarding information ownership on most things (no one believes that the automobile corporation owns the color of their car [I hope]), but disagree regarding more complex information because it takes more effort to arrange it (from paper and ink to manuscript, say).

In other words, I don't think that information is an ownable property of objects. Atoms and energy are ownable primarily because they are unique. You and I can't use the same atoms or the same energy at the same time. However, we can easily both read _The_Ethics_of_Liberty_ at the same time. Nothing is lost from my _The_Ethics_of_Liberty_ while you read yours. Similarly, we can each drive a Nissan Sunny, but we can't drive the same Sunny at the same time.

How then should we fund projects that are purely information-based (e.g. journalism, software, academic research), and how should artists earn livings?

I think that there are lots of different ways. :) I think that the existence of the Linux industry points out some of them. As for artists: pre-contracted sales (only works for well-known artists or brokers), donations, ordinary sales (since many people will purchase a book or CD for convenience immediately, before the duplicators get into it), charging for autographs/concerts, etc. It seems to me that in such a world, works of art would be cheaper, the best-selling artists would be less wealthy, and the lesser-known artists more wealthy (since people can afford more art, and most artists never get more than a few hundred or thousand sales). The incredible amounts of hype that we see promoting the biggest artists would diminish, as there wouldn't be enough room in the per unit price to pay for it.

My view is somewhat more complex than it may appear, here. <slightly offtopic>It seems clear to me that the difference between live people and nonexistant ones is information content. It seems reasonable to state that people are information. Given this, it seems like a broadly applicable principle that information, from the color of an object to the content of a book to the content of a brain, isn't ownable. I have a personal preference for consistency, and this position allows me to be perfectly consistent where the ownership of information is concerned, with no exceptions. My apologies if this bit didn't make sense to anyone else. :) </slightly offtopic>

Randall.



[ Parent ]
Ride on... (none / 0) (#24)
by Kaki Nix Sain on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 04:09:32 AM EST

... and shine on too.



[ Parent ]

Anyone Else? (4.00 / 14) (#12)
by sventhatcher on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 07:59:37 PM EST

Anyone else getting the slightest bit tired of the accusations that the RIAA is evil for trying to shutdown really easy illegal transfers of music on-line.

  • Napster isn't the same as your friend making you a tape of this new cool album he bought.
  • Napster isn't the same as trading concert bootlegs on-line.
  • Napster isn't even the same as the community like trading of Hotline or IRC.
Napster lets you type into a little textbox the name of a song and after at most a minute of waiting, anything but the most obscure track will be streaming it's way to your hard drive. This isn't fair use. It's stealing.

For every audophile who goes out and buys the CD a week after downloading it, there are probably ten people that don't. I'm not saying these losses will "kill" the music labels, but it's not exactly like they're completely out of their bounds here to oppose Napster. They're not the evil Empire trying to steal your rights. You don't have the "right" to pirate music. You've been free to do it, because it's never been annoying enough to stop in the past. Napster changed that.

If you really want to get riled up about the RIAA and it's unfair practices, consider artist rights which currently might as well be an oxymoron under the system that's in place, but it'd be a better fight that whining about how the RIAA is trying to take away your right to steal.

I've not downloaded an illegal mp3 in months, and then it was only to preview Radiohead's new album which I bought the day it was released. =)

--Sven (Now with bonus vanity weblog! (MLP Sold Seperately))

Perhaps... (1.50 / 2) (#23)
by Kaki Nix Sain on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 04:06:10 AM EST

... some of us are just more socially minded than you are. I am willing to give everyone the benifit of the doubt that they are nice people and am willing to share with them, as I do with my friends. My money is the world's, I merely hold it in trust (and take responsibility for the debt--slowly, please--). I'll try to help out, and hope to do my part.

"..type into a little textbox the name of a song and after at most a minute of waiting, anything but the most obscure track will be streaming it's way to your hard drive. This isn't fair use. It's stealing."

I liked to call it convenience. To-ma-to, ta-mah-ta. Anymore little terminology nits, you want to pick?



[ Parent ]

Err. (4.00 / 1) (#28)
by sventhatcher on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 07:28:08 AM EST

I find your counter-point to be vague at best.

How often do you actually get to know the person that you're downloading from on various file-sharing networks?

The reality is that when pirating music becomes as convient as it has become with the rise of Napster, there remains little reason for people to buy music unless one of three things occur:

  • They lack the technology to download the music and/or burn it onto a CD. Obviously, this is a problem that will largely melt away as technology spreads and advances.
  • They wish to pay the artist money. Music piracy would be a lot more tolerable if it was coupled with small donations to the artists. The music labels treat artists like shit. Artists don't get nearly what they should from music purchases. Admittedly this is a moot point.
  • They don't want the degredation of quality. It does exist of course. Even the highest quality mp3's are subpar compared to CD-quality, but there's no indication that a newer better format couldn't overcome this factor.
It seems inevitable that music will be distributed electronically, but it's silly to harbor some revolutionary notion that music "wants" to be free. Musicians work hard to produce their albums. They do deserve *some* compensation even if it does mean abandonding the classic musical label driven biz.

--Sven (Now with bonus vanity weblog! (MLP Sold Seperately))
[ Parent ]
I think, my point... (none / 0) (#30)
by Kaki Nix Sain on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 10:23:20 AM EST

... was basically that, just because you don't think of file sharing as similar to the friendly activity of sharing tapes, you might not ought to make a blanket statement about how things "really are," because some of us see our place in the world and our relations to our fellow humans differently than you.

Just for some clarification, would it be o.k., in your opinion, if I limited my file sharing to exchanges with those who I have a prior physical-space friendship with?

Oh, and I've held quite a few nice conversations with some of those that I shared my music with. We talked about where we live, net social protocols, music (naturally), life, etc. I doubt the percentage of those I have talked to out of the total is very high. Does the percentage make a difference? I came away from most every one of those conversations having connected to another person across unknown amounts of physical and mental space. I found them quite gratifing. Why can't I be friends with people according to the criteria I and they agree upon? Why do you get to step into our dealings and limit the way we relate to one another? If we have a notion of community ownership that differs from your way of thinking, should we be punished?

About condition 2, paying some money to artists: I agree this is a good behavoir. I have tried to work it into my routine, along with giving a bit to some websites I really like. So far, I'm limited in this behavoir mostly because I don't have a lot of $ to begin with and the current processes for such transfers lack a good deal of convenience (is it safe to assume you understand the term "poverty of attention").

Sorry if this isn't much clearer, maybe my ideas on this topic aren't clean and clear. The world is messy a lot of the time (what with wildly different world-views interacting and all), our thinking must sometimes follow the same trend. I don't have the "info wants to be free" bit as my mantra, so you can rest easy there. I would prefer something more like, "people like to share information and experiances."



[ Parent ]

Let *me* Clarify (none / 0) (#35)
by sventhatcher on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 07:28:10 PM EST

I was never really intending to say that tape swapping or Hotline was more acceptable, because of the social atmosphere. I find them more acceptable, because of the scale.

You're not going to put your entire CD collection on tape for every friend you ever know. Moreover, not that many people actually trade tapes anymore besides for bootlegs. I've only had one case where someone has asked to borrow a CD to make a copy (the Moulin Rogue Soundtrack, oddly enough).

Napster and things like it allow for massive amounts of piracy. People will rip their entire collections and share them. Moreover, anything they pirate is automatically made available for other people to re-pirate. New music spreads through the network like wildfire.

Quanity has always been the thing that shutdown piracy. Even back in the days of BBS's. The best thing to do back then to get shutdown was to be a popular BBS with lots of copyrighted software.

No one cracked down when your brother let you make a copy of Doom or whatever. It's when there is mass distribution, mass quanities, and mass availability that things strech beyond the idea of fair use.

--Sven (Now with bonus vanity weblog! (MLP Sold Seperately))
[ Parent ]

Actually... (4.50 / 2) (#37)
by dasunt on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 08:16:48 PM EST

I can think of a sub-culture where sneakernetting copies of tapes was very common, with tapes traveling from city to city with different travelers, slowing being spread to different areas.

A lot of the anime subculture was like this 5 years ago. VHS tapes were copied or made from other VHS tapes, there were the occasionally fan subs/dubs, a lot of rare stuff never released in the US, etc. People would trade copies for copies, creating entire collections, etc. Since VHS tapes used to be insanely high for a mere 1 or 2 episode tape, and many series easily had 20+ episoded, copying was the only way many people would have seen certain series.

There is still a bit of this culture around, especially with some of the rarer fansubs, which might technically break the law, but are a work of love ne'er-the-less. (There is also the related manga-scans/translations, the best example of which I can think is the Ranmascan project).

Some things are technically illegal, but really don't hurt anyone. Fan translations of certain games fall into this catagory (for example, Tenchi Muyo Super Famicom/Super NES game's english-translation patch). Other things might be illegal, but have a net good. I believe that if it wasn't for some of the abandonware sites and the emulation community, old computer and arcade games would be lost to us. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that the original purpose of copywrite law was to encourage works of art to be lost forever (and yes, games can be considered an artform).

I do have a nice mp3 collection right now, a lot of which came from borrowing CD's from people, as well as rarer amature works, fan-art, bootlegs, and non-American work that is, quite frankly, almost impossible to find in the US. There is more to music then what you can find at your local Walmart or Best Buy. Filesharing can help you learn that.

On the other hand, the whole "X is overpriced" argument is very valid. When people decide that a few hours of their time is worthwhile to find a certain X, even if the quality is unknown, instead of going down to the store and spending money to get X with a known level of quality, I would suggest the X may be a tad overpriced (or that corporate translations really, really do suck). Hell, I've probably spent a good 30 hours in my current search for a specific anime, and I still haven't found it.

Oh well, my $.02

[ Parent ]

What crap (none / 0) (#39)
by Wah on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 08:52:44 PM EST

This isn't fair use. It's stealing.

Alright sven, this is what Napster is.

It's a big warehouse that you can transport to (like in Star Trek) and take all of your music. In this big warehouse are a bunch of other people with music. Using the warehouse intercom, you can ask people if they have what you are looking for. Then it instantly transports you over to their area in the warehouse and you get their file. Or I should say "copy" since "get", "take", or "steal" don't fit the action, at all. And others do the same with you, all without any effort or cost to you (besides the electricity to run the transporter). If someone were able to do this in the physical world, should it be illegal?

Efforts by certain corporations have indeed made this transfer somewhat illegal, for certain files. And it's not to protect artists, or art even. Watching artists testify that this was the case in front of my Congress convinced me of that. It is soley to protect their business model after it has been outdated by rapidly advancing technology. I liken it to a future scenario where GM, Ford, and Daimler work to internationally outlaw the above transmitters, since they instantly drop the value of these companies main revenue source by a large margin. In many ways relegating it to only the "autophiles" and those who like the purr of a finely tuned engine.

Now, I will draw a line between listening to someone's music and taking that music and profiting with it, but I can't see a reason why anything less should be illegal? Perhpas you can share some enlightenment.
--
Some things, bandwidth can't buy. For everything else, there's Real Life | SSP
[ Parent ]

Why We Should Pay (none / 0) (#42)
by sventhatcher on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 10:30:19 PM EST

Now, I will draw a line between listening to someone's music and taking that music and profiting with it, but I can't see a reason why anything less should be illegal? Perhpas you can share some enlightenment.
While the amount of money that an artist gets from the sale of an individual album or single is relatively small, it is existent. It is what pays back the massive debts that a new artist while end up oweing, perhaps unfairly, to the label.

I'm all for remodeling the way that music is sold, since the current system is totally geared against the performer in favor of the machine of the corporate music world, but that's not what Napster is doing at all. The artist doesn't get anything when you download a song.

--Sven (Now with bonus vanity weblog! (MLP Sold Seperately))
[ Parent ]

Keep backing up (4.00 / 1) (#43)
by Wah on Thu Jul 26, 2001 at 10:29:32 AM EST

While the amount of money that an artist gets from the sale of an individual album or single is relatively small, it is existent.

Hmm, let's see what a current popular artist who had a decent enough name to get a "good" contract thinks of that. Read on, crazy diamond.

The artist doesn't get anything when you download a song.

Yes, but I have yet to see a coherent argument for why they should. Not why it's good to compensate people for art you appreciate, but to pay for a product that you are using your own resources to replicate. And the artist does get something from Napster and other networks, and it's the same thing they get from Big Corp X for signing their life's work away. A worldwide distribution network to use as exposure for their work.

Suffice it to say that I think use and ownership (defined as the ability to profit from something) need to be seperated under the context of some forms of intellectual property, music being the most obvious currently. I see no reason why one should enact draconian legislation that flies in the face of both economic and techonological factors, all in order to protect an industy whose main pupose of disseminating cultural artifacts has been replaced by a superior entity.
--
Some things, bandwidth can't buy. For everything else, there's Real Life | SSP
[ Parent ]

KaZaA (2.85 / 7) (#18)
by Sheepdot on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 11:38:18 PM EST

I used KaZaA for two days and got fast and the furious and swordfish, both movies I saw in the theatres, but I wanted to watch them again.

The program seems great, needs filesharers like all the rest, but has potential. I don't have any clue how it works, but it seems nice. eDonkey I've heard of, and Gnutella just has some problems that won't ever go away it seems.

I guess the article I'd like to see is someone writing about how *I* am the one at fault, and that the RIAA and MPAA need to come after *me* and label me the criminal, rather than some company that creates software that allows me to be a criminal.

It's mind-boggling to see the same people defending Napster argue that gun control is needed. Guns cause people to commit crime just as much as Napster causes people to.

Once again, its the criminal that is at fault, not the software or "hardware" he or she uses to do the crime.


Hmmm... spurious (4.00 / 3) (#27)
by the trinidad kid on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 04:26:55 AM EST

It's mind-boggling to see the same people defending Napster argue that gun control is needed. Guns cause people to commit crime just as much as Napster causes people to.
Puleese, a disgruntled employee went postal, burst into his workplace and copied 12 CDs...

A sense of perspective or some more largactyl, you decide.

[ Parent ]
Not in the Code (3.83 / 6) (#19)
by turtleshadow on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 12:16:04 AM EST

Here is a link to a few good sites on Jedi philosphy.
  • Jedi Creed
  • More advanced learning

  • I pose that arguments fail true Jedi Knowledge
    • To use the Force, the Jedi must remain at harmony with it. To act in dissonance depletes one's power. You contradict harmony when you can DL with impunity. You must contribute UL of your own artistic efforts before DL of other's artistic efforts
    • The Jedi does not act for personal gain, of wealth or of power. You contradict when you collect GB's of mp3 for personal amusement
    • Money is required for the purchase of goods; Dont be a leech
    • To achieve one's goals, a Jedi may obtain wealth or power, but is not interested in it for its own sake, and will surrender it once those goals are achieved. Nothing is permanent
    • To act from anger is to court the Dark Side, to risk everything for which the Jedi stand. Those who anger us must be dealt with in compassion. They obviously have needs threatened. They have lashed out an will be now consumed by it


    turtleshadow Jedi since '77

    Not quite. (3.50 / 2) (#22)
    by Kaki Nix Sain on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 03:56:28 AM EST

    In order:
    "To use the Force, the Jedi must remain at harmony with it. To act in dissonance depletes one's power. You contradict harmony when you can DL with impunity. You must contribute UL of your own artistic efforts before DL of other's artistic efforts."

    What if the other person does not want to DL from me at that time. Forcing two way exchange, when the participants would rather just make a one-way transfer is imposing your own dictates on others. Why not let them be as they wish?

    "The Jedi does not act for personal gain, of wealth or of power. You contradict when you collect GB's of mp3 for personal amusement"

    Collecting is not for personal gain (unless edification and communication of ideas qualifies), not at all for wealth, and certainly not for power.

    "Money is required for the purchase of goods; Dont be a leech"

    There you go again, thinking of things in terms of purchases and money. Why do you have to impose your way of thinking about these parts of life on others. Haven't they a right to orgainze the worlds around them in their own fashion, if it effects only those that agree to the effects? I do like the non-leech sentiment, though.

    "Nothing is permanent"

    This, I quite agree with. "It is impossible to not know that a thing will end, if you know of its beginning."-Or something like that, Marcus Aurelius, I think

    "To act from anger is to court the Dark Side, to risk everything for which the Jedi stand. Those who anger us must be dealt with in compassion. They obviously have needs threatened. They have lashed out an will be now consumed by it"

    So just chill and do our own thing? Ride on. This one I agree with too.

    For me that means getting songs I like from people that I find here and there, money sometimes changes hands if I find it to be needed and/or I want it to.



    [ Parent ]

    Um... (none / 0) (#33)
    by MattOly on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 12:10:19 PM EST

    The Jedi thing was a metaphor. Big evil v. little hero. That's about it. I am familiar with most Jedi philosophy (yes, I played the Rold Playing game...) but my point was about mass rebellion, not philosophy. Good links, though!

    ====
    A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.
    [ Parent ]

    Missing Poll Option: Freenet (4.80 / 5) (#21)
    by BlckKnght on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 03:17:34 AM EST

    I think that Freenet should have been one of the options in the poll.

    For those of you that don't know about it, Freenet is a peer-to-peer network that allows efficient, persistant, anonymous, and cryptographically secure file sharing. It is intended to be used to efficiently dissemenate information without allowing powerful organizations (corperations or governments) to find the poster or remove the content.

    Interestingly, Freenet was not intended to be a way of distributing copyrighted materials. It was expected to be used by corporate whistleblowers and by the opponents of oppressive governments to publish exposes. Only after Napster became so well known was it's potential to avoid copyright considered.

    -- 
    Error: .signature: No such file or directory


    The more you tighten your grip... (2.50 / 2) (#32)
    by Neolith on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 12:07:22 PM EST

    ... the more MP3's will slip between your fingers.

    Stoned College Students? (2.50 / 2) (#34)
    by fsck! on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 03:03:43 PM EST

    I knew Napster (aka Shawn Fanning) back before this whole thing got started, and his irc handle became a household name. I never new him to smoke pot, but he did drop out of college around the time Napster hit the #1 download spot on cnet.

    Ummm, no. (4.60 / 5) (#36)
    by Kasreyn on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 07:39:33 PM EST

    Napster is the Rebel Alliance, a collective of freedom-loving individuals who regard personal rights above restrictive laws and money-hungry 'zecutives.

    Umm, No. Napster was a bunch of folks who made the simple value decision, "free, or $17, I choose free." I have talked to Napster people. Two of my best friends were HUGE Napsterites. I have tried to engage them in discussion about the RIAA and its abuses, and guess what?

    They don't care.

    I can't get them to even discuss it. They are totally un- no, totally DISinterested in what this has to do with freedom, power, or rights. They just used Napster for free music, that is all. Not free like free speech, free like free beer. I guarantee you, that is all the reason that over 95% of Napsterites ever had.

    So please don't treat the Napster hordes like some bunch of visionary freedom fighters. They're just taking full advantage of financial opportunities, which is called "good business sense" (or "piracy", if you're a corporation trying to pretend you're simon-pure yourself).

    It was Steinbeck who described business as a "curious ritualized thievery" (The Grapes of Wrath). Businesses profit by this thievery. Now that their business models are holed and sinking, they're in a furor of activity finding a scapegoat. (That is, other than their own stupidity) The Napster users are guilty of nothing worse than the same self-serving opportunism as the corporations. However, the corporations are using control of the media to outlaw their opponents. THAT is the reality of the Napster community, like it or not.


    -Kasreyn


    "Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
    We never asked to be born in the first place."

    R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
    Every Army need grunts (4.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Wah on Wed Jul 25, 2001 at 08:33:49 PM EST

    you know, those folks who don't really know what they are fighting for, but go and do as their told since they know they are defending their freedom, or their pocketbooks. Or maybe they just follow the herd real well.

    However, the corporations are using control of the media to outlaw their opponents.

    Actually, they're using control over the laws to define the battle and the media to talk about something else. And to color the whole thing with the piracy/evil hacker red paint.

    Use the hordes, don't dismiss them because of their hordeness. Not everyone has to have airtight philosophical reasoning to take an action. That's a task for the visionary freedom fighters, whom the hordes follow.
    --
    Some things, bandwidth can't buy. For everything else, there's Real Life | SSP
    [ Parent ]

    heh heh (none / 0) (#45)
    by MattOly on Mon Jul 30, 2001 at 12:29:29 PM EST

    Pocketbooks? The problem might start with the RocketBooks! Geddit!?

    ====
    A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.
    [ Parent ]

    Looks like congress got wind of this (none / 0) (#44)
    by A Dapper M on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 10:12:42 PM EST

    /. has a story about congress gearing up to try and put an end to this.

    You can almost picture it now...

    Year 2000
    ---------
    Senatorial aid: Senator! There's a computer program that lets kids share music illegally!
    Senator: Humm, must shut it down...

    Year 2001
    ---------
    Senatorial aid: Senator! Since we shut down Napster all the kids are using new programs that not only share music illegally, but pr0n too!
    Senator: D'oh! Screwed ourselves again.

    ---------
    Me: Will they ever learn?

    "I sought only myself." - Heraclitus


    Napster is Dead. Long Live File-Swapping! | 45 comments (36 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!