+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Legal Virals (/thread-11452.html)
Legal Virals - Nicodemus Phaulkon - 05-04-2003
Quote:Some of the world's biggest record companies, facing rampant online piracy, are quietly financing the development and testing of software programs that would sabotage the computers and Internet connections of people who download pirated music, according to industry executives.
Here's the full article from the NYTimes: Software Bullet Is Sought to Kill Musical Piracy
Some notable passages for those wishing to avoid NYTimes registration (which is really worth it, IMO, and FREE, I might add):
Quote:Among the more benign approaches being developed is one program, considered a Trojan horse rather than a virus, that simply redirects users to Web sites where they can legitimately buy the song they tried to download.
A more malicious program, dubbed "freeze," locks up a computer system for a certain duration â minutes or possibly even hours â risking the loss of data that was unsaved if the computer is restarted. It also displays a warning about downloading pirated music. Another program under development, called "silence," scans a computer's hard drive for pirated music files and attempts to delete them. One of the executives briefed on the silence program said that it did not work properly and was being reworked because it was deleting legitimate music files, too.
...
Quote:Whether the record companies decide to unleash a tougher anti-piracy campaign has created a divide among some music executives concerned about finding a balance between stamping out piracy and infuriating its music-listening customers. There are also questions about whether companies could be held liable by individuals who have had their computers attacked.
"Some of this stuff is going to be illegal," said Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford Law School who specializes in Internet copyright issues. "It depends on if they are doing a sufficient amount of damage. The law has ways to deal with copyright infringement. Freezing people's computers is not within the scope of the copyright laws."
Quote:Internet service providers are also nervous about anti-piracy programs that could disrupt their systems. Sarah B. Deutsch, associate general counsel of Verizon Communications, said she is concerned about any program that slows down connections. "It could become a problem we don't know how to deal with," she said. "Any technology that has an effect on a user's ability to operate their computer or use the network would be of extreme concern to us. I wouldn't say we're against this completely. I would just say that we're concerned."
Verizon is already caught in its own battle with the recording industry. A federal judge ordered Verizon to provide the Recording Industry Association of America with the identities of customers suspected of making available hundreds of copyrighted songs. The record companies are increasingly using techniques to sniff out and collect the electronic addresses of computers that distribute pirated music.
...
Quote:But the more aggressive approach could also generate a backlash against individual artists and the music industry. When Madonna released "spoofed" versions of songs from her new album on music sharing networks to frustrate pirates, her own Web site was hacked into the next day and real copies of her album were made available by hackers on her site.
Anyone remember the old Shadowrun RPG? Shades of "Black IC" or what?
I'm not an advocate of piracy by any means. However, this seems a tad Machiavellian to me. It's hard to hold the high moral ground when you're using the same methodology as your opponents. Of course, the corporations might have sacrificed the "high moral ground" a long time ago, especially in the light of the price-fixing that was reported a few months ago.
Weapons on both sides. Are we looking at the first true Internet war?
Legal Virals - cheezz - 05-04-2003
Nicodemus Phaulkon,May 4 2003, 01:37 PM Wrote:Weapons on both sides. Are we looking at the first true Internet war?Well, if it is a war, then the recording industry lost it before the first shot was fired. This type of programming would be more of a 'scorched earth' type of battle. 'We can't win, so we're going to screw everyone over.'
I doubt that any companies would be stupid enough to go through with this type of action. First rule of a lawsuit- never sue poor people. That's why record companies seek little legal retribution-college students sharing music aren't very wealthy. On the other hand, a large corporation distributing invasive and malicious programming is a juicy target. I can see the lawyers starting to circle like buzzards on a kill.
Legal Virals - Kasreyn - 05-04-2003
until you stop using the term "piracy", which the recording industry has chosen to blow the seeming weight of the crime in question all out of proportion. Copyright infringement is in no way, shape, or form comparable to attacking and capturing a ship at sea.
As long as we continue to let our enemy dictate the language of the debate, how can we hope to convincingly stand against his arguments?
-Kasreyn
Ok, ok, I will discuss ONE aspect: On the other hand, a large corporation distributing invasive and malicious programming is a juicy target. I can see the lawyers starting to circle like buzzards on a kill.
Actually, it is more likely that this will be stopped by some other company. Either some employee will let in the RIAA's nastyware, which will then attack legitimate data, or else the network congestion caused by all these new attacks will be the problem. Either way, I think the first suit against the RIAA on this one will be brought by a corporation.
Legal Virals - Guest - 05-04-2003
I think this would be suicide for a media company to do.
Seriously once someone does it they will become THE target for every hacker in a bad mood for the next 20 years.
There are many many ways to hurt a busisiness; my guess is they do this they will learn everyone.
Legal Virals - FoxBat - 05-04-2003
Kasreyn,May 4 2003, 05:13 PM Wrote:until you stop using the term "piracy", which the recording industry has chosen to blow the seeming weight of the crime in question all out of proportion. Copyright infringement is in no way, shape, or form comparable to attacking and capturing a ship at sea.I'll bet the recording industry could be making a lot more money than those merchant companies ever lost to pirates! :ph34r:
Legal Virals - Nicodemus Phaulkon - 05-05-2003
Quote:pi·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-s)
n. pl. pi·ra·cies
1 a. Robbery committed at sea.
b. A similar act of robbery, as the hijacking of an airplane.
2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.
3. The operation of an unlicensed, illegal radio or television station.
Seems a perfectly appropo term to me, Kaseryn. You'll have to expand on your opinion of its abuse to convince me otherwise. I suppose that would entail your ceasing to refusal to discuss the topic. ;)
Quote:As long as we continue to let our enemy dictate the language of the debate, how can we hope to convincingly stand against his arguments?
Enemy? Enemy is what sense? If you're referring to the indicated targetting of personal computers in this digital conflict, I can see your point. However, if you're referring to the Enemy being someone who believes that a person is wrong to copy and proliferate copies of music or software without the burden of actually purchasing them... then your Enemy is right here.
Piracy. It's applicable.
The fact that corporations like Sony make scads of money does not change the fact that it is stealing one iota. The actions of those that steal end up affecting the corporation, which enacts changes in the marketplace, which trickle down to me: the gent that'll actually foot the dollar for the product. End result: this gent doesn't like the ass that steals in the first place.
My choice affects only me. The choice of an ass that steals affects many. It is the height of selfishness, and certainly of self-delusion to indicate anything less.
Legal Virals - Elric of Grans - 05-05-2003
Hail Nico,
I usually avoid posting in threads like this, but I remember reading a random stat about this last year. I forget the exact numbers, but it was (in short) most Uni/College students download music illegally (duh!), but of them a rather large percentage only do it to see what they think of the tracks, and then go out and buy the album/whatever. Over here, I know that every student who owns a PC has illegal mp3s, but I also know I have probably the smallest CD collection on campus. I invested in a radio though ;)
PS Kaseryn, you have a more uphill battle there trying to argue that this is not piracy than I do trying to argue that crackers and hackers are different. You're right: there's no real correlation between the two - `music counterfiter' is probably closer than `music pirate' - but good luck changing the view of even a handful of people!
Legal Virals - Guest - 05-05-2003
A more intersting concept to consider - is the copy right law achieving its own goal, or is it subverting exactly what its meant to encourage.
The reason the copy write laws apply to music, is to encourage creativity in music.(same reason they apply to anything else).
Does anyone really beleive that anything about the music industry encourges creativity?
I suspect if the industry was to totaly crumble - the main result would be more people exposed to a larger variety of more original music.
Legal Virals - Nystul - 05-05-2003
Does anyone really beleive that anything about the music industry encourges creativity?
In the sense that they allow creative musicians to be heard by more people than those at the local pub or church, yes. In the sense that a good band can play for 40 years instead of growing up and getting real jobs, yes. In the sense that lyricists and songwriters can actually have that as a profession and not as a hobbey that gets neglected, and in the sense that anyone other than their husbands and wives might actually hear their songs some day, yes.
I suspect if the industry was to totaly crumble - the main result would be more people exposed to a larger variety of more original music.
How so? Suddenly in the absense of any radio or CDs, more people would start performing improv jam sessions in the street?
As a musician, my experience with the recording industry was fairly limited. Because of record contracts, I didn't have to pay for a marching uniform or some Bowl game trips. It's not much, but poor college students appreciated not having to pay that extra few thousand dollars a year to play, and our fans appreciated us actually having uniforms and making road trips, and they appreciate listening to our recordings! And since recordings of that college band are part of what inspired me to play as a kid, it goes full circle.
I also have done my share of music piracy, so I claim no moral highground on that. I don't agree with some attempts at copyright enforcement, especially when they enfringe on legitimate data transfers - but then as a pirate I have to share in the blame for the things we have forced out like regional DVD-codes, CDs that don't play in half of the drives, and so on.
But in any case, I really don't care for general bashing of the music industry. If the industry is accomplishing nothing good, then you should not be sacrificing anything to go to the local bar or concert hall and listen to musicians who never record. It seems quite similar to the people here who berate Blizzard and/or Microsoft after taking advantage of their products for many years.
Legal Virals - Kasreyn - 05-05-2003
...was only put in there because of this sort of thing. To me, it's only evidence that the RIAA and its ilk have already altered the language of the debate to their whim. The proper name for the crime, under U.S. Law, is still "copyright infringement", and that is the name which should be used when discussing it; certainly when discussing it in a legal sense. The U.S., after all, still DOES have the crime of TRUE piracy (attacking a ship at sea) on the books; it's unneccessarily confusing to use the same name for two utterly different crimes.
To those who say "piracy" is used for brevity as opposed to "copyright infringement": then why not use "filesharing" instead? Same # of syllables as "piracy"! Difference: one demonizes the criminals in question, the other one makes their crime seem lighter. Demonization is the goal.
Since both terms (piracy and copyright infringement) seem to be acceptable to you, I beg you to use the original one, the one which the crime was originally called, rather than the later one which was brought into use to demonize what is at worst a minor criminal act akin to petty theft.
-Kasreyn
Legal Virals - --Pete - 05-05-2003
Hi,
After all, that is what it is, robbery pure and simple. Don't like the way the industry handles things? Then don't buy their products. They will change or they will fall. But, if you don't like Sears' policy, or the way your supermarket cuts beef, that does not give you the right to shoplift. Why does the music industry have to live under different rules? Because a bunch of cheap assed adolescents are taking advantage of how easily they can rip them off? The "try before you buy" excuse would only cut it if indeed it were true. But when people have thousands of recordings on their hard drives and about 5 bought CD's, I find that excuse to be lame. Have radios quit playing music? Is there no more MTV? Is the only way to hear the music to determine if it's worth your cash to steal it? And, how often have the thieves used the "I don't want to pay for an album just to get one cut" excuse. Sorry, music is not food. It is a luxury, not a necessity. As with any other luxury, an honest person buys it or does without. Those who take it claiming it as a "right" are plain old "criminals".
So, yes, I agree it should not be called "piracy". That gives it too much dignity and romance. It should just be called "theft" and those that indulge in it should be called "scumbags".
I find it interesting that on a site that is adamantly opposed to cheating in games people are advocating and supporting cheating and stealing in RL.
--Pete
Legal Virals - Occhidiangela - 05-05-2003
Kasreyn, old friend:
When I was 14, and living in Taiwan, (1973) the term'
"Pirated Records" and "PIrated Books" was common parlance. The first record I ever bought was a pirated copy of _Johnny Cash in San Quentin_, and my copy of Battle Cry by Leon Uris, which I still have, cost me 75 cents at a pirated book store in Taipei.
The piracy refers to the looting of legitimate business profits by those who operate outside the law. Hence in nautical parlance, the very discreet difference between Privateers,who operated under a letter of Marque from a King, and a Pirate, whom no King would endorse or offer safe harbor to, and whom all Kings would punish if caught.
It is the publishing industry, and the recording industry, and more recently the software industry, who are being
RAIDED. BOARDED, and LOOTED, figuratively, by the copywrite flouters in much the same was as 17th and 18th century freebooters scored profits by raiding, boarding, and looting merchant ships whose inverstors had put their money and faith into a commercial venture, and to whom all risk fell, and to who all profit and loss belonged to under the laws of the time.
The term is 'piracy' and 'pirating' is extremely valid, accurate, and has been around for quite some time. A I understand it, the term originated in reference to Asian non-compliance with US Copywrite laws back in the 1950's, but I am not so sure about that.
In short, your protestations against the term piracy are invalid from a language and usage point of view. That term has been in common usage for longer than the words Hard Drive and Software, and Internet, as well as CD ROM, which are variously the high seas, ships, goods and holds of this twenty-first century Spanish Main. :)
Legal Virals - FoxBat - 05-05-2003
Intellectual property is quite hard to steal. Because even though one might effortlessly copy someone else's hard work, the originator still retains the work they have done. The fundamental difference is thus that the origininator does not lose the item in question. What they lose is their exclusive claim to said item (and quite often fail to make as much money as they would like.)
A better analogy is sneaking into an art gallery with an admission price. There is a disregaurd of social norms here and dishonesty, and depriving someone of potential profit that they may be entitled to, but the original artwork is left quite intact. While this is blameworthy, most would agree it's not quite as bad as running off with the painting.
Legal Virals - Nicodemus Phaulkon - 05-05-2003
Quote:A better analogy is sneaking into an art gallery with an admission price. There is a disregaurd of social norms here and dishonesty, and depriving someone of potential profit that they may be entitled to, but the original artwork is left quite intact.
Inaccurate. Your comparison only indicates the benefit towards the single active participant, not the results of his actions. How do you apply your Art Gallery analogy to the ability to throw said "artwork" up for public grabs on a filesharing network?
Said someone would have to have the ability to duplicate the artwork. Not "copy" or "imitate"; Duplicate. It would retain its original form and texture, talent and ability. It would have to be a second existence of the same original piece: equally valuable, equally worthy, equally marketable.
Said someone would then walk outside of the Gallery, sit his criminal ass down and hang out a placard:
"Free Original Monets, Manets, Pollocks, Kandinskys. Renoir, Matisse and Mondrian on request. I don't do Whistler: Line forms to the right, 10 minute wait or less."
My morality is a tad less maleable than you're seeming to indicate is practical, Foxbat. Call it a "flaw".
Legal Virals - Guest - 05-05-2003
Nystul - your post made shoddy assumptions and was a disengenous arguement.
You made 2 arguements. One was fair, but I disagree with it. The other was lame enought that I would exspect to hear such drivel from a congressional lobbiest.
The fair point was that it alllows musicians to dedicate themselve to to music rather than do it as a hobby. Thats a reasonable position although I would argue that the majority of good music is from proffesionals who have realativly low paying contracts.
Your absurd arguement was that the industry itself is a useful and needed means of distrobution. I think the whole issue here is that there IS another method of distribution - file swapping. If file swapping becomes more prolific - then all the industry is is an advertisement mechanism. An advertisment mechinism DOES descrease diversity.
BTW when I said "music industry" i was refering to the "recording industry". Radio could easily survive without the record companies. It would change, but it would not go away.
Legal Virals - --Pete - 05-05-2003
Hi,
Intellectual property is quite hard to steal.
Really? I think that it is the easiest of all to steal. Stealing someone's work, someone's ideas, someone's concepts is much easier than stealing their car or their cash.
Because even though one might effortlessly copy someone else's hard work, the originator still retains the work they have done.
Oh, I see. So it's OK to steal software, because the author still has the code? Or to steal books, because the writer still has the original? Or to steal a movie, because the studio has the master? Hell, for that matter, it's OK to steal art works made by a living artist, after all, he can always reproduce them and the materials are only a few bucks.
Sorry, but I think your argument is crap. Even in the case of the art gallery (I presume you really mean museum, galleries sell to the public and don't normally charge admission except to limited shows), it is still stealing. That gallery is in a building that someone has to pay for. It uses utilities that someone has to pay for. It has employees that have to make a living. Its source of income is the admission price. By entering without paying, you are stealing. You are taking a product (the entertainment you get from seeing what is in the gallery) without paying the price for it. It is called "theft of services" and depending on the admission price you avoid it can be minor or it can be major.
Actions have consequences. Shoplifting increases the cost of all products for all the paying customers. Warez makes the game publishing industry less profitable, causing some potentially good games never to see the light of day. Home made cable descramblers means that as smaller number of people must bear the cost of the cable services. In every case, someone is being ripped off, and usually it is the consumer that bears the cost in the end.
So, no thanks. Keep your argument. It *is* theft. And those that do it *are* scumbags.
--Pete
Legal Virals - --Pete - 05-05-2003
Hi,
I think the whole issue here is that there IS another method of distribution - file swapping. If file swapping becomes more prolific - then all the industry is is an advertisement mechanism. An advertisment mechinism DOES descrease diversity.
And where in here does the artist get paid for his work? The producers and the studios for making the master? The publisher for putting it on a medium?
Sure, get rid of the music publishing industry. And presto by magic the music will just appear on the net for anyone to grab. I don't know what kind of an idiot believes this, but I suspect it is a young idiot that has never had to work for anything in his life.
"Scumbags" I said and "scumbags" I meant. Bunch of snot nosed jerks that want whatever they want, want it now and want it free. Bah. Other than a great argument for birth control, they serve no purpose.
--Pete
Legal Virals - Guest - 05-05-2003
The truth is Pete both perspectives are legitmate.(Im speaking to the ethics of intelecual property ownership - not the issue of obeying a law be it right or wrong.)
1 There is a rational position that - only that which can be held/touched can be owned. That which is known is free.(this could be broken down farther in that it might be unethical to profit from someone elses idea, but still be ethical to share it freely).
2 There is a rational position that - the dicoverer/creater of knowledge, owns it(music in its digital form is knowledge, as is software).
This is not something that can be proved one way or another. Its matter of values.
Legal Virals - Kasreyn - 05-05-2003
Quote:But when people have thousands of recordings on their hard drives and about 5 bought CD's, I find that excuse to be lame.
As do I, for different reasons. If the RIAA catches them, the idiots will be prosecuted with (some of) the same money they spent to buy the 5 CD's. =P
I mean, sheesh, if you're going to thieve from a company, don't waste money buying from them. We need more competent thieves in this country. ^_^
Personally, I've been boycotting the RIAA for years over their assumptions that they can get their pet senators to make any unconstitutional law they dream up. It's #$%&ing corporate welfare, is what it is: they seem to think they have a right to a certain profit margin without having to work for it like every other company. They think they're a sacred cow that deserves special protection. But I digress.
What I mean to say is, I don't think everyone should go out and start ripping off mp3's and infringing copyright protections. But, if such activities bring the RIAA down and wind up replacing it with a more democratic, more sensible, and more artist-friendly system, you won't hear me complaining about how the poor helpless RIAA took it in the chops. Serves the bastards right. =P
As for the artists: I think if the RIAA goes down (i.e., enough people boycott, which will never happen), they'll have a more powerful and personal way to contact fans and get their music to the people who are actually interested: the internet and mp3's. The "evil" technology of today will become the business model of the future. It will mean an artist's pay will depend on his productivity and creativity, not his hype, and it will cause some real motivation to produce valuable music - they'll actually WORRY about whether anyone will like their product, whereas today their contracts assure them some profit even if they suck. I think the future is still bright for musicians. I'm just hoping it's not bright for the RIAA.
-Kasreyn
Legal Virals - --Pete - 05-05-2003
Hi,
That which is known is free.
Yes. So, there should be (and AFAIK is) nothing preventing me from learning a song and singing it for myself. Other than, perhaps, the pain I would be causing to those around me. But the copy of the song that I might have downloaded from the Internet is not an *idea*, it is not *knowledge*. It is a tangible work, expressed in electrons or magnetic fields or (to get ancient) holes punched on a strip of paper or a card. It is a copy of a string of copies ultimately going back to a tangible medium. And the right to duplicate that medium is something that the purchaser gives up when he buys that medium. So, the question of the possession of knowledge does not enter into this debate, not because it is not a debatable topic but because it is irrelevant.
The question of ownership of *knowledge* has been debated. It is a valid question in the context of scientific discovery, where what one person can learn another can also learn independently. Now, it is mathematically possible (but highly improbable) that the music and lyrics and presentation thereof by one group could be exactly duplicated by another. It is mathematically possible (but equally improbable) that a bunch of monkeys at typewriters would reproduce all of Shakespeare. But, unlike the facts of the human genome which are there waiting for anyone to unearth them, the plays of Shakespeare, the music of Bach, the paintings of Leonardo all require a creative process that is different from that of science.
Which is why the arguments that apply to scientific knowledge are invalid when applied to creative endeavors. The difficult areas, the gray areas, are in things like computer programming. Personally, I think that algorithms should be protected by copyright but that code should not. But that *is* a topic where debate makes sense.
--Pete