The DikuMUD Hall of Shame
AxL
The DikuMUD Hall of Shame
DikuMUD requires, among other things, that the original authors be
given credit for their work. This comes in two forms; one, that their
names appear somewhere in the login sequence. Two, that their names
appear in a "credits" or "help credits" command, available within the
game. Also, accepting donations for in-game objects/enhancements is
expressly forbidden by the Diku team, and is the most serious infraction
of all.
The following muds are clearly based on the original DikuMUD code, but
in one way or another have violated one or more of the above. The
addresses are left off on purpose, as this is not an advertisement. It is
a listing to call addention to these disgraceful muds and their
administrators.
Welcome the newest inductee, Bad Trip. Where do we start? This guy
makes Vryce look like a choir boy in comparison. Not only does the head
god explicitly sell equipment in exchange for cash, it goes for his person
use. This includes drugs, rent, utilities, and debts. What a prize.
The List: (5)
Medievia - Mikey Krause, Vryce mkr...@intersphere.com
Bad Trip - Johann Lionheart Akinyele Joha...@netzero.net
Dark and Shattered
Lands (DSL) - Tony Allen Scorn sc...@dsl-mud.org
HavenMUD - Alex T. Fader Arioch ari...@succubi.com
Thunderdome II - tec...@montana.com
Admininstrator e-mail addresses, and names when available, are provided
for your benefit. Please feel free to e-mail the above people, and voice
your concerns on their lack of regard of someone else's hard work.
* denotes a mud which seems to be defunct. Any info is welcome.
--
-AxL, a...@wpcr.plymouth.edu "In Christianity, neither morality nor religion
a...@mail.plymouth.edu Come into contact with reality at any point."
http://mindwarp.plymouth.edu/~axl - Nietzsche
Vasia Kochetov
> The DikuMUD Hall of Shame
>
> DikuMUD requires, among other things, that the original authors be
> given credit for their work. This comes in two forms; one, that their
> names appear somewhere in the login sequence. Two, that their names
> appear in a "credits" or "help credits" command, available within the
> game. Also, accepting donations for in-game objects/enhancements is
> expressly forbidden by the Diku team, and is the most serious infraction
> of all.
>
> The following muds are clearly based on the original DikuMUD code, but
> in one way or another have violated one or more of the above. The
> addresses are left off on purpose, as this is not an advertisement. It is
> a listing to call addention to these disgraceful muds and their
> administrators.
[skipped]
> Dark and Shattered
> Lands (DSL) - Tony Allen Scorn sc...@dsl-mud.org
Hmm. Beilng playing DSL for more than 3 yrs...
Never knew Tony violated DIKU license.
Tell me more, please.
vald...@hotmail.com
very unique mud called LegendMud that never seems to make anyone's
lists, and it has been around since feb 14, 1994 (before that it was
called dexmud) i wonder why no one ever mentions it.?
vald...@hotmail.com
Jon A. Lambert
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 03:34:44 GMT, vald...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >HEHE dont you just love "but you left out" responses? but there is a
> >very unique mud called LegendMud that never seems to make anyone's
> >lists, and it has been around since feb 14, 1994 (before that it was
> >called dexmud) i wonder why no one ever mentions it.?
ROFL. Yes LegendMud is indeed a fine mud, that has prolly been around
long enough to be on the Fame list, not the Shame list. :-)
--
--* Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:jlsy...@NOSPAM.ix.netcom.com *--
--* Mud Server Developer's Page <http://tychomud.home.netcom.com> *--
--* If I had known it was harmless, I would have killed it myself.*--
Sean K.
*snicker* You know, although a great MUD base *cough* The license expressly
forbids making the code into a pay mud, however, since you obviously don't
know much about that specific LEGAL idea, the makers of Diku cannot control
the taking of donations for game enhancements that can otherwise be earned
through work or quests on the mud, I mean its like enhancing your friends
characters. Its not forced on the players and not otherwise needed to play
the game to the fullest. Its the players who have been there for years, and
see fit to send the Admin, Akin, money to help him (BTW your wrong on the
admin address too Johann is the Web page admin, nothing more), ALSO it keeps
the mud up for our enjoyment, nothing is forced on us, its as free as any
other MUD, and the credits are still there. Anyways, after wondering about
this myself I sent the aforementioned TOS (or license agreement) to a lawyer
friend of mine and she agreed with the assessment put forth in this post.
MUDs who are Diku based that you must pay to play are the ones limited by
this license.
This is FYI. Maybe separate fact from fraud. Probably just get flamed all
to hell by the Diku police. And since I personally played on the MUD for
about 4 years now I can say that its is one of the few I enjoyed. *shrug*
Complain as you may, you can't change that.
As for hard work, all the things sold, the enhancements etc etc, have been
put in by the coders of BT and not Diku, so well your idea of someone basing
off the hard work of others is unbiased.
Now then you want to end this once and for all, provide a good solid legal
ground and not just, "this is what I think, so there!" Until you find some
chump to say that the license is ironclad (which it isn't, probably one of
the worst written ones out there) you are just on a flight of fantasy.
Jon A. Lambert
> Anyways, after wondering about
> this myself I sent the aforementioned TOS (or license agreement) to a lawyer
> friend of mine and she agreed with the assessment put forth in this post.
Would you post her assesment here?
Dan
now....*sighs* you had to go spoil it didn't you?
"Sean K." <azzi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oB0P6.2759$SH.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
Sean K.
not adding anything, nor posting anything other than this aside. Back to
developement of my own place.
"Dan" <dan.o...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XcdP6.1106$PQ5.1...@news1.cableinet.net...
KaVir DarkBlade
>
[snip]
> The license expressly forbids making the code into a pay mud,
No, the license expressly forbits making PROFIT.
> however, since you obviously don't know much about that specific
> LEGAL idea, the makers of Diku cannot control the taking of
> donations for game enhancements that can otherwise be earned
> through work or quests on the mud, I mean its like enhancing
> your friends characters.
The license prevents profit being made. The cost of a Diku mud is $0.
Anything beyond that is profit.
Furthermore, selling in-game equipment is a form of commercialisation,
which was what the Diku license was originally intended to prevent -
exploitation of the players.
KaVir.
Eric Johnson
that you pay to play, it is in effect NOT a pay mud.
Now, if the mud REQUIRED you to send money to
keep your character, that would violate the agreement.
Duuk@Haven (LPMud, not HavenMUD)
kailie.havenmud.com 4000
"Jon A. Lambert" <jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9ei5og$qst$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Dan
they were silent. Awake diku politz = baaaaaaaad & spammy diku politz.
"Eric Johnson" <have...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9eu09i$ech$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Dan
they were silent. Awake diku politz = baaaaaaaad & spammy diku politz.
"Eric Johnson" <have...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9eu09i$ech$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
KaVir DarkBlade
>
> SHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, they were so much easier to get along with when
> they were silent. Awake diku politz = baaaaaaaad & spammy diku politz.
We're not Diku police - we just don't like thief-supporters like you who
harm our hobby.
KaVir.
Kurt Schwind
<dan.o...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> SHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, they were so much easier to get along with
> when they were silent. Awake diku politz = baaaaaaaad & spammy diku
> politz. "Eric Johnson" <have...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:9eu09i$ech$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
It's funny to see you call other people spammy and then post your inane
message twice.
I think that most people here just want the DIKU license followed
correctly. Do you have a problem with that, spammer?
Kurt
--
"The beatings will continue until morale improves." - The Management
Jon A. Lambert
news:9eu09i$ech$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> that you pay to play, it is in effect NOT a pay mud.
>
> Now, if the mud REQUIRED you to send money to
> keep your character, that would violate the agreement.
>
I asked because I'm sure the poster never consulted a attorney.
"You may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of
DikuMud in any possible way."
How you derive the above from that is interesting.
Dan
I don't control thier glitches, so don't give me crap about it.
"Kurt Schwind" <ku...@slithytoves.com> wrote in message
news:20010528.201552...@slithytoves.com...
David Evans
Jon A. Lambert <jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>"You may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of
> DikuMud in any possible way."
>
Which, I suppose, means that you may not purchase network access from an ISP
for the purpose of running a Diku, as the ISP would be making a profit from
the running of the mud.
:)
--
David Evans (NeXTMail/MIME OK) dfe...@bbcr.uwaterloo.ca
PhD Student, Computer/Synth Junkie http://bbcr.uwaterloo.ca/~dfevans/
University of Waterloo "Default is the value selected by the composer
Ontario, Canada overridden by your command." - Roland TR-707 Manual
Dan
"David Evans" <dfe...@bcr4.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:9f0nql$n1h$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca...
Kurt Schwind
<dan.o...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> WAAAAAAAH!
Here's a hanky. Come back when you grow up.
John Robert Arras
Eric Johnson <have...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Even without her assessment, since it's not FORCED
>that you pay to play, it is in effect NOT a pay mud.
>
>Now, if the mud REQUIRED you to send money to
>keep your character, that would violate the agreement.
>
>Duuk@Haven (LPMud, not HavenMUD)
>kailie.havenmud.com 4000
>
<snip>
My problem with this argument is where does it cross over? Suppose
that sending money gave you some kind if in-game benefit. Maybe
a piece of equipment, access to an area, a spell, a command...
something. In this case, if you send the money, you get to do
or use one thing more than someone who sends no money.
But, what if sending in money let you do or access 2 things, or 3,
or 1000, or everything except standing in one room with the
"twiddle" command while you get spammed with messages telling you
to "donate"?
At what point do you draw the line? Would you say in the second
case that you aren't "forced" to donate, since you technically can
"play", you just have your access to items and commands and areas
limited?
It's not easy to tell at what point "voluntary" donations become
"requirements". I guess people pay when they want to do or have
something and can't without "donating". That's hardly voluntary
since they're getting something for their "donation", and are
aware of it. I have seen some interesting setups where the MUD
admins really string people out by making them pay for cool little
feature after cool little feature so they get their money
in little increments. (As an image of frogs in tepid water flashes
into my head... :)) This is ok if the people running the game
are legally allowed to do this, but don't kid yourself that it's
voluntary.
John
KaVir DarkBlade
>
> In article <9ev8no$gh1$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Jon A. Lambert <jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >"You may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of
> > DikuMud in any possible way."
> >
>
> Which, I suppose, means that you may not purchase network access
> from an ISP for the purpose of running a Diku, as the ISP would be
> making a profit from the running of the mud.
No, the ISP is renting you server space. The easy way to look at it is
to remember that Diku is protected by copyright. This means that you
cannot use it, copy it, modify it, compile it, or distribute it.
However the Diku team have kindly supplied a license, which is a formal
way of giving you non-exclusive rights to do things with their
copyrighted work which normally (under copyright law) you could not.
Should you agree to the terms and conditions of their license, you can
then perform those actions, as long as you remain within the
requirements of the license.
The ISP is not using your code. They are not copying it. They are not
modifying or distributing it. As none of their activities would affect
the Diku copyright, they are not required to follow the Diku license.
If I was given some free furniture under the stipulation that I couldn't
profit from that furniture, I'd still have to pay my landlord rent.
KaVir.
David Evans
KaVir DarkBlade <ka...@kavir.org> wrote:
>
>However the Diku team have kindly supplied a license, which is a formal
>way of giving you non-exclusive rights to do things with their
>copyrighted work which normally (under copyright law) you could not.
>Should you agree to the terms and conditions of their license, you can
>then perform those actions, as long as you remain within the
>requirements of the license.
>
Naturally.
My point wasn't really to argue that paying an ISP for connectivity or
whatever to run your Diku was in violation of the license. What I'm
saying is that, alas, the license isn't terribly well worded. The number
(and frequency) of arguments over its meaning is an indication of this,
I think.
Jon A. Lambert
> In article <3B1448A9...@kavir.org>,
> KaVir DarkBlade <ka...@kavir.org> wrote:
> >
> >However the Diku team have kindly supplied a license, which is a formal
> >way of giving you non-exclusive rights to do things with their
> >copyrighted work which normally (under copyright law) you could not.
> >Should you agree to the terms and conditions of their license, you can
> >then perform those actions, as long as you remain within the
> >requirements of the license.
> >
>
> Naturally.
>
> My point wasn't really to argue that paying an ISP for connectivity or
> whatever to run your Diku was in violation of the license. What I'm
> saying is that, alas, the license isn't terribly well worded. The number
> (and frequency) of arguments over its meaning is an indication of this,
> I think.
>
Perhaps. You can contact the authors via E-mail, as several of
them are still active in mudding. It's easy enough to ask if
one's donation or money-making scheme is acceptable to them.
There is another argument to be made here and it's not a legal one.
It's one of simple respect and civility for the Diku author's
intentions. There are so many other alternatives out there for
those who need cash to run a mud. It's pretty simple really.
Those on the hall of shame list are lowlife scum-sucking weasels
who have no talent, no ability, and most importantly, no honor.
Eric Johnson
poorly worded, especially since the word "profit" itself could be
challenged.
I run an LPMud, with an SDSL line into my house. If I formed Haven
(kailie.havenmud.com 4000) into a corporation, I could get somewhere in the
$10-15,000 worth of donations PER YEAR before I would legally have to claim
a "profit". So really, since I'm sure somewhere they included that the
license can be modified at any time, without or without prior agreement,
that they should note in the diku group a new agreement specifying what is
and is not allowed. Then, when something like this comes up, we'll all
flame the violators mercilessly.
Eric S Johnson
Duuk@Haven
"John Robert Arras" <jo...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:9f183j$9...@sun13pg2.wam.umd.edu...
David Evans
>them are still active in mudding. It's easy enough to ask if
>one's donation or money-making scheme is acceptable to them.
If I were considering a donation scheme or something similar I would
certainly do this. It represents common courtesy, IMHO, especially if their
desires are somewhat unclear based on the license.
>There is another argument to be made here and it's not a legal one.
>It's one of simple respect and civility for the Diku author's
>intentions.
Agreed.
>Those on the hall of shame list are lowlife scum-sucking weasels
>who have no talent, no ability, and most importantly, no honor.
>
Heh. :)
Fredrik Lännergren
>In article <3B1448A9...@kavir.org>,
>KaVir DarkBlade <ka...@kavir.org> wrote:
>>
>>However the Diku team have kindly supplied a license, which is a formal
>>way of giving you non-exclusive rights to do things with their
>>copyrighted work which normally (under copyright law) you could not.
>>Should you agree to the terms and conditions of their license, you can
>>then perform those actions, as long as you remain within the
>>requirements of the license.
>>
>
> Naturally.
>
> My point wasn't really to argue that paying an ISP for connectivity or
>whatever to run your Diku was in violation of the license. What I'm
>saying is that, alas, the license isn't terribly well worded. The number
>(and frequency) of arguments over its meaning is an indication of this,
>I think.
That, and peoples inborn ability to try to weasel their way out of an
agreement they have made when it no longer suits them, I guess.
*shrug*
And people wonder why lawyers are needed...
/Fredrik
PS ...Hmm, did I just troll? Maybe I did... DS
AxL
In article <oB0P6.2759$SH.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
Sean K. <azzi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>This is to AxL:
Well you know what big guy, I had fully planned to keep this to
myself, and just kinda fade out quietly. However, it looks like I'm
going to get called to task again and again, since it was my shame list
to begin with.
I quit.
Pretty simple, really. I will no longer spend my time defending the
DikuMUD license. To be honest, Johann and "Bad Trip" was the last
straw. Here we have this asshole, an utterly despicable piece of trash
who solicts donation money from his players so he can pay his utility
bills and buy pot. It was such a goddamned open-and-shut, airtight
case, that all that had to be done to prevent his sorry ass from moving
to betterbox was for the Diku guys to take some action. They didn't.
While I still fully believe that people that break the license suck
and should be hauled into court, I cannot do that, only the Diku authors
can. We're all busy; few people here are college kids working on a
little hobby any more. But if you care enough about protecting a
product you have created, then you MAKE time. I have yelled, railed,
and protested for years, but when it comes down to it, I really can't do
anything more.
I don't hold anything against anyone who still wishes to continue the
license crusade. I simply cannot do it anymore. Was getting so bitter
about it that I nearly quit my mud of 9 years, just because I couldn't
stand the thought of this shit anymore. So keep going...maybe someday
the Diku guys will come and put some weight into this, finally.
PS - Yes, Vryce, you are still a little maggot. This doesn't change my
opinion on that, buddy-boy.
--
-AxL, a...@wpcr.plymouth.edu "In Christianity, neither morality nor religion
a...@mail.plymouth.edu Come into contact with reality at any point."
http://mindwarp.plymouth.edu/~axl - Nietzsche
Cin
First, let me introduce myself. I am a not-so-regular visitor to this
newsgroup, but I've been off and on (mostly off) since college... 5+
years ago.
I have not read the articles by Johann and Bad Trip, nor do I have a
desire to. I've little doubt they are trolls. However, just a tip.
Speaking from personal experience, one of the reasons people are so
resistant to your 'message', is they object to some of the methods
employed by regular members of this newsgroup to get their 'message'
across. Typically, I see threads degenerate into a name-calling and
insult-spewing feast.
When members of this newsgroup slam people who disagree (in a
non-trollish manner) with the message, it lowers their credibility. It
makes ya'll look like trolls.
So, back to the tip. You want people to listen? Well you've got a
valid message, especially in regards to Medievia IMO. Perhaps you
could cut out the profanity, name-calling, etc., and get back to your
basic message, and present it in a logical, calm manner. Ignore the
trolls. Everyone knows them for what they are.
Pardon if someone else has responded along similar lines. Google only
has six posts listed for the month of June, I've a feeling they left a
few out.
Peace. Love. Whatever.
Jon A. Lambert
news:5a26f421.01060...@posting.google.com...
>
> When members of this newsgroup slam people who disagree (in a
> non-trollish manner) with the message, it lowers their credibility. It
> makes ya'll look like trolls.
>
I give up too. I surrender.
If you can steal it, distribute it, make money off it and get away with
it, it is yours by right children. Now go and be good Communists and
fulfil your natural right and destiny to appropriate from those who
produce according to their ability and means, and distribute it to
those who lack the ability and have the need. Marx knows you could
never create anything by yourself that would make a profit.
I hereby repudiate all intellectual property laws as being offensive as
they are the tools of capitalist industrialists to exploit proletariat
mud administrators and welcome the new socialist world order with
open arms.
Heil Stallman.
Heil Stallman.
Heil Stallman.
> Peace. Love. Whatever.
May your dogs and cats begin to fornicate together. Whatever.
KaVir DarkBlade
>
> "Cin" <clever...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5a26f421.01060...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > When members of this newsgroup slam people who disagree (in a
> > non-trollish manner) with the message, it lowers their credibility. It
> > makes ya'll look like trolls.
> >
>
> I give up too. I surrender.
But I'm still out here.
http://www.kavir.dial.pipex.com/med.html
KaVir.
Jon A. Lambert
As usual I'm being sarcastic. To continue in that vein...
I've got this great new idea. It's called BOOSTER. Here's the deal.
We build this centralized server that's merely a database of users and
the books they have scanned in using OCR. People use a special peer-to-peer
client to log in and search our vast database of books. This is such a great
and noble idea and I've invented err discovered some compelling reasons to
do it:
1) We can get away with it, since we aren't actually performing the copying
which I hear is claimed to be illegal by some people. My lawyers assure me
it isn't and if it was they could help me get away with it anyways. We are
just providing the tools for our users. This leaves is in the clear so to
speak. I think it's called plausible deniability or something.
2) We bring reading and great literature to a larger audience. What could
be more noble than bringing Robert Jordan and Ursula Leaguing to people
who can't afford their books anyways. *kef*
3) We save trees. Got love that one. Is there anything more noble (and
sexy) than hugging a tall burly pine and sticking to it? I think not.
4) We help publicize little known authors. Look I'd never shell out money
for a unproved Sic-If author. This way I get to read it for free. If it's
good I'll recommend it to all my friends. They'll read it for free too.
Eventually somewhere down the line some idiot will actually buy it and the
author will make money. This works. I've got chain letters that detail
similar real working money making schemes. Proof enough.
5) We stick it too big corporate publishers who are raping authors anyways.
I'm sure they are. I know somebody who is only getting a .25 per book sale
anyways. Corporations are evil you know.
6) We put Amazon.com out of business hoodoo! I'm not sure why this is
important, but they are big and making money so they must be doing something
bad. Right?
7) I probably wouldn't buy the books anyways. This way I actually get to
read books I'd never buy and read anyways. Sure it sounds funny at first,
but say it often enough you'll sound intelligent to others and convince
yourself at the same time.
8) Sidney Sheldon, Judith Frantz and Stephen King are too stinking rich
already, so it's ok to steal from them. They'll never miss a few stray
million dollars anyways.
9) I didn't agree to any license when I bought the damn book. It's
my book. I own it now. Just like all that free computer source code man.
If you put it out there..it's mine mine mine... screw the license. I
can claim I never read it. I mean who reads the back of book title pages
anyways. Besides they can't prove I entered into any sort of contract
willingly. Hell I never signed anything. I just walked up and laid the
money down and they gave me the book.
10) Like software all literature should be free. Read Stallman's "Software
Manifesto" again. Sure he said it was voluntary, and the core ideas apply
even more to literature. Since the reasons are so damn compelling and virtuous
any author who doesn't agree with it is probably ignorant of the benefits of
copyleft or are just plain ornry or evil. Authors will just have to adjust
to new publishing paradigms and business profit models. They can make money
in secondary service markets. I'm not sure what they are yet, but they
shouldn't worry about it. They're there alright.
11) We'll all save lots of money on buying books. I don't know about you
but my library of technical books cost me close to a thousand dollars.
More importantly, the poor and disaffected minorities will have the same
access to great educational books as I do. Gees, you'd have to be real
evil not to see the nobility in that. Just because I'd happen to benefit
shouldn't be an issue.
12) Insert another excuse... err reason from the copyright myths page.
--
--
--* Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:lys...@NO.ix.Netcom.com *--
Dennis Towne
The hall of shame brought almost all of those offenders to my attention,
and I felt it was a service to the newsgroup even if it instigated many
a flamewar. It's too bad the thieves won't be getting the bad attention
they rightfully deserve.
-dennis T
Erwin S. Andreasen
> I've got this great new idea. It's called BOOSTER. Here's the deal.
> We build this centralized server that's merely a database of users and
> the books they have scanned in using OCR. People use a special peer-to-peer
> client to log in and search our vast database of books. This is such a great
> and noble idea and I've invented err discovered some compelling reasons to
> do it:
[...]
>
> 1) We can get away with it, since we aren't actually performing the copying
> which I hear is claimed to be illegal by some people. My lawyers assure me
> it isn't and if it was they could help me get away with it anyways. We are
> just providing the tools for our users. This leaves is in the clear so to
> speak. I think it's called plausible deniability or something.
Also, encrypt all the books by making lowercase uppercase and vice
versa. That way the evil PIAA (publishing industry association of
America) will break the law (DMCA) if they try to decrypt the books!
We'll be perfectly safe!
> 2) We bring reading and great literature to a larger audience. What could
> be more noble than bringing Robert Jordan and Ursula Leaguing to people
> who can't afford their books anyways. *kef*
"Leaguing" ? :) Did you just see Episode I a dozen times in a row?
> 5) We stick it too big corporate publishers who are raping authors anyways.
> I'm sure they are. I know somebody who is only getting a .25 per book sale
> anyways. Corporations are evil you know.
The evil PIAA is holding back the future of the book publishing
industry, which we all know is electronic. This sends a message to them!
> 6) We put Amazon.com out of business hoodoo! I'm not sure why this is
> important, but they are big and making money so they must be doing something
> bad. Right?
They use software patents. Even though Amazon has uniquely pushed for
reforms, they are still evil for using software patents (ignore the
fact that they are responsible to their million shareholders). Oh,
they also use cookies (and asking for details such as address and
credit card info destroys our privacy!). Evil, evil!
With software patents, Microsoft might be able to crush the glorious
Lunix and censor free software!
> 7) I probably wouldn't buy the books anyways. This way I actually get to
> read books I'd never buy and read anyways. Sure it sounds funny at first,
> but say it often enough you'll sound intelligent to others and convince
> yourself at the same time.
Or if you download them, just delete them before 24 hours pass. Then
it's perfectly legal.
> 8) Sidney Sheldon, Judith Frantz and Stephen King are too stinking rich
> already, so it's ok to steal from them. They'll never miss a few stray
> million dollars anyways.
Yes, noone should ever need (what I think I ever can earn as a teller
in the supermarket + $10000). That is only fair.
> 9) I didn't agree to any license when I bought the damn book. It's
> my book. I own it now. Just like all that free computer source code man.
> If you put it out there..it's mine mine mine... screw the license. I
> can claim I never read it. I mean who reads the back of book title pages
> anyways. Besides they can't prove I entered into any sort of contract
> willingly. Hell I never signed anything. I just walked up and laid the
> money down and they gave me the book.
Yes! It's a FREE SPEECH ISSUE! The government and the corporation are
trying to censor us! By downloading the books we are performing civil
disobedience -- it's just like Rosa Parker!
Oh yeah, and information wants to be free!
> 11) We'll all save lots of money on buying books. I don't know about you
> but my library of technical books cost me close to a thousand dollars.
> More importantly, the poor and disaffected minorities will have the same
> access to great educational books as I do. Gees, you'd have to be real
> evil not to see the nobility in that. Just because I'd happen to benefit
> shouldn't be an issue.
Anyone that disagrees with free access to all tech books for the poor
must be one of those evil fatcats that are making billions just doing
nothing. Just like Bill Gates -- I mean, noone could get that rich in
an honest way. Thus even if he gives away billions, it is still just
such a small part of his fortune that it exposes him for the greedy,
evil, greedy capitalist he is.
13) In medieval times, artists did not sell their services as
such. Rather they were commissioned by the state or wealthy
individuals. By freely coping books we encourage this state to happen
again.
14) Book writers who write for money are evil! A true writer would do
it even if she was not paid anything. By making sure they get no money
from their books we ensure that only the good, true writers survive.
15) The cost of printing a book is 1% of what it actually sells for
(never mind hundreds of other expenses which I have conveniently
forgotten about). Instead of selling books for a high cost, authors
should give them away for free and instead get their money back by
performing public reading tours across the world, and selling
T-shirts.
15b) It's legal, because it's just like borrowing your books to someone else.
It's fair use!
And finally:
16) They didn't have money on Star Trek! If it worked there, it can
work here.
For reasons 17 ... 99999 - Read Slashdot for 5 minutes.
HINT FOR THE SARCASM IMPAIRED:
</Sarcasm>
Well, I better cleanse myself now by memorizing John Galt's 100-page
speech :)
--
=======================================================================
<er...@andreasen.com> Herlev, Denmark Software Designer
<URL:http://www.andreasen.org/> <*> Eicon Networks Research
=======================================================================
AxL
Cin <clever...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>So, back to the tip. You want people to listen? Well you've got a
>valid message, especially in regards to Medievia IMO. Perhaps you
>could cut out the profanity, name-calling, etc., and get back to your
>basic message, and present it in a logical, calm manner. Ignore the
>trolls. Everyone knows them for what they are.
God why do I keep trying. You missed the point entirely. I'm
quitting because _it does no good_. Flamewars and name-calling are
irrelevant. The problem I have is that I've effectively spent 6 years
pissing in the wind, to put it bluntly. If Medthievia, Bad Trip, and a
few others are to be shot down, the DikuMUD authors will have to do it,
because only they have the legal standing to do so.
Period.
AxL
>KaVir DarkBlade wrote:
>>
>> But I'm still out here.
>>
>> http://www.kavir.dial.pipex.com/med.html
>
>The hall of shame brought almost all of those offenders to my attention,
>and I felt it was a service to the newsgroup even if it instigated many
>a flamewar. It's too bad the thieves won't be getting the bad attention
>they rightfully deserve.
Then by all means pick up the banner and run with it. I'm certainly
not saying it is bad for others to do this, just that I no longer can.
Anyone that wants to take "the DikuMUD Hall of Shame" and maintain it,
feel free. Ya don't even have to keep my name on it, Lord knows I don't
want to create my own miniature credit fiasco.
Frank Fisher
you could search it. They're doing that very thing with classic literature
I read Dante's Inferno off of there. It's a pretty cool idea.
They have volunteers to scan and proof-read; it's all run out of this guy's
house. Or at least it was when I volunteered. Maybe you can help them
out over there.
They have a web-server though. No vast peer network or any of that. Why
not expand though! I'd show them your idea.
- Moz
--
- Frank
/*
* "So...real programmers use Ed. I guess I am not a real programmer"
* - Lawerence Kirby (UNIX Systems Programmer)
*/
Erwin S. Andreasen
> > I've got this great new idea. It's called BOOSTER. Here's the
> > deal. We build this centralized server that's merely a database
> > of users and the books they have scanned in using OCR. People use
> > a special peer-to-peer client to log in and search our vast
> > database of books. This is such a great and noble idea and I've
> > invented err discovered some compelling reasons to do it:
> Have you heard of project Gutenburg? I can't remember a URL, but
> I'm sure you could search it. They're doing that very thing with
> classic literature I read Dante's Inferno off of there. It's a
> pretty cool idea.
No, Project Gutenberg deals only with works in Public Domain,
i.e. those whose copyrights have expired.
--
Eric Johnson
tags in your original post. People that miss the blatant and obvious
Anti-Napster (Woo! I though I was the only person in America siding with
the companies!) stuff scare me. Alot.
Duuk@Haven
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit Haven! Online roleplaying at its best.
telnet://kailie.havenmud.com:4000
"Erwin S. Andreasen" <er...@andreasen.com> wrote in message
news:g0d0xp...@andreasen.org...
Kurt Schwind
<have...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking he missed the <sarcasm> </sarcasm> tags in your original
> post. People that miss the blatant and obvious Anti-Napster (Woo! I
> though I was the only person in America siding with the companies!)
> stuff scare me. Alot.
Not to get into something so blatently off-topic, but the RIAA is
completely misguided when it comes to Napster. By this same logic, they
should be going after the US Postal Service because people use it to
exchange pirated/ripped music.
Napster, just like the US Postal Service, can be used to send legit or
ill-legit things. It's not the medium's responsibility. Thanks to all
this RIAA bullshit, my music is being filtered because I have songs with
'keywords' in the titles. I'm distributing songs I've written and played
and yet thanks to the RIAA Napster is blocking some of mine.
Is it wrong to rip an audio cd of copywrited music and give it to someone
else? Yes. But that has nothing to do with Napster.
John Robert Arras
Kurt Schwind <ku...@slithytoves.com> wrote:
>In article <9gir34$3jm$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, "Eric Johnson"
><have...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking he missed the <sarcasm> </sarcasm> tags in your original
>> post. People that miss the blatant and obvious Anti-Napster (Woo! I
>> though I was the only person in America siding with the companies!)
>> stuff scare me. Alot.
>
>Not to get into something so blatently off-topic, but the RIAA is
>completely misguided when it comes to Napster. By this same logic, they
>should be going after the US Postal Service because people use it to
>exchange pirated/ripped music.
>
The RIAA is not misguided in the case of Napster. Napster was and
is being used to copy material that should not be copied without
the author's permission. The post office analogy doesn't cut it.
If you run a pawn shop, you may have legitimate customers, but you
also have to watch out for stolen goods being sold in your store.
The reason I use the word "should" in the first paragraph is that with
the advent of general programmable computers with sufficient power,
anything can be copied. It doesn't even matter if the "content"
is encrypted, because eventually a clean signal must appear at the
end of the output process. This signal can be converted back to
digital in a "clean" form on a "clean" machine. So, the only way
to make sure that copyrighted material isn't copied is to make
sure there are no more general computers. However, just because
it is possible to steal something, it doesn't mean that you should
steal it.
And, just because the RIAA makes CD's cost too much (in your
opinion), that doesn't give you the right to steal them. Just
because artists don't get paid enough (in your opinion), that
doesn't give you the right to steal their music. If an artist
chooses to have her music released on Napster, then that's ok.
Otherwise, it's not.
All information, be it software, movies, music, books, images,
or any other type of information stored in digital form, is the
same. Heck, if you had a machine that could produce smells, then
the digital information needed to tell the machine what smell to
produce would still be the same. It all got into the machine in bit
form because someone thought something in the real world and
made their body act in a certain way and these actions were
recorded by a machine. After several layers of massaging,
their actions ended up as bits in a machine.
So, once we see that all "content" is the same, then using Napster
becomes the equivalent of taking code under the GPL and
releasing binaries as part of a proprietary product.
So, how long have you been opposed to the GPL?
John
Jon A. Lambert
>
> Is it wrong to rip an audio cd of copywrited music and give it to someone
> else? Yes. But that has nothing to do with Napster.
>
The _only_ purpose Napster serves is to facilitate the theft of intellectual
property. Napster is the musical equivalent of a SoFtWaRe WaReZ TrAdInG site.
Screw Napster.
--
--* Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:jlsy...@NOSPAM.ix.netcom.com *--
Dennis Towne
>
> "Kurt Schwind" <ku...@slithytoves.com> wrote in message
> news:20010618.053325....@slithytoves.com...
> >
> > Is it wrong to rip an audio cd of copywrited music and give it to someone
> > else? Yes. But that has nothing to do with Napster.
> >
>
> The _only_ purpose Napster serves is to facilitate the theft of intellectual
> property. Napster is the musical equivalent of a SoFtWaRe WaReZ TrAdInG site.
> Screw Napster.
30 years ago - The _only_ purpose cassette tapes serve is to facilitate
the theft of intellectual property.
20 years ago - The _only_ purpose VCRs serve is to facilitate the theft
of intellectual property.
10 years ago - The _only_ purpose blank CD-ROMs serve is to facilitate
the theft of intellectual property.
Present day - The _only_ purpose Napster serves is to facilitate the
theft of intellectual property.
While the bulk of traffic on napster is indeed illegal, your viewpoint
is a little too extreme. If even one band freely releases their music
via napster, then your statement is invalid.
And given that not one but several bands have done so...
-dennis T
(As a side issue, law needs to follow reality, not the reverse. If new
technological developments render a law obsolete and unenforcable, the
law should be changed to reflect the new situation. This will almost
certainly cause hardship for some portion of the population, but hey,
change happens. People need to learn to deal with it.)
Jon A. Lambert
>
> While the bulk of traffic on napster is indeed illegal, your viewpoint
> is a little too extreme. If even one band freely releases their music
> via napster, then your statement is invalid.
Obviously it would be invalid. :-(
But I wouldn't be far wrong if I suggested 80+% of the traffic is illegal
since Napster's traffic has dropped off by almost the same amount since
they got spanked.
> (As a side issue, law needs to follow reality, not the reverse. If new
> technological developments render a law obsolete and unenforcable, the
> law should be changed to reflect the new situation. This will almost
> certainly cause hardship for some portion of the population, but hey,
> change happens. People need to learn to deal with it.)
It seems to me the law is working just fine. Yet another copyright
precedent affecting the internet was added to case law. The millionaire
lawyers from Harvard, Stanford, UCLA, and Villanova who run the Napster
"theft ring" lost in court to the thousands of poor starving artists who
sued them. Even their Marxist propaganda is as hollow as their Armani
suits.
Erwin S. Andreasen
> Napster, just like the US Postal Service, can be used to send legit or
> ill-legit things. It's not the medium's responsibility. Thanks to all
> this RIAA bullshit, my music is being filtered because I have songs with
> 'keywords' in the titles. I'm distributing songs I've written and played
> and yet thanks to the RIAA Napster is blocking some of mine.
Why don't you put them on mp3.com instead?
You will get free disk space and access to mp3.com's huge bandwidth --
instead of your own ADSL or cable modem. Also, I am sure it is much
easier to find music you aren't directly looking for on mp3.com while
as on Napster you can only do keyword searches.
I'm curious how many downloads you've had of the music that isn't
keyword blocked now -- and how many people out there have a copy of it
that they've downloaded.
Could you tell us the names of the songs that aren't blocked now so we
can see the extent of legal Napster usage for ourselves?
Kurt Schwind
<jo...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> The RIAA is not misguided in the case of Napster. Napster was and is
> being used to copy material that should not be copied without the
> author's permission. The post office analogy doesn't cut it. If you run
> a pawn shop, you may have legitimate customers, but you also have to
> watch out for stolen goods being sold in your store.
In the case of the pawn shop, the pawn shop is PURCHASING the product
from one individual and SELLING it to another. Of course the shop keeper
is liable to some extent. Napster shouldn't be though.
To say that Napster is liable, you might as well sue the creators of FTP
because "they facilitate copying illegal goods". Napster, (pre lawsuit)
didn't scan their network at all. They aren't liable for what
individuals do with their software anymore than the creators of ftp are
responsible.
> The reason I use the word "should" in the first paragraph is that with
> the advent of general programmable computers with sufficient power,
> anything can be copied. It doesn't even matter if the "content" is
> encrypted, because eventually a clean signal must appear at the end of
> the output process. This signal can be converted back to digital in a
> "clean" form on a "clean" machine. So, the only way to make sure that
> copyrighted material isn't copied is to make sure there are no more
> general computers. However, just because it is possible to steal
> something, it doesn't mean that you should steal it.
Agreed. Just because something can be stolen, doesn't mean that it's
right to steal it. I never said otherwise. Going after Napster is
misguieded.
> And, just because the RIAA makes CD's cost too much (in your opinion),
> that doesn't give you the right to steal them. Just because artists
> don't get paid enough (in your opinion), that doesn't give you the right
> to steal their music. If an artist chooses to have her music released on
> Napster, then that's ok. Otherwise, it's not.
I never said that it cost too much or that the artist didn't make enough.
That may or may not be true. But it's irrelevant. What I said was that
the RIAA has NO foundation to go after Napster.
I might also add that it ISN'T ok for artists to release music on
napster. According to the DMCA, nearly every artist is a 'work for hire'
and does NOT own the rights to the music they make for record companies.
The record companies themselves own those rights now.
> All information, be it software, movies, music, books, images, or any
> other type of information stored in digital form, is the same. Heck, if
> you had a machine that could produce smells, then the digital
> information needed to tell the machine what smell to produce would still
> be the same. It all got into the machine in bit form because someone
> thought something in the real world and made their body act in a certain
> way and these actions were recorded by a machine. After several layers
> of massaging, their actions ended up as bits in a machine.
>
> So, once we see that all "content" is the same, then using Napster
> becomes the equivalent of taking code under the GPL and releasing
> binaries as part of a proprietary product.
>
> So, how long have you been opposed to the GPL?
Wow, that almost looked like it made sense. Maybe you needed more
coffee when writing these last few paragraphs.
Kurt Schwind
<jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> "Kurt Schwind" <ku...@slithytoves.com> wrote in message
> news:20010618.053325....@slithytoves.com...
>>
>> Is it wrong to rip an audio cd of copywrited music and give it to
>> someone else? Yes. But that has nothing to do with Napster.
>>
>>
> The _only_ purpose Napster serves is to facilitate the theft of
> intellectual property. Napster is the musical equivalent of a SoFtWaRe
> WaReZ TrAdInG site. Screw Napster.
The _only_ purpose? How is it that I'm distributing my own music through
Napster then?
That was simple enough to disprove. Next!
Kurt Schwind
<jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Obviously it would be invalid. :-(
> But I wouldn't be far wrong if I suggested 80+% of the traffic is
> illegal since Napster's traffic has dropped off by almost the same
> amount since they got spanked.
It STILL isn't valid. Several of my songs are no longer distributable
by Napster. Why? Because of I have artist names in some of my titles.
Because there is NO WAY to really enforce what some judge has asked them
to enforce, they do it by regex on artist and title. I have a title
"Metallica sells out, news at 11" and you can no longer get it on
Napster. Because it's "illegal"? No, because they have to filter out
/more/ than required so that the RIAA can't keep pissing and moaning
about all the money they are losing[1].
> It seems to me the law is working just fine. Yet another copyright
> precedent affecting the internet was added to case law. The millionaire
> lawyers from Harvard, Stanford, UCLA, and Villanova who run the Napster
> "theft ring" lost in court to the thousands of poor starving artists who
> sued them. Even their Marxist propaganda is as hollow as their Armani
> suits.
I strongly urge you to read some facts regarding the artists involved.
No artists are losing money to Napster and I challenge you to find ANY
evidence to the contrary.
In fact, Circuit City (of all places) published some findings of their
own. Since they keep track of who buys what with what other items. On
average, when a person bought an MP3 playing device, they also purchased
3 music CDs.
[1] The recording industry has had 3 record breaking years in profit.
And has been UNABLE to show any real loss due to Napster.
Kenneth G. Cavness
Kurt Schwind <ku...@slithytoves.com> wrote...
[snip]
> I might also add that it ISN'T ok for artists to release music on
> napster. According to the DMCA, nearly every artist is a 'work for hire'
> and does NOT own the rights to the music they make for record companies.
> The record companies themselves own those rights now.
Er. Wasn't this struck?
--
Kenneth G. Cavness
http://stargoat.dynip.com/ (usually)
UIN: 3504847, AOL IM: kcavness2
Jon A. Lambert
>
> It STILL isn't valid. Several of my songs are no longer distributable
> by Napster. Why? Because of I have artist names in some of my titles.
> Because there is NO WAY to really enforce what some judge has asked them
> to enforce, they do it by regex on artist and title. I have a title
> "Metallica sells out, news at 11" and you can no longer get it on
> Napster. Because it's "illegal"? No, because they have to filter out
> /more/ than required so that the RIAA can't keep pissing and moaning
> about all the money they are losing[1].
Tough luck. You should have picked a legitimate distributor for your
work. Napster has to labor under a court order because they screwed
up. It's called a "remedy". You don't like the remedy? Well neither
do I. They could have imposed several other remedies. They could have
ordered Napster to log every transfer and pay money to the artists for
each download. They could have ordered them to cease and desist
operations. It's ALL Napster's fault.
> > It seems to me the law is working just fine. Yet another copyright
> > precedent affecting the internet was added to case law. The millionaire
> > lawyers from Harvard, Stanford, UCLA, and Villanova who run the Napster
> > "theft ring" lost in court to the thousands of poor starving artists who
> > sued them. Even their Marxist propaganda is as hollow as their Armani
> > suits.
>
> I strongly urge you to read some facts regarding the artists involved.
> No artists are losing money to Napster and I challenge you to find ANY
> evidence to the contrary.
This is addressed by argument 7 in my post on the 7th.
To rephrase:
"I wouldn't have bought the song anyways, so I stole it.
The artist would never have gotten money from me anyways."
The fallacy:
"If what was stolen had no value, then one wouldn't have
stolen it. The artist therefore lost revenue due to theft."
The truth:
"When you cut through all the psuedo-intellectual BS, it's
really all about hordes of proles screaming for free beer."
David S. Rubin
> This is addressed by argument 7 in my post on the 7th.
> To rephrase:
> "I wouldn't have bought the song anyways, so I stole it.
> The artist would never have gotten money from me anyways."
> The fallacy:
> "If what was stolen had no value, then one wouldn't have
> stolen it. The artist therefore lost revenue due to theft."
There's a fallacy within the fallacy. Nobody said the item didn't
have value. The song may be worth X dollars. But _I_ am not willing
to pay X dollars for each song. Therefore the artist did NOT lose any
revenue - I want the song, but not badly enough to pay X dollars for
it.
PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying that this is my opinion - just something
that can be said by those quoted in the first statement.
cheers,
David S. Rubin <dav...@touro.edu>
Lab Technician
Touro College - Lander Campus, Kew Garden Hills
(718) 820-4893
NoOne
Kurt Schwind
<jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Tough luck. You should have picked a legitimate distributor for your
> work. Napster has to labor under a court order because they screwed up.
> It's called a "remedy". You don't like the remedy? Well neither do I.
> They could have imposed several other remedies. They could have
> ordered Napster to log every transfer and pay money to the artists for
> each download. They could have ordered them to cease and desist
> operations. It's ALL Napster's fault.
This sounds a lot like you have done ZERO research into this topic. You
might want to quit while you are ahead. Is it the responsibility of the
post office to scan packages for pirated software and make the
sender/recevier pay the appropriate software vendor? No, of course not.
There IS no way to know the contents of an MP3 file. Song Title and
Artist are just text strings in an ID3 tag. You can put whatever you
want.
Napster's service consisted of providing a search engine and a
peer-to-peer tool to send and receive files. That is all. They don't
provide software to pirate songs.
To say that it is Napster's fault is akin to blaming the car dealer for
selling the car that was used in a hit and run.
>> I strongly urge you to read some facts regarding the artists involved.
>> No artists are losing money to Napster and I challenge you to find ANY
>> evidence to the contrary.
>
> This is addressed by argument 7 in my post on the 7th. To rephrase:
> "I wouldn't have bought the song anyways, so I stole it.
> The artist would never have gotten money from me anyways."
> The fallacy:
> "If what was stolen had no value, then one wouldn't have
> stolen it. The artist therefore lost revenue due to theft."
> The truth:
> "When you cut through all the psuedo-intellectual BS, it's
> really all about hordes of proles screaming for free beer."
In other words, you have ZERO evidence to the contrary. That's what I
thought.
BTW: I'm not going to argue that people have used Napster to leech songs
they didn't pay for. Obviously they did. But there is still no evidence
that anyone lost money on it. People record songs off the radio yet CD
sales are still stronger than ever.
Stuart Markenson
"Jon A. Lambert" wrote:
> "Kurt Schwind" <ku...@slithytoves.com> wrote in message
> news:20010618.053325....@slithytoves.com...
> >
> > Is it wrong to rip an audio cd of copywrited music and give it to someone
> > else? Yes. But that has nothing to do with Napster.
> >
>
> The _only_ purpose Napster serves is to facilitate the theft of intellectual
> property. Napster is the musical equivalent of a SoFtWaRe WaReZ TrAdInG site.
> Screw Napster.
blah blah, its not the only purpose, it can definately be used for that, but you
have made yourself lose your argument straight away by saying its the only purpose.
Whats all this about anyway? its not as if there are not even more powerful peer to
peer clients out there now to spread music, like kazaa, audiogalaxy etc, the death
of napster means nothing, always more will spring up where one falls. Napster did
nothing wrong at all, people chose what they wanted to share and what they wanted
to download, its not napsters fault that people misused it.
Dennis Towne
>
> "Dennis Towne" <so...@xirr.com> wrote in message news:3B2E4CF3...@xirr.com...
> >
> > While the bulk of traffic on napster is indeed illegal, your viewpoint
> > is a little too extreme. If even one band freely releases their music
> > via napster, then your statement is invalid.
>
> Obviously it would be invalid. :-(
> But I wouldn't be far wrong if I suggested 80+% of the traffic is illegal
> since Napster's traffic has dropped off by almost the same amount since
> they got spanked.
Noone would argue with you either. But since not 100% is illegal, the
service does have a valid reason to exist.
> > (As a side issue, law needs to follow reality, not the reverse. If new
> > technological developments render a law obsolete and unenforcable, the
> > law should be changed to reflect the new situation. This will almost
> > certainly cause hardship for some portion of the population, but hey,
> > change happens. People need to learn to deal with it.)
>
> It seems to me the law is working just fine. Yet another copyright
> precedent affecting the internet was added to case law. The millionaire
> lawyers from Harvard, Stanford, UCLA, and Villanova who run the Napster
> "theft ring" lost in court to the thousands of poor starving artists who
> sued them. Even their Marxist propaganda is as hollow as their Armani
> suits.
It seems to a great many of us that the law is not 'working just fine'.
I'd go so far as to compare the current copyright law to morality laws
in Utah - at least 75% of the population has sex illegally or in illegal
ways. Clearly laws exist that were rendered obsolete by changes in
society, and there is precedent for the populace ignoring such laws
outright.
When technology, or changing moral attitudes, render a law obsolete, the
law should either be changed or ignored. The law, after all, is created
by the people, for the people. If the people decide napster is ok, then
napster will be ok - whether through changes in the law or through
illegal file sharing.
Personally, I liken this whole situation to the one with cassette tapes
- the record industry never really went after cassette tapes because
they were a lossy medium. Well guess what - so is mp3. I don't see the
problem. Mp3 is so lossy that I buy cds when I find ones I really like.
-dennis T
Dennis Towne
>
> In article <9grqat$rsq$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>, "Jon A. Lambert"
> <jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Tough luck. You should have picked a legitimate distributor for your
> > work. Napster has to labor under a court order because they screwed up.
> > It's called a "remedy". You don't like the remedy? Well neither do I.
> > They could have imposed several other remedies. They could have
> > ordered Napster to log every transfer and pay money to the artists for
> > each download. They could have ordered them to cease and desist
> > operations. It's ALL Napster's fault.
>
> This sounds a lot like you have done ZERO research into this topic. You
> might want to quit while you are ahead. Is it the responsibility of the
> post office to scan packages for pirated software and make the
> sender/recevier pay the appropriate software vendor? No, of course not.
>
> There IS no way to know the contents of an MP3 file. Song Title and
> Artist are just text strings in an ID3 tag. You can put whatever you
> want.
>
> Napster's service consisted of providing a search engine and a
> peer-to-peer tool to send and receive files. That is all. They don't
> provide software to pirate songs.
>
> To say that it is Napster's fault is akin to blaming the car dealer for
> selling the car that was used in a hit and run.
Just thought I'd point out here that if Napster was used _purely_ for
illegal trading or activities, then it could be legally shut down, even
with the above argument to the contrary. In that case, it would have no
other redeeming qualities, and would exist purely as a tool to
facilitate piracy.
But, fact is that that's not true. It does have other redeeming
qualities, however small - from small musicians wanting to trade their
music, to music that is shared without copyright restrictions. And the
fact that it does have other uses and is actively being used in other
ways gives napster some amount of ISP-like protection.
Note that the courts have so far disagreed with this, but that the
appeals process is not over.
-dennis T
John Robert Arras
<snip>
>It seems to a great many of us that the law is not 'working just fine'.
>I'd go so far as to compare the current copyright law to morality laws
>in Utah - at least 75% of the population has sex illegally or in illegal
>ways. Clearly laws exist that were rendered obsolete by changes in
>society, and there is precedent for the populace ignoring such laws
>outright.
>
>When technology, or changing moral attitudes, render a law obsolete, the
>law should either be changed or ignored. The law, after all, is created
>by the people, for the people. If the people decide napster is ok, then
>napster will be ok - whether through changes in the law or through
>illegal file sharing.
<snip>
>-dennis T
At least you admit that the file sharing going on is illegal... :)
I also think it's wrong. I agree with you that the length of copyright
protection is excessive (~100 years), but that still doesn't excuse
outright copying of copyrighted material. I look at it this way.
Creating something of value takes time and energy and talent and
training. It doesn't matter what it is that was created: software,
books, pictures, movies, or music. In all cases, someone had to spend
time making something that other people want to use. Now, if that
person making the "content" can't get paid, then they will have
to get other jobs and they will have to spend time doing other
things instead of making whatever it is that they make.
If the thing they created can be reduced to digital form, then
the thing they created can be distributed an unlimited number
of times at no cost for the distributor or receiver. How would
someone get paid in this case? Would they want to create something
if they knew that they would probably not get paid for it?
If something like an "honor system" were feasible, or if people
had cared enough to try to compensate creators, why hasn't there
been a groundswell of people paying some money to artists
every time they download something off Napster? Why, because they
aren't forced to do so.
This combination of effort required to create something and
lack of effort required to distribute it means that there
have to be rules in place that say the original effort will be
rewarded somehow. Yes, the costs associated with distribution
go away, but the costs associated with creation are still there.
This even applies to things like open source/free software
and the GPL. I don't see the GPL as being something that
destroys IP or whatever the attack of the week is. Look, if
you use someone else's software to make your own, then you
play by their rules. The GPL just sets up certain rules that
most companies don't like since they don't let the companies
take from the pool of GPLed software without giving something
back to it. I assume that people who use GPLed software or write
software under the GPL are intelligent enough to understand it.
(Veering back into on-topic land.)
You can search back through this ng for things related to
medievia to see how this even relates to MUDs. If you make
your own stuff, you can release it under whatever rules
you want. The rules that allow the GPL and the various MUD sever
licenses to work are the same ones that say that Napster is wrong.
So, when I see arguments saying that it's ok to ignore the
copyrights on music etc..., I see the same kinds of tired
arguments that Vryce makes when he comes on here to talk in
"legally accurate" terms about how there's "no controlling legal
authority" telling him to put credits in his game.
How could creators be compensated in a world where you can
download anything for free and maybe give voluntary donations?
I'm all for artists who choose to go that way (in the same way
that people who write GPLed software choose to do that), but
that doesn't mean everyone should be forced live under those terms.
John
Jon A. Lambert
> In article <9grqat$rsq$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>, "Jon A. Lambert"
> <jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Tough luck. You should have picked a legitimate distributor for your
> > work. Napster has to labor under a court order because they screwed up.
> > It's called a "remedy". You don't like the remedy? Well neither do I.
> > They could have imposed several other remedies. They could have
> > ordered Napster to log every transfer and pay money to the artists for
> > each download. They could have ordered them to cease and desist
> > operations. It's ALL Napster's fault.
>
> This sounds a lot like you have done ZERO research into this topic. You
> might want to quit while you are ahead. Is it the responsibility of the
> post office to scan packages for pirated software and make the
> sender/recevier pay the appropriate software vendor? No, of course not.
I always do the research. The problem this isn't really the group to post
it all. All the Napster and MP3 court transcripts are easily found online,
as well as two studies, Fine and Sterophonic, that are used to prove damages
(or loss).
The post office argument is bunk. None of your arguments resemble Napster's.
It's more a wish list of how you'd like the law to work. Napster was slam
dunked 3 times in court despite being represented by a crack legal team.
Instead Napster argued a "fair use" case. You don't have to be a direct
copyright infringer under the law for your actions to be enjoined by a court.
There is precedent for punitive actions against contributory infringers in
the literary publishing industry as well. And ISPs do not have blanket
protection for the actions of their users, especially when they can be shown
to have encouraged illegal activity.
--
Dennis Towne
>
> In article <3B334795...@xirr.com>,
>
> <snip>
>
> >It seems to a great many of us that the law is not 'working just fine'.
> >I'd go so far as to compare the current copyright law to morality laws
> >in Utah - at least 75% of the population has sex illegally or in illegal
> >ways. Clearly laws exist that were rendered obsolete by changes in
> >society, and there is precedent for the populace ignoring such laws
> >outright.
> >
> >When technology, or changing moral attitudes, render a law obsolete, the
> >law should either be changed or ignored. The law, after all, is created
> >by the people, for the people. If the people decide napster is ok, then
> >napster will be ok - whether through changes in the law or through
> >illegal file sharing.
>
> <snip>
>
> >-dennis T
>
> At least you admit that the file sharing going on is illegal... :)
> I also think it's wrong. I agree with you that the length of copyright
> protection is excessive (~100 years), but that still doesn't excuse
> outright copying of copyrighted material. I look at it this way.
So far, the courts have indeed ruled that it's illegal - which means
nothing more or less than it conflicts with currently established law.
That's the definition of illegal :)
I've snipped the rest of your very good opinion as I don't really have
much to say about it and the discussion would be more effort than I'm
currently willing to put forth. How right or wrong limitless copying
might be is totally irrelevant from the technology viewpoint; the
technology now exists, and as a result regulating copying has become
significantly more difficult, perhaps impossible.
My take on it is that change happens, and artists/creators are going to
have to adapt to the new situations as they arise. Some will find new
ways to survive and support themselves, some will not. (The classic
example of printing presses putting scribes out of business comes
immediately to mind.) Change isn't particularly fair, but it's not
something you can ignore either. It'll be at least a couple years
before we have a better handle on the situation and what needs to be
done.
-dennis T
Pier Donini
a...@oz.plymouth.edu (AxL) writes:
> The problem I have is that I've effectively spent 6 years
> pissing in the wind, to put it bluntly. If Medthievia, Bad Trip, and a
> few others are to be shot down, the DikuMUD authors will have to do it,
> because only they have the legal standing to do so.
You didn't piss in the wind. Thanks to you, the gaming community is (was)
aware of the copyright infringments of these muds. And even if you didn't
discourage the casual Aoler to play these, I believe that you brought some
ethics lessons to many mud admins. This was indeed valuable.
The only problem I had with your list is that it was counter productive in
providing free ads. Maybe, a renewed version of your list should reward muds
that do abide to the dikumud copyright, completeley ignoring the black sheeps
(correct me if I am wrong, but that's what you do in your 'Oldest dikumud
list' already - that I hope you don't plan to drop).
P.
--
Pier Donini (Manwë @ MUME) http://mume.org/
MUME VII - Multi Users in Middle Earth telnet://mume.org
Mike Harrold
Jon A. Lambert <jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>news:20010619.163818....@slithytoves.com...
>>
>> It STILL isn't valid. Several of my songs are no longer distributable
>> by Napster. Why? Because of I have artist names in some of my titles.
>> Because there is NO WAY to really enforce what some judge has asked them
>> to enforce, they do it by regex on artist and title. I have a title
>> "Metallica sells out, news at 11" and you can no longer get it on
>> Napster. Because it's "illegal"? No, because they have to filter out
>> /more/ than required so that the RIAA can't keep pissing and moaning
>> about all the money they are losing[1].
>
>Tough luck. You should have picked a legitimate distributor for your
>work. Napster has to labor under a court order because they screwed
>up. It's called a "remedy". You don't like the remedy? Well neither
>do I. They could have imposed several other remedies. They could have
>ordered Napster to log every transfer and pay money to the artists for
>each download. They could have ordered them to cease and desist
>operations. It's ALL Napster's fault.
You're flat out wrong here. So wrong, in fact, that even the appeals court
disagrees with you.
If you remember, the original judge DID order them to cease and desist, and
the appeals court immediately stayed it because Napster DOES provide legal
services, and thus IS a legitimate distributor.
Regards,
/Mike
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Take the cheese to sickbay, the Doctor should take a look at it as soon |
| as possible. -- B'lanna Torres - Star Trek Voyager - 'Learning Curve'. |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Jon A. Lambert
>
> If you remember, the original judge DID order them to cease and desist, and
> the appeals court immediately stayed it because Napster DOES provide legal
> services, and thus IS a legitimate distributor.
>
The request for a temporary stay (which is what that was) before a trial
and a remedy issued by a court after a trial are completely different
animals. Both require different standards and levels of evidence. The
former is an enjoinment before the finding of fact, the latter is an
enjoinment after the finding of fact. The error here, and in much of the
editorial writing on the subject, is in predicting or assuming that an
appeals court would rule identically on a temporary stay order and a
remedy order that are essentially the same. There are huge differences
and that's not how our system of lower courts and appeals courts work.
I'm talking about remedies and the cease and desist remedy was certainly
an option for the original judge even after the appeals court ruling.
Mike Harrold
>>
>> If you remember, the original judge DID order them to cease and desist, and
>> the appeals court immediately stayed it because Napster DOES provide legal
>> services, and thus IS a legitimate distributor.
>>
>
>The request for a temporary stay (which is what that was) before a trial
>and a remedy issued by a court after a trial are completely different
>animals. Both require different standards and levels of evidence. The
>former is an enjoinment before the finding of fact, the latter is an
>enjoinment after the finding of fact. The error here, and in much of the
>editorial writing on the subject, is in predicting or assuming that an
>appeals court would rule identically on a temporary stay order and a
>remedy order that are essentially the same. There are huge differences
>and that's not how our system of lower courts and appeals courts work.
>I'm talking about remedies and the cease and desist remedy was certainly
>an option for the original judge even after the appeals court ruling.
Nonsense. The appeals court in their ruling said that a cease and desist
order wasn't an option because Napster DOES provide a legitimate outlet
for other artists.
Had Napster not complied with the screening order, then the original
judge could have revisited the cease and desist order as a last resort.
But that's irrelevant to this dicussion. You stated that Napster was
not a legitimate distributor - the court of appeals disagrees with you.