response 65 of 163:

Jan 26 01:06 UTC 2003

they can be.  the studios and record labels need to be paid much less,
and the RIAA needs to be paid nothing.

response 67 of 163:

Jan 26 07:13 UTC 2003

I think Sindi is making a joke in resp:63.
 
Twila and Tony in resp:64 and resp:65 ::  Lebrecht's argument is that
it  is unclear how the artists *can* get paid any more in "serious"  classical
music recording.  The major labels can no longer make money  off of their
classical artists; the major labels are cancelling the contracts of almost all
their classical artists, except for  a handful of stars like Cecilia Bartoli.  

response 69 of 163:

Jan 27 03:19 UTC 2003

Re #58:  That would be a reason to run either a proxy node or
a storage node, but not both.  Helping other people hide without
any knowledge of what you're hiding or transferring is unlikely
to do more than make the authorities terribly grumpy; what could
they do?

response 71 of 163:

Jan 27 12:38 UTC 2003

Accessory after the fact. You can be tried for murder in Texas if you
simply start a riot in which someone is killed.  Conspiracy. 

What can they do?  Lots.

response 73 of 163:

Jan 28 05:23 UTC 2003

Re #72:  You're using an incorrect premise.  People running
proxy nodes *would not have any data*; all they would do is
decrypt and forward requests, and encrypt and forward responses.
The purpose of the proxies is to anonymize the traffic.  There
might be more than one level of indirection.  People trying to
find the data would have to follow proxy connections which
change from day to day, or even minute to minute.

AFAIK, there is no law, regulation or precedent which says that
you're committing a crime for refusing to leave your name and
address everywhere you go, or helping someone else to do the
same.  This is more or less analogous.

And on the funny side:

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/comics/archive/showComic.hts?date=20
03/1/27&name=Fox_Trot&quality=g

response 75 of 163:

Jan 28 15:03 UTC 2003

I wonder if an open, anonymous proxy could be considered an "attractive
nuisance" for legal purposes?  At very least I suspect anyone running such a
thing would quickly find themselves forwarding vast quantities of spam.

response 77 of 163:

Jan 29 02:58 UTC 2003

Re #74:  No, I'm assuming that a siezure without probable cause will
be struck down by the courts, and police agencies won't do that more
than once in a given milieu.

Re #75:  Anonymous remailers stayed up for some time after spam
became a problem.  So have many anonymizing http proxies.  One 
could always require "hash cash" or the like to prevent abuses.

Re #76:  Since such proxies have many lawful uses (such as merely
being able to research privately, without leaving traces in the
http logs of competitors), I doubt the courts would uphold a ban.

response 79 of 163:

Jan 29 12:13 UTC 2003

 re #77: 
 >  Since such proxies have many lawful uses (such as merely
 >  being able to research privately, without leaving traces in the
 >  http logs of competitors), I doubt the courts would uphold a ban.

 While it's possible that the courts will side with you, I'll stick to
 my prediction that if such networks ever become popular the kiddie-porn
 scare factor will be used as an excuse to either outlaw them outright
 or burden them with enough legal hazards that no responsible person
 (under U.S. jurisdiction, at least) will be willing to act as a host.

response 81 of 163:

Jan 30 15:44 UTC 2003

More published rumblings suggesting that prosecutions for peer-to-peer 
filesharing users are looming.   The last such rumblings promised 
prosecutions last year; my own feeling is that the Feds have enough 
on their plate, with the FBI closing numerous scattered office to 
try to gather manpower to use against suspected terrorists. 
 
Declan McCullagh writes about the possibility that someone is going
to "win" the prosecution lottery.  He writes that the No Electronic
Theft act has yet to be used against file-sharers, despite the fact
that it was crafted for precisely this sort of situation.
Declan cites just two convictions under this act so far, both 
for posting software or movies to web sites.  He says the copyright 
industry is continuing to increase pressure on the government to 
prosecute some people.
 
   "The New Jailbird Jingle"
   http://news.com.com/2010-1071-982121.html

Business Week writes about the threat of such prosecutions.
They point out that it would really piss off a lot of consumers.

   http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2003/nf20030127_9897.htm

Finally, a short detour into paranoid speculation land.  
Hilary Rosen, the departing RIAA leader and spokesperson, was a 
favorite target for vilification over the last three years.  Press reports
say she did not expect this and was hurt by it, since business lobbyists 
are usually invisible and the Napster war had not erupted when Rosen took
the RIAA job.

Some of the profiles written on Rosen's departure paint
her as a moderate, trying to drag her employers, the major music companies,
into the Internet Age.  So here's my paranoid speculation: Did Rosen 
quit now because she knew prosecutions were coming up fast, and she 
didn't want to be at the center of the firestorm?

response 83 of 163:

Jan 30 22:13 UTC 2003

As can M-net user postings before 1 March 1989...  Hmmm.  bet that would piss
off a few people...

response 85 of 163:

Jan 31 03:49 UTC 2003

Well, it was specified that only those items lacking copyright notices were
affected.

response 87 of 163:

Feb 2 18:13 UTC 2003

Salon runs an essay by a board member of NARAS, the National Association
of Recording Arts and Sciences, the organization which gives out the 
Grammy Awards.   The author, John Snyder, is president of a small
record label I have never heard of before, and the intro says he 
has been nominated for a Grammy Award 32 times.
 
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/02/01/file_trading_manifesto/?x
"Embrace File Sharing or Die"

This is a long essay which was written to convince the NARAS board that
it needs to stop supporting the RIAA positions on file sharing.
Much of this will be familiar from this series of web log items.
 
From the introduction:
   "The statistic discussed in the December meeting that there were 3 billion
downloads the previous month shows that the law is goign to have to be 
changed, unless you take the position that downloaded music is stealing
and THEREBY CRIMINALIZE THE SOCIETY ((emphasis KRJ)).  But how can 
50 million people (over 200 million worldwide) be wrong?"

from the middle...
   "Why is it that record companies pay dearly for radio play and 
fight Internet play? ... If we look at the Internet as analogous 
to radio, the problem becomes one of performance rights, not one of
unlawful exploitation of intellectual property."

   "If your music is not being downloaded, then you're in trouble.
If you can't give it away, you certainly can't sell it.  Daniel Bedingfeld
recently had a Top 3 song on the radio, with "Gotta Get Thru This."
However, his music was hardly available on any of the P2P networks.
His record lasted on the Billboard Top 200 for less than a month, even
though the single had been on radio playlists all over the country 
for several months."  The authors compare this with Eminem, whose 
2002 was both widely downloaded, and the top selling album of the year.
"This seems to indicated the opposite of what the RIAA would have yhou 
believe.  When people share MP3s, more music is sold, not less."

and from the Conclusion:
   "((The RIAA)) is leading us over a cliff.  The RIAA has staked out a
position that is as unrealistic as it is anti-consumer and anti-artist.
Their interests and the interests of NARAS are not the same. ...
They cling unsuccessfully to the past rather than embrace the stunning 
opportunities offered by the future. ...  It is one thing to be unsuccessful,
it's one thing to argue a bad position, but it's quite another to be 
silly and laughed at, and that's where the RIAA has ended up.
They appear to be totally irrelevant except as bagmen."