Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

Searching for Pro-Napster Experts and Speakers? 120

Posted by Cliff from the defending-the-new-distribution-methods dept.
JLF asks: "I chair a local leadership seminar (Hugh O'Brian Youth Leadership) for high school Sophomores from Eastern Indiana where we try to introduce the students to a variety of viewpoints on several current events or issues. One issue we want to cover at this year's seminar is copyright law, and more specifically, Napster. I've done some research thru Google and found several leads for experts/speakers who are, for lack of a better term, anti-Napster, but I'm having trouble finding sources of pro-Napster sentiment who can make a strong point in favor of the file-trading that goes in through Napster. So I'm wondering if the Slashdot community might be able to suggest some places I could look for good arguments in favor of Napster ('good' as in it goes beyond the basic 'free music rulez!' argument), or even better, someone in the area (the seminar is being held at Ball State U. in Muncie, IN) who might be good to contact about speaking at the seminar. The format we use is very relaxed, each speaker gives a short (2-4 minute) intro about his-or-herself and then we open the floor up to questions from the students for about 45 minutes. Thanks!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Searching for Pro-Napster Experts and Speakers? More

Searching for Pro-Napster Experts and Speakers?

Comments Filter:

  • This is going to be hard to come by. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    #1 even in the purest form, this is theft.

    #2 no one is going to get up and say it is not.

    #3 The only point you have it the record companies are big evil bastards, and we deserve the music for free because they bent us over for years.

    #4 They need to find a better, cheap way to distribute music. Until they do I am going to pilage every thing I see.

    Just because you don't like the way something works does not give you the right to steal it. If I lived by these ideas with everything outside of Napster I would run all the toll booths in New York because I think they have been binking me out of 6 bucks a day for years, and that is too much. Or I would copy DiabloII on my burner from a friend because I feel the price is too high. Better yet maybe I would steal out of the cash register at work because I think I am underpayed.

    Grab a clue, and realize that Napster is just an easy way to steal music. Yea sure it has some good honest uses, and helps some people outside of just stealing music. Just call a spade a spade and say you rogued it, at least then your an honest thief.

    Anonymous by Nature.

  • Here's one: (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I spurn the RIAA and its member companies and artists. Ergo, I feel no qualms about using napster to reclaim our collective musical heritage. Napster-style music trading software is like a modern troubador, except instead of coming to my village occasionally and singing a limited set of songs that it didn't write for a few coins, it comes to my computer when I call it and duplicates flawlessly a vast array of songs, for free. Either way, the original author doesn't get to live off their past works - they must work for their daily bread like the rest of us. And, furthermore, the RIAA gets jack, which I'm even happier about.

    Just my take. I still pay for live music.

  • Steve Albini? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I remember watching a panel discussion on Chicago's WTTW not too long ago, and local independent producer Steve Albini [allmusic.com] (Pixies, Wedding Present, etc) took a very pro-music-sharing stance during that discussion. I imagin he'd be a very interesting speaker to listen to.

  • Re:What does pro-Napster really mean? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Tally my vote for Larry Lessig. He is a great speaker. And I mean great. Not the flamboyant kind. The smart kind.

    His views on Slashdot are very accurate IMHO (read: slightly condescending, sorry guys and gals) and he is not a "Information want to be free" loony. He knows the law and has a clear picture of how technologies like Napster, and the laws that regulate code, like the DMCA, fit in our society.

    I'm sure he's not cheap, but the show is worth it. (Well for an IP lawyer anyways! :-)
  • Copyrights have to be earned, and they need not apply to everyone in all ways. If it were felt by Congress to promote the progress of the arts to have copyrights not apply to the sharing of files by individuals for no compensation, copyrights just wouldn't apply.

    I don't have a serious problem with that - I find it impossible to believe that the current system of copyright laws is actually fulfilling its Constitutionally mandated function.

    And remember, copyrights are only sensibly applicable to works that have been published - that is, deliberately made available to the public.

    OTOH, I have an expectation of privacy regarding my personal information. Amazon may know what books I've bought from them, but I have never desired them to tell anyone else, for any reason. Only the government, armed with a warrant from a court with relevant jurisdiction ought to be able to violate that privacy.

    Although I find them inelegant and would prefer to avoid them, double standards are perfectly reasonable, provided that they function to aid society, and do not impose harm on it. I don't know about you, but the society that I would like best relies chiefly on people, and imposes restrictions on the government, which in turn imposes restrictions on businesses.

    It's important not to be wedded to any one system, but to instead favor a goal, though you still want to be careful about how you get there. Certainly if a decidedly better political system than our present one were devised, I'd want to implement it; if a better economic system than a carefully muzzled capitalism were thought up, I'd be all for it. I admit that we're doing okay, but we clearly have a lot of room for improvement, and my sympathies lie with living, breathing people more than anything else.
  • Oh, they still have to be earned alright. Congress has just set the bar extremely (and possibly unconstitutionally) low.

    You may wish to check out the list of things that cannot be copyrighted: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html Remember of course, that Congress could eliminate copyrights on anything at all tomorrow if they wanted to. (through the normal process of lawmaking)

    Besides which, if you hadn't noticed my .sig, I disclaim copyrights on my posts. They go to the public domain as soon as they're fixed.
  • I use Naptster or IRC or whatever to look at songs hosted by those people who like music that I do. Then I download MP3s of people I have never heard of. 9 times out of 10 (or more) I strike out. But those few times that I get a winner, I have just found another artist to support. I usually can get their MP3s for all songs that are interesting to me, so I don't really need their CD. However, with the current model, purchasing the CD is the only method of supporting this artist. I also now will go to live shows for this artist (another revenue stream for them). Many are small enough that I would never have found them without this free distribution method.

    I would be happy to give the artist the same amount without purchasing the CD, because it would save me money without shorting the artist. However, there will have to be a paradigm shift in distribution before this can happen.
  • The problem is that the RIAA is NOT going to find a better, cheaper way to distribute music, because it's not in their best interest.

    You talk about "the RIAA" as though they are one company. They are not. They are an industry lobby. They do actually compete with each other, and if one company can get rich at anothers expense, they will.

    Of course, you could argue that they are some sort of collusive oligopoly, but the onus is upon you to show that (and indeed one doubts that an oligopoly containing so many companies would be viable).

  • The fairtunes [fairtunes.com] site is interesting for pro-music-sharing info. Fairtunes wants to facilitate payments from napster users directly to the artists, cutting out the RIAA and other middlemen. (About $9000 donated and counting...) They have a database of artists and a slash - based news site.

    At this link [fairtunes.com] there's a discussion of a pro-napster song that played on NPR. The author of "The Napster Rap" is Eric Schwartz [ericschwartz.com].

    They also have a list of links [fairtunes.com] including "Recording Industry Math & Info" links and "Writings on voluntary payments/tipping".

    --
    Q: What do you get when a Postmodernist joins the Mafia?


  • Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software.

    I'm talking about major label recording contracts.

    A classic treatise from the e-pen of noted intellectual Courtney Love [salon.com].

    If we make Napster-like free file sharing illegal, we'll have to rid ourselves of either computers or democracy.

    You can't have both.

    This one's from the heart of rock'n'roll [advanced.org]'s Mr Wild, Jared Lanier [discover.com].

    I doubt Love would get out of bed for less than a Hollywood ransom and a noseful of gak. Might luck out with Lanier, though, if you can contact him in Virtuality before the imminent Eighties revival kicks in [bbc.co.uk].

  • Damn, (Score:1)

    by Rombuu ( 22914 )
    So they want to teach kids how to steal in school now...
  • http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/Wes/Wes2.html

    and

    http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/Wes/Wes1.html
  • Yes, we all agree it's better to steal an artists work with their permission.
  • *If* you could get him to come and speak, you'd have an unforgettable event. (And I say that in a good way -- I'm a big fan of LB and suspect Durst [like Mick Jagger] is a super-savvy businessman.)

    I suspect that he's a screaming idiot who was lucky enough to get a ton of money for screaming his guts out into a slobber-soaked microphone. He probably spends most of his money on drugs and booze, now that's business!
  • He'd have to be for file-sharing. After all, he used to copy his buddy's albums onto tape all the time, and credits his band's rise in the 80's to encouraging taping of their concerts. Get Lars Ulrich!

    Oh damn.

  • I was a HOBY attendee. I just wanted to say that I think it is a great program. I think it is even better that you are trying to introduce the students to more 'technical' current events.
  • I have written an article about this.

    http://www.mode-x.com/articles.misc.php?target=n ap ster

    Also Courtney Love had a pretty interesting Salon.com piece a while ago:
    http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/lov e/ index.html

    It's pretty good, and if she's not an "expert", at least she's someone in the industry :-)

    Daniel
  • If this were still early in the election campaign last you, you might be able to convince Sen. Orinn Hatch from Utah to show up.

    (he was running for president, and has spoken, if not favorably of napster, at least in defense of the principles are are being broken in prosecuting it)

  • Most experts and academians are pro-sharing. Those you have found are properbly corporate employees ore layers seeking profit.

    The bigger problem, is more to find someone who isnt too farfetched. It has always been a problem for interlectuals that a majority of them are extremely leftwing.

    Look for someone who understands economics!
  • Librarians have strong feelings about fair use AND about protecting copyright. Plus they're generally public service oriented, so taking a Saturday to go talk to HOBY students is likely to seem natural. And I know there are a few law school in Indiana, so it would be fairly inexpensive. I'd call the law library number and start by asking questions of whoever you reach -- just tell them what you're looking for.

    Liza

  • I am research assistant to Professor Peter Jaszi. He is widely renowned copyright scholar with interests in the U.S. Fair Use doctrine, heavily implicated by Napster and file sharing. He is usually who NPR, and other radio and TV affiliates call. :)
    http://www.wcl.american.edu/pub/faculty/jaszi/bi o. html.

    If not anyone from the digital freedom coalition.
  • It's more consistent with copyright parlance to speak in terms of minimalist or maximalist positions.

    The minimalist camp takes a more restrictive (some would argue traditional) view of scope of rights protected under copyright. The minimalist camp is more sensitive to the public interest in discussions of copyright jurisprudence. You might say they are the "pro-napster" club.

    The maximalist camp promotes expansions of scope of rights for copyright holders. The maximalists are who you will identify as the "anti-napster" club.

    Some people who have written alot in this area are Pam Samuelson
  • That's odd half the post disappeared... anyway...

    Pam Samuelson who heads the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology and Peter Jaszi, head of American University's IP Program and Clinic are both well published on this subject.

    This article will discuss how traditional copyright jurisprudence is butting heads against new maximalist doctrines. See Peter A. Jaszi, Goodbye to All That--A Reluctant (and Perhaps Premature) Adieu to a Constitutionally-Grounded Discourse of Public Interest in Copyright Law, 29 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 595 (1996).

    This article discusses the different positions playing out in the TRIPS and WIPO Copyright treaty negotiations. See Pamela Samuelson, The U.S. Digital Agenda at WIPO, 37 Va. J. Int'l L. 369, 374 & 375 n.39 (1997).
  • "#1 even in the purest form, this is theft."

    No, it's not. You should read about zero-sum games.

    "#2 no one is going to get up and say it is not."

    *stands up*

    It's not theft. It's copyright violation. I'll tell that to anyone.

    *sits down*

    "#3 The only point you have it the record companies are big evil bastards, and we deserve the music for free because they bent us over for years."

    No, we deserve the music for free (beer) because it is the nature of the price of anything that can be copied infinitely to approach zero.

    We deserve the music for free (speech) because it is the nature of music to be free and it is only recently, with the rise of the corporate police state, that it has been any different.

    "#4 They need to find a better, cheap way to distribute music. Until they do I am going to pilage every thing I see."

    Not pillage, not pirate, not steal. Violation of copyright. There's a world of difference there. If you want to convince anyone, get your definitions straight. You use words like theft and pillage because you want to make people get emotional and angry at Napster users. That's a Big Lie, and I'm calling you on it.

    You call copyright violation pillaging, piracy, and theft. You, Sir Coward, are a liar.
  • Dude, my comment is so not insightful. Not that I don't like being modded up, but I want it to be for the right reasons.
    =\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\ =\=\=\=\=\
  • Thanks for mentioning us at O'Reilly, but we don't many people near Indiana ourselves. I sent the query on to the authors, anyway.

    As others have pointed out, you have to decide whether you want to promote Napster for the community-building (copyright be damned) or point to the "substantial non-infringing uses."

    And as for Napster defending itself--I don't know whether the students will care about the detailed legal arguments, but I have to admit I haven't been wildly impressed by the defense arguments in the couple briefs I've seen. Napster can't win while fighting on enemy territory. Fair use does not mean the right to distribute material indiscriminately to strangers all around the globe, as socially valuable as that may be.

  • If Napster isn't peer to peer I really don't know what is. Peer to peer is a form of distribution which has absolutely nothing to do with technology or network topology.

    Napster is a centralized search index that indexes a distributed database of mp3s. Gnutella is a distributed search index that indexes a distributed database of files. They are both peer to peer because they allow anyone with a client to both download and upload material.

    Peer to peer and broadcast are methods of distribution. Centralized and distributed are types of network topologies.
  • actually it seems like you've got mp3.com vs. napter backwards ... if you're on a band's page in mp3.com, it's going to be really hard to find similar music that you may also enjoy. if you find a tune on napster, the person who dug that up often has some other tracks which may fit your tastes.

    what http://mp3.com can't do is tell a user which kind music they might like, you simply have to pick a category then "throw darts" until you get a hit ... sure you can try their top 40 charts, but who's to say you're going to like what everyone else is listening to.

    on the other side of the coin, if you find someone with similar tastes in music (ala napster or some-other-sharing method) there's a pretty good chance they've already found some tunes that you can get into.

    _f
  • Only half of me is egotistical, so I would hardly call myself an expert, but I do believe that my thoughts are well founded in their own right. I have written on Napster and the privacy versus piracy issue several times in the past, and I have collected each instance onto one page on my web site:

    Privacy vs. Piracy, Napster and More [neotope.com]

    If you are to actually read what I have to say, start with the bottom (the older comments; each is labeled by a header/separator/title thingy. I don't think that what I said would be of any particular use, but if it is, I'd love it if someone told me. :-)

    Also, the rest of my writings on a variety of other matters can be found here [neotope.com], so feel free to peruse. Don't feel obligated.

  • ScrewMetallica.org [http] maintains the so-called official pro/anti-napster band list [screwmetallica.org].

    So any famous artist on the pro-napster side would be a good choice in your case. Notice the pro-napster list is about twice as long as the anti-napster list, though i suspect some bias there :-)

  • What about the ACLU?

    The issue is not Napster being bad, but of having a requirement of the tool checking for permission before any data is shared. Does the telephone check to see if you have permission to call a particular person before you are allowed to dial the number?

  • There are three classes of people where you would find pro Napster sentiment. The first are unsigned artists who are looking for an easy way to diseminate their music. Many of them, and many of their production team LOVE Napster, since it's an easy way to get their music in front of people. And that's the first step to hitting it big- getting your music played by as many people as possible.

    The other group of people who you might want to check in with are those who hate the RIAA. I know, it's an "enemy of my enemy" thing, but maybe try a site like http://www.boycott-riaa.com.

    Finally there's the obvious place to check. Call Napster and ask their legal team for pointers.

  • But it's ok to take a CD you just bought at the store and make an "Illegal" copy onto a tape to listen to in your car?
  • I hear Lars Ulrich is available *grin* well, so he's not pro-napster, but he's not a articulate either.
  • Prince has come forward as a defender of Napster as well, having written about the issues on his website: http://www.npgonlineltd.com [npgonlineltd.com]

    The Offspring had that napster tour, and Radiohead has announced their support of what Napster has done for their fans and their popularity.
  • True. Anyone who thinks charging money for their music makes it "art" and giving it away freely debases it to the level of a "commodity" makes an excellent Napster advocate whether or not they know it.
  • Napster is a search engine-like service (with some advertisements for featured music)... You do have to know the band, or the name of the song to find what you are looking for

    I think you're taking an overly narrow view of Napster. While it's true that you've got the search engine, you can still browse through everything that a person is sharing. While arbitrarily viewing random shares might not be a very effective way to find stuff, looking for other files shared by someone who already had music that you like is a good way to find something similar but different.

  • I've thought about this subject quite a bit lately, and the one thought that just can't slip past my mind is this: How do we define, exactly, fair use for IP? The real question is where do we draw the line. I will cover music, as music is most revelent to the Napster discussion. Truth be told at this point, I don't have an view on Napster yet, although I think I might by the time this is done. Everyone here can agree on the two extremes: 1. Copying music onto new CD's and selling them on the street corners is wrong. 2. Listening to music by yourself in your own home using a player the recording company approved is ok. If we stretch downward from point one, most of us can agree that selling the CD's online, or even passing out free physical CD's is not ok either. I would go to say that 99% of us here would agree that actively distrubuting someone else's IP in any form (phsical media or digital), for pay or free, wholy intact is wrong. I guess the big question here is do whole songs constute enough to be a violation? I will pause there and give you a moment to think about it while I make a few more comments on the other end of the spectrum. Notice that I mentioned 1. alone 2. in your own house, and 3. on an approved player under the 'ok' catagory. Why? if you remove any one of the three, some people will disagree with the 'ok-ness' of the action. An approved player is a large portion of this argument. Theroretically, I could use DeCSS to rip movies to my hard drive or MP3 to rip audio and simply listen to the tracks or watch the movies by myself at home. (Before anyone scoffs, I have an impressive MP3 collection of all the CD's I own that isn't shared with anyone.) The problem with this is the RIAA will bitch about 'potential infringement' that I could incur. I think it's a bunch of bullcrap, but it is the way society is allowing itself to be lead. On to the next point, not listening to a CD at home is, technically, illegal. If an artist wanted to get nit-picky, Lars could bust somone crusing down the freeway with the windows down and "Sandman" blasting for unlicensed public performance. Yes, IANAL, but think about that and any movie-and-food parties you had at school. Again, the teachers could of technically been busted, but charges are almost never pressed. Lastly, you must listen by yourself. The reason behind this is YOU have purcased the CD, not your wife, not your brother, and not your friend. While I'm sure fair use entitles you to loan the CD to them (not for long, however, I'm sure the RIAA will go after that next), we can't say for ceritian that it allows anyone other than one person to use it at once. If it does, where is the line drawn? Can you and your family listen? Can your 10 person get together listen? Can your 100 person wild party listen? Can your 1000 person rave listen? That line is a whole other long covluted post from yours truely. Summing that up, we have a WORLD of Grey area inbetween the two endpoints. Napster falls solidly within those bounds. So if you choose (as your post would seem to imply) that anything within the grey area is bad, remember this post next time you're at a party and they play a CD you don't own you wicked nasty person you. Ugh... I was about to start talking about resale of used CD's, and then expand that into the question of "can I resale one track off of this CD?" but I realized whole books can and probally have been writen about this subject. And when you find that book, remember not to Xerox it, ok? Anyways guys, the reason I went so extreme on the 'ok' end is because I want you all to do one thing: learn what your rights are. That way you're more pissed when they are taken away. --Demonspawn Kant speel, don't care.
  • My appologies for the double post. I should of hit the preview button. Here it is with HTML breaks coded in:


    I've thought about this subject quite a bit lately, and the one thought that just can't slip past my mind is this:

    How do we define, exactly, fair use for IP?

    The real question is where do we draw the line. I will cover music, as music is most revelent to the Napster discussion. Truth be told at this point, I don't have an view on Napster yet, although I think I might by the time this is done.

    Everyone here can agree on the two extremes: 1. Copying music onto new CD's and selling them on the street corners is wrong. 2. Listening to music by yourself in your own home using a player the recording company approved is ok. If we stretch downward from point one, most of us can agree that selling the CD's online, or even passing out free physical CD's is not ok either. I would go to say that 99% of us here would agree that actively distrubuting someone else's IP in any form (phsical media or digital), for pay or free, wholy intact is wrong. I guess the big question here is do whole songs constute enough to be a violation? I will pause there and give you a moment to think about it while I make a few more comments on the other end of the spectrum.

    Notice that I mentioned 1. alone 2. in your own house, and 3. on an approved player under the 'ok' catagory. Why? if you remove any one of the three, some people will disagree with the 'ok-ness' of the action. An approved player is a large portion of this argument. Theroretically, I could use DeCSS to rip movies to my hard drive or MP3 to rip audio and simply listen to the tracks or watch the movies by myself at home. (Before anyone scoffs, I have an impressive MP3 collection of all the CD's I own that isn't shared with anyone.) The problem with this is the RIAA will bitch about 'potential infringement' that I could incur. I think it's a bunch of bullcrap, but it is the way society is allowing itself to be lead. On to the next point, not listening to a CD at home is, technically, illegal. If an artist wanted to get nit-picky, Lars could bust somone crusing down the freeway with the windows down and "Sandman" blasting for unlicensed public performance. Yes, IANAL, but think about that and any movie-and-food parties you had at school. Again, the teachers could of technically been busted, but charges are almost never pressed. Lastly, you must listen by yourself. The reason behind this is YOU have purcased the CD, not your wife, not your brother, and not your friend. While I'm sure fair use entitles you to loan the CD to them (not for long, however, I'm sure the RIAA will go after that next), we can't say for ceritian that it allows anyone other than one person to use it at once. If it does, where is the line drawn? Can you and your family listen? Can your 10 person get together listen? Can your 100 person wild party listen? Can your 1000 person rave listen? That line is a whole other long covluted post from yours truely.

    Summing that up, we have a WORLD of Grey area inbetween the two endpoints. Napster falls solidly within those bounds. So if you choose (as your post would seem to imply) that anything within the grey area is bad, remember this post next time you're at a party and they play a CD you don't own you wicked nasty person you.

    Ugh... I was about to start talking about resale of used CD's, and then expand that into the question of "can I resale one track off of this CD?" but I realized whole books can and probally have been writen about this subject. And when you find that book, remember not to Xerox it, ok?

    Anyways guys, the reason I went so extreme on the 'ok' end is because I want you all to do one thing: learn what your rights are. That way you're more pissed when they are taken away.

    --Demonspawn
    Kant speel, don't care.

  • How is Napster supposed to determine who the copyright holder really is on the files that are submitted to them?

    Thousands of songs are written everyday by musicians who don't have the time or resources to formally register copyright on their works. Should Napster refuse to allow trading of any of this music?

    What if I burn a copy of a Metallica CD, give my own titles to all the songs, and claim that I own the copyright? How will Napster check?

    Opt-in is impossible.
  • Point out that Lars is an idiot and a hypocrite, point to the original notion of copyright in the Constitution, and then tell them that they're violating exsisting law by even talking about the subject. Point at them and say "Look, it's the RIAA," and when they turn to look, punch 'em.
  • "Let's all remember; if you are making copyrighted music available to others online, you *ARE* breaking the law, regardles of how rediculous we all think it is."

    Napster is being accused of Contributory Infringement, not direct infringement and neither Napster nor the Napster user are actively distributing the copyrighted material.

    Simply having the songs on your harddrive is NOT illegal since you may own the CD and ripped them so that you could listen to the music while using the CD-ROM drive for something else. Nor are you required to place those mp3s in any specific directory so, if you want you can put them into your 'Napster Download' directory and still not be breaking any law.

  • The point I was trying to make is that the Napster user is NOT distributing the files. Their presence on the harddrive is immaterial. I do NOT log on to Napster to SHARE music - I do it to FIND music (generally works that aren't available in the stores.) Because I keep the music on my harddrive in one convenient space and don't generally do more than clean up the appearance (I'm easy to filter, in other words,) does not mean that I am contributing to copyright infringement or distributing these works. They are, very simply, just on my harddrive in a convenient (to me) directory.

    The Napster program was designed to take advantage of this (that people would want to keep their music in one place) and lists those files it finds as available.

    Now, if you want to police potential infringers, just abort any transfers and you are, in effect, preventing any infringement.

    Again, simply having those songs, in that directory, doesn't make you liable for even Contributory Infringement. They would have to prove that you facilitated people to download from your computer, which they might be able to do for Napster, but I certainly hope they couldn't prove such a thing for an individual Napster user.
  • You might try Shawn Fanning. He seems to know a lot about Napster.

  • I think the best place to search for pro-Napster (and anti-Napster) [slashdot.org] info is Slashdot.

    From Slashdot stories I could remember two articles :

  • My school is going threatening to expell Napster usersm, etc. and I can't seem to make a compelling argument in favor of what to them looks like stealing. But since the material can be coppied, it can't be stealing- right?

    Also, when I said "hire" I didn't mean "pay." If we had money, we wouldn't need Napster.

    Some may say this is intellectually bankrupt. But like most Americans, Of the six hundred posts on /., I'm only going to remember the one person who agreed with me. So, why not streamline the process?

    If you find some hot-shot pro-Napster speaker, Let me know. [ridiculopathy.com]

  • ChuckD of Public Enemy gives a roof-raising talk on why Napster is a Good Thing(TM). He'd probably tone down the mutherfuckers a bit for a group of kids. --toby
  • http://www.onamerica.com has an article on intellectual property that may be of interest to this discussion. Perhaps the author could appear to represent Napster.
  • precisely -- just because you CAN take cookies from the cookie jar doesn't mean it's a good thing. Napster has not shown itself to be able to renumerate artists properly -- giving artists even LESS than the recording industry. As for giving exposure, that's bullshit -- the primary means of finding music on napster is title/artist SEARCH, meaning that you have to know what you're looking for already -- where do you get this knowledge? well, from the looks of it, top 40 radio and MTV. i don't know where they came up with the argument that they existed to promote obscure bands, etc -- it's not a PROMOTING service, it's a LOCATING service.

    there's no Pro-Napster speakers that will talk about Napster because they all either: A) believe that INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE AND ALL IP SHOULD BE FREE, or B) are teenagers getting the latest SNOOP DOGG or whoever the hell is flavor or the week.

    I'd advise you to look for Freenet speakers -- it's a much less "HIP" movement, perhaps, but a noble cause.

    fisfhcuwerk.
  • this doesn't strike me as defending napster. it makes, finally, as semi-decent rationale for revisiting issues of copyright and perhaps reforming them. napster's only function in this sort of narrative is to show that people desire free exchange of intellectual property.

    or maybe they're just too fucking cheap to buy a cd.

    fisfhceurkl.
  • seems to be the illusion you're operating under. You're bitter that people get PAID for their work? Music not serious enough work for you? Meanwhile, truth being : making music is hard work -- I don't give a damn how many half-assed electro tracks you've knocked off using loops on your "borrowed" software; musicians spend good amounts of time and money actually AUTHORING music, not just rearranging a few samples. simply, musicians often do not get paid fairly for the amount of work they do, the fruits of which you enjoy.

    I'm glad you still pay for live music, but I'm guessing if you could figure out how NOT TO, you wouldn't.

    fishfucekr.

    just be frank, cop to theft -- don't hide it behind the same fucking MR.INTEGRITY scheme that 95% of slashdot users promote.

  • good job of illustrating the general ignorance/arrogance of people regarding this subject. you can't seriously believe that puff daddy and britney spears (who both have really fucking good production values, though perhaps uninteresting music) are simply pushing buttons to come up with tracks.

    fisfhcuerk.

    at least, i hope not.

  • I love the part about academians are pro-sharing. Sorry, no. They are most definitely not. When an academic has posted a complete set of audio/video files containing their lecture series, then they can talk about sharing. Until then, professors, please keep your mouths shut.

    - Ordinarius

  • I had no idea that Napster was still alive? After I couldn't find any decent music on there, I quit using it, so I assume that everybody else did, too. Are people using Napster to get music that's never been published (garage bands)??

  • Actually, if you read up on your fair use act, you'll discover that computers are not covered. They are specifically not covered, as decided in federal court recently (can't remember the case, just remember the hub-bub). So if a computer was used in the copy (as is most often the case), then the copies are illegel. And fair use does NOT cover re-distribution. It covers the right of an individual to make copies for his/her PRIVATE use. Re-distribution (ie, trading w/ friends) falls under PUBLIC use domain.
    And in the first case, I'm not arguing whether the product was freely available at Walmart down the street. The simple fact is that theft is theft. Justify it all you want, but that's how it boils down in the end. Metallica owns the rights to their music (or at least their recording company does). They, and only they, have the right to determine methods of distribution. If Walmart gives the albums away, it's Walmart's loss. If you steal it, you're a criminal. Where's the gray area here?
  • Sadly it's just exactly the comments like yours that lead to the whole morality debate, and destroy any credence lent by others to the plight for P2P software.
    "If we had money, we wouldn't need Napster"? So you do admit it's theft... And yes, it is stealing even if it can be copied. In fact, if you read just about ANY copyright issue posted on this site, you should know a little something about the DMCA...

    Allow me to submit the following questions to you:
    1. If you walk into a convenience store, and there's no clerk and no electronic surveillance, is it wrong to steal product off the shelves?

    2. Say you buy a CD (assume you have $16) and find out your friends want copies. Is it illegal to burn copies for them?

    I'll give you a hint. The answer is the same for both. The whole debate stems around whether you (or society as a whole) say yes or no. I personally think it is wrong, both morally and legally. Morally for your cherished reasons, and legally for Mr. Ulrich's rights to a paycheck. But for the love of [your deity here], at least have intelligent reasons for supporting the software.
    I'm not looking for a flame-war. It would just please me to no end to hear exactly what the original author was looking for: viewpoints supporting Napster beyond "Free music rulez!!".
    And I think major acts are the better source. So far I've heard hundreds of people say that local bands benefit from Napster, but I've never heard that from any of the musicians I know. I would contact Radiohead's label. I seem to recall them releasing all of Kid A digitally.
  • You are absolutely correct about public broadcast. It is 100% illegal to play a CD at a party for your 100 closest friends. It is not illegal to play that CD in your house with your family present, though. That is still a private performance.

    I don't think (bearing in mind I'm not a lawyer) playing a CD in your car is really a violation, as the intended audience is still within the private spectrum. Obviously people could stand outside the windows of your home and listen to your music if they wanted--incidentals cannot be averted or necessarily challenged. A car is not really a public broadcast unless you go to a block party, open the doors and hatch-back, and use the car for your "system".

    I remember at college we had a list posted on the side of the TV in the lounge. That list contained the names of all movies the college had bought the rights to have publicly displayed on campus. Any other movies, even if rented or owned by the residents, could only be watched within the resident's dorm room, or the college would (could) be sued.

    Now turn back to the early 1990's. The days when sampling was just becoming the "big thing" in music. Remember Vanilla Ice. Remember the Beastie Boys. They, and countless others, got sued by their samplees for copyright infringement for not getting the rights to portions of songs. Barely even fragments. And if you'll recall, most of the plaintiffs won. Any recording, be it a second, a minute, or an hour, if copyrighted, is fully covered by copyright laws.

    To return to my original topic, I stated that incidentals are just that, and cannot be necessarily challenged. This winds up being the chief argument for unbridled P2P file sharing (at least among the more intelligent). "You can't try to filter the bad out of a situation without negatively impacting the good." Well, that's true. Therefore I would agree that other systems, those designed for the public sharing of other media formats (ie, term papers, research, art-work that is not copyrighted, etc) are perfectly fine, and that abridging their services does adversely affect our ability to share freely with each other.

    Napster is not one of these services. Napster was designed with one and only one intention: to FREELY distribute music files. Well, here's a secret: most music is copyrighted. Ergo: Napster was designed to allow ordinary people to easily break the law. Sort of like designing attractive, plush hand-grenades for babies :-).

    Hotline (though now over-run with porn, mp3's, and all sorts of other copyrighted stuff) was originally designed for the very good purpose of allowing exactly the type of P2P (sort of) file sharing that I support. It housed discussions on popular subjects, was a huge source of information on all sorts of special interests, and a good distribution method for all of those great humorous things we remember (the Troops video, the guy smashing his monitor with his keyboard, and my favorite: the 4 guys in bandanas beating the shit out of a Wintel box with baseball bats) from the internet of yore. To abridge such a system, even with its illegal content, would be to restrict the free flow of ideas, inspirations, and liberties of those who use the system legally.

    So for now, I say: Napster bad! Hotline, eh... was pretty cool. Artists who freely distribute their own music digitally to their fans (Curve, Radiohead, Primus) rule. They've embraced the technology responsibly, and encourage fans to do so, too. So there. That's all I have to say about that. Jenny.

  • Re:I could do it.... (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Dear Slashdot,

    I'm looking for someone to teach my young students that thievery is OK, but I'm having a hard time finding anyone. Can you help?

    Thx,

    Miss Ing ThePoint

  • Or, you can believe that there are some legitimate uses of file-sharing as well as illegitimate ones, and that there's no effective way to prevent the bad uses without unacceptably interfering with the good ones.



    Problem is, there are effective ways to prevent misuse of Napster. The most obvious is to make it an opt-in system, rather than an opt-out: prevent Napster from being able to redistribute any mp3's which have not been submitted by their copyright holders. The search engine can verify this by checksumming the mp3 files, and the Napster company can be responsible for obtaining redistributable copies of mp3's from the people who are allowed to give them out.



    I just find it interesting that people yell and scream that copyrighted information should be freely redistributable, but then they also yell and scream that personal information must not be freely distributed, for 'privacy' reasons. They're saying that they should have the right to enjoy (without cost) the music/software/book I created, but I shouldn't be able to collect information about their email addresses, their spending habits, their family income, or how many children they have in the house.

  • I don't think that works as well as you think it does. Suppose you have an opt-in system. Who gets to opt-in? You assume there's a master list of who can create a copyrighted work. But there's not. Anyone who makes a creative work is a copyright holder.

    How is napster supposed to know who is the copyright holder of any given work to submit it in the first place? They can't possibly have a person deal with every file that's proposed, so this has to be done in an automated way. If I want to allow my work to be distributed over Napster, and I send them a checksum and say "Let MP3 files matching this checksum pass" how are they going to know that I actually hold the copyright for that work?

    Further, checksumming doesn't really work anyway because any change to the file, such as a bit-rate conversion, will break the checksum. If I want to allow people to covert my file to a 64kbit stream, or Vorbis, do I have to provide a checksum for every legal variant? Moreover, Napster, Inc's servers can't possibly checksum the files, because the actual files never pass through the central servers. The servers's get information from the client software. So the client would have to checksum the files. How long do you think it would take before people altered the clients to provide fake checksums?

    I really think that this problem is a lot harder than you might initially imagine.

    For a more thorough discussion of the issue, here's a comment I wrote a while back on this basic problem, on the afore-metnioned GigaLaw mailing list.:

    http://gigalaw.com/archives/0103/gigalaw-discuss -0 103-00027.html
    **
    The short answer is that there is no reliable way to identify an MP3 other than
    having someone listen to it. This goes double for services like Napster which
    never handle the MP3s themselves and have to rely on user-supplied data.
    As I've mentioned in previous posts, filtering by name won't work. Other
    solutions fare no better. Here's the long answer:
    There are mechanisms which make is possible to identify CDs and MP3 files, but
    they're all voluntary. CDs contain a serial number and a table of contents,
    which lets you look up CD information in a database called CDDB (for CD
    DataBase). This is how a lot of modern computer CD players get the song titles
    and such. MP3 files allow what are commonly called "ID3 tags". They are just
    a chunk of the file which is set aside for text, so that information about the
    file can be stored there. This ID3 information is generally filled in by the
    person who created the MP3, but it can be changed later by anyone who wants to.
    These features are very useful for legitimate users: For example, I encode my
    CDs into MP3 format so that I can listen to them on my computer and with a
    portable MP3 player. The software I use reads the serial number off the CD,
    gets information from the CDDB database, and then sets the ID3 tags
    accordingly. That way, each MP3 is tagged with the title, artist, and album.
    Unfortunately, these features are useless from a copyright enforcement
    standpoint because they are controlled by the user. There's no way to make
    someone set the ID3 tags correctly, so you cannot rely on their accuracy.
    The concept of a hash code is very much like a fingerprint. Hash codes let you
    take a file and produce a number that uniquely identifies the file. This
    number can then be used to verify whether that the file hasn't been modified,
    or to check other files and see if they're the same. Much like a fingerprint,
    there's not an 100% guarantee that two files with the same has code are the
    same file, but the odds are billions to one against any given two different
    files having the same hash code. Theoretically the RIAA could give Napster a
    list of hash values for every illegal MP3, and then Napster could detect it any
    time one of those files was sent. Unfortunately, this doesn't work in
    practice. The strength of hash codes is also a weakness in this instance: If
    you change a file in any way, you totally change its hash code. This is good
    for detecting tampering, but bad for identifying MP3s. There are inummerable
    changes an infringer could make to an MP3 file which would not alter it in any
    meaningful way, but still change the hash code.
    There is a company called eTantrum, Inc (www.etantrum.com) which has developed
    a technique for identifying music based on its audio characteristics, which
    should be independent of the file format or other easily-altered features. If
    it works as intended, it could be used to identify songs, which is what the
    RIAA would like. It is, however, open to question how well it actually works.
    Even if it does work, it could still be easily defeated: Currently, Napster
    acts as a search engine and broker, matching people who want a given song with
    people who have it. The file is then transferred between the users themselves.
    Thus, Napster never sees the MP3s themselves and has to trust the users to
    supply accurate information. Needless to say, users wishing to transfer
    infringing information would provide incorrect data.
    Useful references:
    Audio CD format-
    http://www.disctronics.co.uk/cdref/cdbasics/cdba si cs.htm
    MP3 files and ID3 tagging-
    http://webhome.idirect.com/~nuzhathl/mp3-faq.htm l# ques29
    Hash codes-
    http://www.thawte.com/support/crypto/hash.html
    The (in)feasibility of copy protection and water-marking-
    http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0011.html #6
    http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-9811.html #c opy
    http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0102.html #1
    eTantrum's MusicID -
    http://www.etantrum.com/index.php?section=techno lo gy

    **
    This was in response to :
    **

    Thus spake Doug Isenberg (disenberg@GigaLaw.com):
    OK, now that the district court issued its injunction against Napster, we
    know that the service will be required to block the transmission of MP3
    files where the file names match those provided by the music industry
    plaintiffs. I still think this is a far-from-foolproof solution and will
    allow many songs to slip through.

    I've been told that songs on CDs are encoded with a unique "hash" code and
    that the code could be used to identify files. I'm trying to understand
    this technology better and admit the preceding sentence may not be
    technically accurate! Can anyone comment on this and/or provide resources
    for background on the technology?

    Doug Isenberg, Esq.
    Editor & Publisher, GigaLaw.com (http://www.GigaLaw.com)
  • There's two ways to be pro-Napster. You can believe that it's appropriate and legal for private citizens to give each other unlimited copies of copyright-protected works. You'll have a hard time finding "respectable" people to defend this position.

    Or, you can believe that there are some legitimate uses of file-sharing as well as illegitimate ones, and that there's no effective way to prevent the bad uses without unacceptably interfering with the good ones. Under this logic, Napster, Inc. should not be restricted, but law enforcement and copyright-holders have every right to go after people who are misusing Napster. You can probably find a lot of people to support the latter position. Search the web for recent comments from Lawrence Lessig, for example. Lessig is associated with Harvard Law School, and is the former chair of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society there.

    Also look at the archives of the GigaLaw mailing list at gigalaw.com for a lot of discussion of this issue by people more qualified than myself.
  • Courtney Love [salon.com] also spoke out against the RIAA attack on Napster.

    "Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it.
    I'm not talking about Napster-type software.
    I'm talking about major label recording contracts. "
  • Prince (you know, the artist formerly known as "the artist formerly known as Prince") was on the Tonight Show last nite and implied he had a pretty favorable impression of Napster. He may not be entirely, 100% gung ho about it, but he certainly doesn't see it as a threat.

    He spent a bit of time trying to illustrate how it's not the artists who are being hurt by Naspter - the artists already got burned by the Record Companies. If you want to get this kind of message across, Prince or one of his entourage may be willing to speak.

  • > I'd be curious to see how articulate she is speaking off the cuff.

    Who knows? What is undeniably true, however, is that she cribbed most of that speech from Steve Albini's "The Problem With Music," originally published in Maximum Rock and Roll in 1994, IIRC.

    You're right on the money about Metallica, too. If people actually read what Ulrich said, he makes a lot of intelligent, reasoned points that the pro-Napster crowd just ignores.

    Peace,
    (jfb)

  • Linkage:

    http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

    And it was published in The Baffler, rather than MRR.

    HTH,
    (jfb)
  • Courtney Love gave a speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference almost exactly one year ago in which she defended Napster and excoriated the recording industry. It's shockingly articulate. The full transcript is available at Salon.com [salon.com].
  • I've found analyst Ric Dube from the firm Webnoize to be an excellent source of info on all things digital music. He's quoted by the press very often, and even has testified before Congress on digital music issues. i'm not sure if he does stuff like this, but he might be a good source of information at least.
  • Two things.
    1) You are using napster to acquire software by unlawful means.
    2) By your own admission, you KNOW anyone can come and copy the music you have already downloaded. This is distribution, my friend. You are making the material available to people for download.

    The Napster program was designed *To help people trade mp3*, and the Napster company was formed because doing so was thought (Rightly so) to be wildly popular.

    I doubt they would ever sue an individual napster user, you are right. But the piont here is that, regardless of how you want to micro-analyze what individual users do, Napster is in business to help people illegally distribute music. Trying to deny that is SILLY.

    Tell me this. Are you trying to say that, in the use of napster, no crimes have been comitted, no copyrights have been violated, and nobody has done anything the least bit illegal? If not, who HAS done something illegal?
  • If you said 'I didn't know napster was sharing stuff' you might ahve a case.
    But you KNOW you are sharing them with people, you are specifically using napster to MAKE them available to other napster users. It's silly to argue that you 'aren't doing anything wrong'.
    You having the mp3's is not illegal. You spreading them around without the permission of the copyright holder IS.

    Napster is being accused of contributory infringement because their business, as I explained, is based on HELPING PEOPLE SHARE mp3, knowing that it will be wildly popular because people will use it to illegally pirate music.

    Napster users *are* directly distributing the material. it's just like if they had a store selling pirated CD's of popular tunes, and it was free. People who took the time could come in , browse, and just grab what they want.

  • Should people be able to 'share files' on the Internet? Certainly. Should the internet be 'filtered'? No. Waste of resources.

    Should Napster be allowed? no. Why? Because.

    Napster is a company. Napster is in business (initially) to attract a large userbase, to make money off those users using napster, probably by advertising.
    Napster, the company, KNEW they would be popular because tom, dick, and harry would use their service to pirate music (something illegal).

    Therefore, Napster, the company, has a business based primarily on helping people do something illegal.

    Now.. can people do it anyway? Yes. Should all file-sharing software be illegal? But napster is more than software, it's a company and a service, that exists to help people break the law. This cannot be argued; yes people CAN use it for other things, but that's not why Napster, the company, exists.

    Let's all remember; if you are making copyrighted music available to others online, you *ARE* breaking the law, regardles of how rediculous we all think it is. I'm not saying don't do it; I'd be a hypocrite if I did... but let's not get carried away.

    Should people be able to share data with each other? Sure. Should you be able to make money of helping them to do it? Sure. Should your business be permitted to succeed by helping people do something illegal? No.

  • Weren't there several witnesses and lawyers for the defense at their trial? Granted, they might be busy with appeals and so forth, but Napster itself might want to send a spokesperson.
  • First off, since everyone seems ready to discuss my age, I'm 31.

    Second, I've used Napster maybe twice. I'm a Gnutella man, because sometimes you just want video to go with your audio ;-)

    Third, I'm a buyer of CDs, movies, etc. in what I suspect is average perportion and magnitude.

    Gnutella, Napster and the rest just extend the ways that we have to share our music with others. Before these services, I was ripping my music and putting it on my web site. Not because I wanted people to "steal" it, but because I wanted to promote what I thought was good music. I wanted to share with others. I would go to friends and as: have you ever heard The Raven by The Alan Parsons Project? No? Here, let me give you a URL.

    I've never offered non-original content up over Gnutella or Napster (except insofar as my gnut client will offer up a "cache"), but that's only because I've been too busy, and/or too lazy.
  • You're going to have a harder time finding people who will stick up for Napster than people who will stick up for Gnutella or Freenet. It's harder to build a moral case for a venture-capital funded Server-to-Client architecture system that generates a profit by trading corporate music. Freenet, Gnutella, and the like aren't generating a profit for anyone, they're just a grass roots retaliation on the part of the consumer against the documented crimes of price fixing and collusion [ftc.gov] that the recording labels are committing against the American people.

    Peer-to-peer is one thing. Peer to corporation to peer is another.
  • The absolutely best book about the state of copyright law in the US for the layperson is Jessica Litman's excellent Digital Copyright [isbn.nu]. I strongly encourage anybody who has an opinion about copyright to read this book.
  • ...so I'll say KRS-One [theonionavclub.com]. I'd assume that Alanis Morisette's also big into Napster, but KRS-One you'd actually have a decent shot at snagging. He may be on tour supporting his new album, but he's also a bit of a veteran of the college speaking circuit. Very pro-Napster as well. He'd be an interesting one to talk to: along with being a musician, he worked A&R for Warner Bros. records.
  • > "it is the nature of music to be free"

    > What kind of h0r$e$h!t is that? I love music of all kinds. I listen to as much as I can. I respect the musicians who work hard to create it. And I believe in compensating them for it, not turning around and telling them that I shouldn't pay them because, hey, it's the nature of music to be free.

    Music has always been free up until the last century or so. That's what I'm talking about by the nature of music.

    I respect musicians as well as all artists, too. I believe in supporting them, and I believe we should all support them: voluntarily, not by force. I simply don't believe they should be able to use force to extract support out of people.

    I don't like Napster, either, btw. I think it's a company run by a bunch of spoiled, selfish people who got together to hurt the record industry. I also happen to think the record industry is controlled by spoiled, selfish people.

    But how can I have anything against Napster users? What were they doing that they couldn't have done at the library, or by listening to the radio? Or for that matter, by bootlegging tapes? What makes those things not-so-bad and suddenly Napster is evil?

    I've spend months at libraries, reading books for free that I never intended to buy. I suppose you're going to tell me I'm a book pirate. Not that it matters that I buy books very frequently now.
  • not all content running through Napster was copyrighted work. there are a ton of local bands, and even large bands that have broken out, that want to "pimp" a song or two. for these groups, services like napster are the perfect platform for getting their songs out to a wider audience. if you want to get some pro-napster folks ... just find a few struggling local bands and have them talk about how are it is to get their music distributed. _f
  • Get Fred Durst of Limp Bizkit.

    *If* you could get him to come and speak, you'd have an unforgettable event. (And I say that in a good way -- I'm a big fan of LB and suspect Durst [like Mick Jagger] is a super-savvy businessman.)

    I think, though, you'll have to recast your wanting a "pro-Napster" speaker into something like "pro-Fair Use" or "pro-File Sharing" or "pro-P2P". In fact, you'd do your students more good (IMHO) if you look for critics of (but not apologists for) current "intellectual property" law. Folks who might shed some light on "Fair use", "Intellectual Property", and "Public Domain".

    Even a constitutional expert versed in "copyright" would be a valuable speaker. (Just make sure they're not on the RIAA's tab.)

    It'll be very difficult to find someone who will side unconditionally and uncritically with Napster (a corporation, remember!).
  • if you're on a band's page in mp3.com, it's going to be really hard to find similar music that you may also enjoy.

    Not at all. At least most of the bands I found on mp3.com even put up links to their favourites on mp3.com. And the genres-organization also work relatively ok, albeit on a broader scale.

    But sure, some extra sort of community sense on mp3.com would be helpful. Amazon.com's customer reviews and recommendation system might be a good idea, it seems to work surprisingly good for finding stuff I like (actually, it's often working so good that there are hardly any surprises, I often already own the stuff it recommends to me).

    if you find a tune on napster, the person who dug that up often has some other tracks which may fit your tastes.

    Also true, and perhaps part of the reason why I still use napster. The ability to browse other users files and find weird stuff you like is invaluable for finding new gems. But it is just as much guessing and pointing in the dark as it is on mp3.com. So this user liked artist X, cool! Let's see, he shares 2000 files, maybe one of those is something I like as well?

    Bottom line: Napster is cool, mp3.com is cool, but there is room for both, and there is room for more. And there are room for others: musiccity's morpheus is much more pleasurable to use than napster (killer feature: download from more than one source to speed up downloads, and make sure you get a complete file even if user logs off). But you can't browse users files anymore, so finding new stuff is more difficult. I simply want them all!

  • I would estimate that close to 90% of all Open Source advocates are also advocates of private file-sharing (which Napster facilitates).

    So, to answer your question, find the biggest name in the GNU world and they will probably gladly present their ideas to you and your fellow members.

    But, as I know from being the Chairman of my university's ACM Chapter, you must have everything planned out perfectly for them to visit. They will generally tell you exactly what they expect (transportation, meals, hotel, etc.) however, so that's as good as it gets. <whisper> Eric S. Raymond is very picky, and can be downright rude <whisper>

  • Dear AC,

    I'm looking for someone to teach my young students that independant and radical thought on issues with strong corporate and governmental ramifications is ok in this country, but I'm having a hard time finding anyone willing to speak up because they just get flamed out of existence. Can you help?

    I heard the US government was created based on the radical and independant ideas of some dissenters. Am I wrong? Or did you guys throw all that tea away for fun?

    I've also been looking for help on teaching ACs the use of a dictionary. dictionary.com says:

    thievery: The act or practice of thieving.
    thieve: To take (something) by theft or commit theft.
    theft: The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
    larceny: The unlawful taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of permanently depriving the owner; theft.

    Unfortunately, unauthorised duplication does not result in the deprivation of the owner of their personal property. Please use the words "unauthorised copying" or "unauthorised duplication" instead when referring to illicit copying.

    Please post answers.

    Thx.
  • I think theft is good because it's not fair that people can own things that I don't have. If it costs nothing to make a copy of that thing then it's doubly unfair. The cost to produce it is irrelevent as that had to be paid whether I stole to thing or not.

    I think that about covers the pro-Napster arguments.

    I could fill a page about the advantages a micro-payment version of Napster where the money goes to the artists (with a cut - just a cut - to the service).

    As it stands Napster is a waste of bandwidth and the sooner it's shut down the better.

    TWW

  • Visit my web page - I have 2 articles concentrating on Napster and the debate surrounding file sharing. In a nutshell, here's my opinion:

    The ability to find files on other people's computers and to download those files is nobody else's business but the 2 people involved. If a person were downloading music and then selling it the Recording Industry would have a reason to complain, but there is no money exchanged. (Prior to the NET act of 1998, Commercial Gain was a requirement in Copyright Infringement cases. Copyright Infringement, historically, has been a suit brought against other publishers, not agaist the Public.)

    If music is broadcast over the radio, it has already been given to the Public. Downloading something one has heard on the radio is no different than using a tape recorder to capture that music when broadcast.

    And, if copyright law had some sensible term limits, anything older than 20 years (more than an adequate length of time to compensate the creators) would be in the Public Domain, which would mean all music released before 1981 would, and should, be available for unrestricted downloading. Also, this would enable a service such as Napster to claim 'substantial non-infringing uses,' an argument the court has already wrongly rejected.

    Most pro-Napster (non-'let's get something for free' or 'the RIAA makes too much money already') arguments are going to focus more on the unreasonable side of copyright law. It would be very difficult to argue that Napster isn't illegal - I think, under current copyright law, and as Napster is normally used, it is illegal. I just happen to fervently believe that current copyright law is extremely excessive and a complete mockery of what the authors of the Constitution intended. (Read letters to Congress on my page.)

  • ... would be Eben Moglen [columbia.edu]. Of particular interest is a debate he had with Steve Metalitz over whether or not Napster should exist. Pretty interesting stuff...

    -- Shamus

    Error: Pithy quote not found

  • Perhaps the reason why there's no easily found Pro-Napster sentiment other than "Napster Rulez!" is that there's no thoughtful argument for why it's "a good thing" to steal people's work without their permission.

  • but you have to scramble all the letters in anything you submit and you can't listen to anything I say.

    Deal?


    Murphy's Law of Copiers

  • Chuck D of Public Enemy fame spoke positively about Napster at Carnegie Mellon University just last week.

    I don't know if he does high school gigs, but you could give it a try.
  • The EFF [eff.org] has some excellent speakers, and would probably be more than happy to get a guest speaker for a college audience. Whenever you've got a situation like this, eff is usually a good place to start.
  • Well, if you are in Eastern Indiana, the best place to shop for this sort of thing is at Purdue, in West Lafayette.

    There are plenty of people there involved in this discussion, and I'm sure there are a few professors in the CS department who would be willing to participate.

    Perhaps you could get an all-star team together: Gene Spafford for security aspect =) Doug Comer on P2P...

    Honestly, the profs up there have PLENTY of time on their hands (trust me here). All you have to do is ask.


  • They could likely tell you who might be good to contact. They have a speak out [napster.com] section on their website, touting the Napster Action Network. There's also a list of artists who have spoken out in support of Napster. Or, you might be able to take a look at the forums and find a couple intelligent postings from everyday people who might be in your area...
  • Nope.

    Copyrights don't have to be earned.

    The text you typed, right up there above this reply I am typing, is copyrighted by you. Automatically, by virtue of you typing it.

  • Re:Honestly... (Score:3)

    by BradleyUffner ( 103496 ) on Friday May 04, 2001 @09:49AM (#245424) Homepage
    I would estimate that close to 90% of all Open Source advocates are also advocates of private file-sharing (which Napster facilitates).
    I wouldn't really call Napster "Private" filesharing, since it has no access controlls. Once you connect to the network your files pretty much become public, since anyone with a napster client can grab them.
    =\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\= \=\=\=\

  • +1, Informative (Score:3)

    by ekrout ( 139379 ) on Friday May 04, 2001 @10:27AM (#245425) Journal
    Here's info [publicenemy.com] about Chuck D.

    Here's a history [publicenemy.com] of his Pro-Napster views.

  • Re:"good" p2p? (Score:3)

    by denominateur ( 194939 ) on Friday May 04, 2001 @10:08AM (#245426) Homepage
    I don't really agree to this. Napster is a search engine-like service (with some advertisements for featured music)... You do have to know the band, or the name of the song to find what you are looking for, ok, you can search genre wise, but still...

    MP3.COM really gives a better opportunity for new musicians and bands to present themselves, each band has its own page, with downloadable and streamable content, and if some band gets more and more known, their songs rank higher, and thus, sometimes even give them quite a bit of revenue, which with Napster isn't the case. Just look at the facts, Napster makes it very hard (I think even somewhat expensive) to use their network as a career ladder.

  • It depends . . . (Score:3)

    by micromoog ( 206608 ) on Friday May 04, 2001 @09:55AM (#245427)
    Finding a speaker is going to depend entirely on what you mean by "pro-Napster".

    "Pro-Napster" could mean either

    • in support of the idea of free (as in speech) music, supported and executed by the artist community, or
    • in support of the massive, widespread illegal trading of copyrighted material that takes place on Napster.
    You should be able to find many speakers for the former, few (notable) speakers for the latter.

  • Look at... Napster! (Score:3)

    by imadork ( 226897 ) on Friday May 04, 2001 @09:32AM (#245428) Homepage
    I'm sure that if you contact Napster directly you might be able to get some help. They must have some PR people, at the very least, who could direct you. You might also want to broaden your scope to P2P technologies in general (which Napster technically isn't, but which are facing many of the same Copyright problems as Napster) in which case contacting O'Reilly or the author of That Book [oreilly.com] might not be a bad idea.

  • Important copyright info (Score:4)

    by BierGuzzl ( 92635 ) on Friday May 04, 2001 @09:37AM (#245429)
    Some links on general info about copyright

    10 Bit Myths about copyright explained [templetons.com]
    ALA copyright Education Program [ala.org] Contains info about fair use,and Copyright on the internet
    www.metallicaisgreedy.com [metallicaisgreedy.com] which is packed full of tons of info that is pro-napster, in particular in regards to lawsuits,media,etc

  • Open Sessame (Score:5)

    by Wintermancer ( 134128 ) on Friday May 04, 2001 @09:27AM (#245430)
    Opinionated experts on Napster?

    On Slashdot?

    None here. We're all out. Absolutely none. Not at all. We don't have any. Nope. Nosiree. Nada. Zero. Zilch.....

  • A pro-Napster artist? (Score:5)

    by Glowing Fish ( 155236 ) on Friday May 04, 2001 @09:23AM (#245431) Homepage

    If you aren't looking for someone who is a legal expert as such, it would make a lot of sense to find one of the many artists who have come out in favor of Napster.

    Chuck D comes to mind.

  • Re:A pro-Napster artist? (Score:5)

    by update() ( 217397 ) on Friday May 04, 2001 @10:44AM (#245432) Homepage
    Everybody always says Courtney Love defended Napster in that speech. Here's what she actually said:

    This opinion is one I really haven't formed yet, so as I speak about Napster now, please understand that I'm not totally informed. I will be the first in line to file a class action suit to protect my copyrights if Napster or even the far more advanced Gnutella doesn't work with us to protect us. I'm on [Metallica drummer] Lars Ulrich's side, in other words, and I feel really badly for him that he doesn't know how to condense his case down to a sound-bite that sounds more reasonable than the one I saw today.

    I also think Metallica is being given too much grief. It's anti-artist, for one thing. An artist speaks up and the artist gets squashed: Sharecropping. Don't get above your station, kid. It's not piracy when kids swap music over the Internet using Napster or Gnutella or Freenet or iMesh or beaming their CDs into a My.MP3.com or MyPlay.com music locker. It's piracy when those guys that run those companies make side deals with the cartel lawyers and label heads so that they can be "the labels' friend," and not the artists'.

    I'd be curious to see how articulate she is speaking off the cuff. I remember here, when this came out, everyone was going on about how much smarter she is than Lars Ulrich - like you can compare the text of a prepared speech written by who knows who with the raw transcript of an interview where Timothy (IIRC) left in every last "ummm" and "fuck."

    Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close