response 41 of 126:

Sep 10 05:30 UTC 2000

Actually, I think ISPs only have immunity until they know a violation is
taking place.  Once they know it's happening, either through their own
logging or through being notified by someone, they're required to stop it. 
The obvious next step would be to make logging mandatory, so that ignorance
is no longer an excuse.  Let's face it; the only way to fully enforce
copyright law on the internet is to spy on each and every connection.  The
question is whether the entertainment industry has the clout to make it
happen.  I forsee a lot of campaign contributions in their future.

response 43 of 126:

Sep 10 13:08 UTC 2000

Or, to put it better, I think, "to destroy businesses which add no value as an
intermediary."

The Courtney Love essay is a good one to read. It's on salon.com.

response 45 of 126:

Sep 10 19:30 UTC 2000

This has been a thoughtful, intelligent discussion of this subject, and I
appreciate that. I read several music-related mailing lists and forums, and
I have seen the direction these sorts of discussions usually follow.
Not having read the article in The Atlantic, I cannot comment on it, yet. I'd
ask some kind soul to copy it into an e-mail for me, but somehow I feel that
might not be wise. ;)

Speaking of ISPs, and immunity, I received this e-mail from TimeWarner
Austin/RoadRunner today:

<pasted>
NETWORK UPDATE: NAPSTER AND BANDWIDTH ABUSE

In the interest of providing the best reliable service to all of our
customers, we would like to share some information that will help all of our
Road Runner customers enjoy their service.

One of the conveniences of Road Runner High Speed Online is that it is an
"always on" service and there are no hourly charges for bandwidth usage.
However, the service is asymmetrical in nature thereby providing far more
bandwidth downstream, for downloads than upstream. Because of this, our
terms and conditions of use prohibit the use of bandwidth intensive
"servers" in the customers' home. Excessive use of upstream bandwidth, which
is common with these types of server applications, can cause slow downs for
other users on our network.

In addition to servers, file sharing software programs like Napster, which
is being sued for copyright infringement by the recording industry, can also
utilize excessive amounts of upstream bandwidth. We have found this is often
the case when customers leave these types of applications running while away
from their computer. When we identify customers who, through excessive use
of upstream bandwidth, are causing slowdowns for other users, it is our
practice to contact the person responsible for that account, make them aware
of the situation and ask that such usage be curtailed. In the event such
abuse continues, an account may be suspended or terminated in the interest
of other users on the network...
<end paste>

Now, I'm not sure that they are extending the TOS to include a ban on
file-sharing systems, as well as servers, or merely pointing out that high
upstream bandwidth usage is subject to closer inspection, no matter what the
culprit. In any case, I no longer have Napster installed on my computer, due
mostly to this very fact. Napster has no way to limit upstream connections
(like Gnutella, frex) and therefore does not live on my machine anymore. 

I also find it very interesting that mp3 trading and/or illegal copying is
occuring on Usenet with little or no media attention. That's where I found
Sinead O'Connor's newest CD posted at CD quality 2 weeks before the official
release, as an example. 

response 47 of 126:

Sep 10 20:25 UTC 2000

One must distinguish between the copyright rights of the originator of
an intellectual property - the author, composer, or artist - and the
subsequent ownership of those rights resulting from their sale or
contractual obligation. I have been discussing the rights of the
authors and inventors to their property, with their right to be reimbursed
for any copying that they allow. 

Now others have brought in the actions of the *industry*. So, how did the
industries obtain those rights? They obtained them by sale or contract.
Now, if you are going to agree that the artist or inventor did indeed own
those rights, and had the authority to sell them, you would have to agree
that the new owners also have those rights. They way in which they use (or
abuse) them, however, is not up to the consumer, who legally has an
obligation to buy or not buy in accord with the terms set by the industry.

I can understand people caring more for the artist than for the faceless
industry *to whom the artist sold their work*. But the rights are not
different. If both artists and consumers have problems with how the
industry runs their business, I would suggest that they take legal steps
to correct those problems, rather than themselves violate the laws for
their own pleasures. 

response 49 of 126:

Sep 10 23:22 UTC 2000

        I believe Napster can use a nonstandard port;  I'm sure GNUtella can.
In either case it makes it difficult to stop without examining the payload
of the packet, and network equipment (short of a stateful inspection
firewall) isn't really meant to do that.

        It's not surprising, though.  Napster uses up a *lot* of bandwidth,
for very few people.  The entire industry is built on oversubscription to one
degree or another, much like the telephone industry.  So anything that
benefits few people and consumes a limited resource may be discriminated
against.

response 51 of 126:

Sep 11 00:45 UTC 2000

Okay, rane. I read the Courney Love piece. Her point is, in essence, that an
artist has two choices -- sign a contract with a record company and have your
creative rights ripped away (and there was a bill passed which changed the
law on how long the company owns the copyright, making it an in perpetuity
deal, when it had reverted to the artist after thirty-five years, just
recently, according to her article) and your records at least promoted and
distributed, with luck, OR try to do the production, promotion, and
distribution all yourself, without any contacts. Now, from the folk musicians
I've talked to, most of them have made the conscious choice to stay small,
and to do it more for love than for financial gain. Many (most?) of them have
day jobs which pay the bills and keep them off the streets. It's sometimes
hard to hear some one with a lot of talent scraping by with only a fringe
group of fans who know who they are, when you know that they could have been
big if only... but at least they get the money from their art, what little
they can get from such a limited exposure.

response 53 of 126:

Sep 11 01:30 UTC 2000

The legal change which gave the record companies the right to control
the copyrights in perpetuity was one of the most classic examples of 
the corruption in the record industry.  The relevant language was 
inserted into a bill in a markup period by a congressional staffer.
Anyone who inquired about ias told it was "just a technical clarification."
And the bill was passed with essentially no one realizing what had 
happened, except for the record companies.
 
The record industry later hired that particular staffer as a lobbyist.
 
Want to tell us again about the laws of mankind, Rane?  Here's a clear 
example of the laws being used to deprive artists of their rights --
without the artists, or even the legislators, understanding that this 
was happening.

response 55 of 126:

Sep 11 06:22 UTC 2000

I'm not arguing in favor of misuses (in my opinion) of copyright, such
as the examples from the recording industry given above. But none of
those cases bear upon the right of the holder of the patent/copyright
to not have their invention/creation stolen. The arguments that are
being made are that the inventor/artist should get the benefits. I
agree completely, and consider it a corruption of the process when
a monopolist grabs the rights. But none of that changes the fact
that there are rights, they are owned, it is illegal to violate 
those rights. If you think that the laws awardiong and sustaining
those rights are flawed, CHANGE THE LAWS. Don't promote theft as
the correction.

response 57 of 126:

Sep 11 12:51 UTC 2000

Just take the Metallica mp3's.

response 59 of 126:

Sep 11 14:41 UTC 2000

Re #55:  Correction won't happen, because the people with all the clout and
influence (i.e., the people who can bribe politicians) have a vested
interest in seeing the situation get worse, not better.  So yes, I agree
stealing isn't the answer.  Unfortunately, I don't think there is an answer.

response 61 of 126:

Sep 11 16:22 UTC 2000

Re 55.  Like Ken, I have never downloaded any unauthorized piece of music,
ever, period.  However, I strongly agree with the point that copyright
laws are essentially arbitrary, and represent rights which are created for
the public interest.  Use of words like "stolen" and "piracy" is pure
spin, not law. 

The abusive change in copyright law (taking copyrights away from
musicians) was slipped through during the impeachment hearings.  Due to
various copyright treaties, which were also written by the industry, this
change in law CANNOT LEGALLY BE UNDONE unless the U.S. is willing to
abrogate its signature to the treaties.

response 63 of 126:

Sep 11 16:37 UTC 2000

Ice T wrote a good article about this in Business 2.0 which essentially
says that things like Napster are only the beginning.