Ezekiel had the great idea a few weeks ago to have a private file sharing circle for empeg users. The theory being that we empegers are likely to have high quality rips of complete albums with ID tags. I would expect the quality and depth of the average empeger's MP3 collection to be much higher than that of the average Napster user.

So I'm now running an OpenNap server on DSL connection. You can connect to it using the regular Napster client and (almost) use it just like you use Napster. But my server doesn't limit you to only 100 search hits!

Here are instructions to connect. The only difference is that you will need another piece of software to "fool" the Napster client into connecting to a server other than one of it's own.

1. Download and install Napigator from http://www.napigator.com
2. Run it and choose File|Manual Connect with these options:
IP Address: 216.254.97.28
PORT: 8888
3. It should start Napster and connect you to my server.

If you are interested in seeing this idea take off and you have a persistant connection, please leave yourself connected so that there remains a decent library of shared files.

Something that will help with Napster in general, and particularly when connecting a server with a small user base like this one is to have your sharing port set up correctly in the Napster client. In the Napster client choose File|Preferences and go to the sharing tab. Note the value of the TCP port. A value of 0 means that you are behind a firewall. If you aren't actually behind a firewall then choose a port (6697 is typical). If you are behind a firewall and can control it's configuration then consider opening up a port for Napster sharing purposes.

The general way peer to peer sharing works is that at least one of the two users participating in a transfer must not be behind a firewall. Two users behind a firewall cannot share. So if you are claiming yourself to be behind a firewall you are limiting who you can share with. In fact, you won't even get search hits for other users who are also behind firewalls. So you don't even know what you might be missing. If you can give a port to share on then you will be able to participate in transfers with any other user and, therefore, get more hits in your searches.

-Dylan

I briefly brought the server down twice around 9:30 EST. My apologies if you were connected. I modified the source and I believe I have it working now so that all online users will automatically be in your hotlist.

-Dylan

I don't mean to offend you or any others that think this is a good Idea. But
this forum is not the right place for piracy. The last thing we need is to turn
this board in a mp3 tradeing board.

While I'm typeing Got To Say Hi To The Old Timers..Man its been what 6 months or more since my last post.

BasicGuy
Empeg Mark 1 #00247

Tell you what. I won't pass judgement on what you do and you don't pass judgement on what I do.

Personally, I use MP3 trading/sharing as a way to discover artists and styles of music that I would never have heard otherwise. If I like the album, I buy it. Even if I never open the shrink wrap. I don't know nor do I care what others do with the music they upload from me. That's their business.

I don't think one thread giving directions on how to access a private trading ring will turn this into a MP3 trading board. But I don't run this BBS. If the person who graciously provides the time, bandwidth and server space for this BBS objects to my post I will delete it and cease posts of this nature.

-Dylan

I totally agree with you and think this is a good idea. BUT - my company has blocked access to napster.com and I presume this is why I can't connect to your server?

The only alternative I've got is to do it from home on my ISDN connection which gets dropped after one hour's connection - not ideal for this purpose!!!

BUT - my company has blocked access to napster.com and I presume this is why I can't connect to your server?

There are different ways they could have blocked access. If all that they've done is block access to the napster.com domain then I would expect that you can still access my server. By using Napigator you should never actually access napster.com.

I believe another tactic is to block the ports commonly used by Napster. If the problem is that you can't connect to my server at all then they may have blocked port 8888. (8888 and 7777 are the ports used by the official Napster servers for communication with the client.) If you can connect to the server but your transfers fail then they may have blocked port 6697 - that's the default sharing port.

Theoretically, both blocks could be circumvented with a configuration change by me or individual users. But were it me, I'd take the hint that my employer doesn't like me using Napster. But that's your call, of course. I'm willing to play around with it and see if I can help you find a way to connect.

-Dylan

My two cents on this issue:

Napster, the software, is not illegal. Talking about using Napster on a BBS is not illegal. The line is crossed when copyrighted material is directly posted on the BBS for download, and I'm pretty sure that's not going to be happening here.

If Dylan shares copyrighted material from his own server, that's his business. He's violating the copyrights of those works, but he's doing it on his own system, and on his own time.

The concern being expressed, I believe, comes down to "the BBS reputation can be sullied by talk of piracy". This is a valid concern. I have notified PaulH of the situation, and he will handle it in whatever way he sees fit.

___________
Tony Fabris

The concern being expressed, I believe, comes down to "the BBS reputation can be sullied by talk of piracy". This is a valid concern. I have notified PaulH of the situation, and he will handle it in whatever way he sees fit.

I had no intention to violate the purpose or spirit of this BBS. I thought I was giving something to the empeg community. I was taken aback and a little hurt by the objection. But I'll take it off the board if it's not wanted.

-Dylan

Agian i never passed judgement on you. All I Said is this ain't the place for
that kind of messages. Heck I've used napster before so I'm not gonna judge anyone for what they do.


BasicGuy
Empeg Mark 1 #00247
Green 16gig

Agian i never passed judgement on you. All I Said is this ain't the place for
that kind of messages. Heck I've used napster before so I'm not gonna judge anyone for what they do.

You're right. I overreacted. I shouldn't post right before I go to bed.

-Dylan

I had no intention to violate the purpose or spirit of this BBS. I thought I was giving something to the empeg community. I was taken aback and a little hurt by the objection. But I'll take it off the board if it's not wanted.

I'm sorry you were hurt, but I don't feel that your apparent surprise is justified. If you were not prepared to receive this kind of feedback, then honestly you should not have made your announcement.

It is well understood that the primary purpose of Napster is to locate and download music that one has not already secured the legal right to possess; and to do so in a way that is difficult to track. The stated purpose may sound clean and innocent, but nobody on this BBS, including you, is fooling himself/herself about that.

It is also illegal to intentionally support someone else's illegal activity. You are clearly intelligent enough to know that illegal activity would occur on your Napigator link. So arguments like "what people do with music they download from me is their business" are simply wrong. It's your business too, particularly if a prosecutor goes sniffing.

To some, it's important to differentiate between what is ethically and morally wrong and what is legally wrong. You may have very honorable reasons for using a trading system like Napster. From what you've described, you're an upstanding fellow and you ultimately don't want to deprive artists of their royalties. That's great, and you may have your debates around that issue. But the legality issue does not go away because of that.


Michael Grant
12GB Green
080000266

but nobody on this BBS, including you, is fooling himself/herself about that
Thanks for speaking for me..not!

So arguments like "what people do with music they download from me is their business" are simply wrong. It's your business too, particularly if a prosecutor goes sniffing
And that is why Napster is shut down. That is why IRC is shutdown. That is why usenet is shutdown. All nots, of course.

Stop your whining purer than thou rhetoric. If you don't want to download then don't.

Squid2k1
---
18GB of Green Mk II Fury - Fast As A Shark

Thanks for speaking for me..not!

So you're absolutely convinced that a Napster-like service is going to be used overwhelmingly for legal purposes? Uh-huh.

And that is why Napster is shut down. That is why IRC is shutdown. That is why usenet is shutdown. All nots, of course.

IRC and Usenet have significantly more legal uses than illegal. The courts have come down against Napster, even if the word isn't final yet.

Stop your whining purer than thou rhetoric. If you don't want to download then don't.

I don't plan on downloading, of course. And furthermore I can easily withstand childish attacks like yours in order to express my opinion. The person I was replying to was suggesting he was "taken aback and hurt" by the objections raised, and frankly I'm of the opinion that "if you can't take the heat..."

So keep firing away if you like, Squid2k1, it lets me know that my opinion is at least heard.



Michael Grant
12GB Green
080000266

> It is also illegal to intentionally support someone else's illegal activity. You are clearly intelligent enough to know that illegal activity would occur on your Napigator link. So arguments like "what people do with music they download from me is their business"

Take a comparison to a handgun and you know why the US of A is such a strange country to us europeans

Frank van Gestel

>>It is also illegal to intentionally support someone else's illegal activity....
Take a comparison to a handgun and you know why the US of A is such a strange country to us europeans

Touche'. I'm with you---although our Constitution makes change in that area very difficult.


Michael Grant
12GB Green
080000266

So you're absolutely convinced that a Napster-like service is going to be used overwhelmingly for legal purposes? Uh-huh.

If he lives in the US, he doesn't have to be. He only has to - by virtue of Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (464 US 417 / 1984) - prove that there EXISTS a legal use for it.

If he lives outside the US, he is free to ignore US copyright at his leisure.

The courts have come down against Napster, even if the word isn't final yet.

Any court which DOES come down on Napster obviously hasn't read the very clear decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, and it will obviously go that far, if need be, so that they can reaffirm that which they have already stated.

D

If he lives in the US, he doesn't have to be. He only has to - by virtue of Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (464 US 417 / 1984) - prove that there EXISTS a legal use for it.

Well, I think that's oversimplifying the case, since it that precedent is not considered to be completely applicable.

But let me grant you that point anyway. There's still a problem here in that the ruling you've quoted is really a ruling about a particular technology, not a person, company, or organization that is using it. If Napster wins that point, all it means is that it can still build the software and release it.

But Napster can still be attacked for hosting a user database. That's one problem with the Napster model, is that it is not truly "decentralized", because somewhere information about the users on the net has to be centrally collected and stored.

Likewise, any individual or organization that is setting up a "MP3 sharing system" is also target for scrutiny and possible prosecution.

And really that's what we're talking about here. Look, guys, clearly I'm not going to stop people from taking MP3s from this Napigator server that they don't have legal right to. But someone on this board promoted something which is in my opinion illegal, and honestly I would like to suggest that this bulletin board should be "clean" of such things. You can easily tell me to "mind your own business"; but when one's intentions and plans are posted on this forum, they become everyone's business.

And finally let me say that I really do believe that everyone here loves the Empeg for one primary reason, because it allows them to listen to music they already own in a new an innovative way. Whether some of us choose to go the road of Napster-ism or not is a secondary thing.

If he lives outside the US, he is free to ignore US copyright at his leisure.

Good point, although most countries represented in this board do have similar copyright protection. So pick the laws of your country and change the argument accordingly.



Michael Grant
12GB Green
080000266

> But Napster can still be attacked for hosting a user database.

This database you are referring to is nothing more than a collection of people sharing the same interest. If Napster would be prosecuted, They must also shut down all online auction sites, as everybody knows that most of the stuff that is sold there is actually stolen.

I'm only relating facts here, so don't blame me for that last "opinion"

Frank van Gestel

I support the napster server that is being run and I will gladly share my music with the freinds I have made on this BBS. I do not believe this is illegal. Making copies of your friends music (or movies) is not illegal. This is a private sharing ring not public which I believe is why Napster is being sued.

Alex Lear

I do not believe this is illegal.

Belief has nothing to do with it. An individual is either breaking the law or not breaking the law, regardless of the individual's moral stance on a given issue.

Of course, history is full of examples of people breaking the law in order to stand up for their beliefs. Sometimes they are right to do so, and sometimes they are wrong to do so. Depends on the situation.

Making copies of your friends music (or movies) is not illegal.

I thought it was. I thought that's where the line was drawn. I'm going to have to go back and read the AHRA again and see what it says on that point.

___________
Tony Fabris

Tony,
When I said I believe, I was reffering to the fact that I am not 100% sure, not that I feel piracy is okay.

And yes, making copies of copyrighted material is okay. You have a right to make a copy of copyrighted material and give it to a friend. I "believe" this is Napster's main defense in there battle.


Alex Lear

I've got a crate full of albums which I had accumulated over the years prior to Compact Disks being widely available, and I'm certain that I'm not alone in this dubious distinction. A non-trivial portion of them I've never been able to find on CD; this might mean that they were never released on CD (I don't know), or it might mean that they are out of print, or possibly, I didn't look diligently enough. In any case, I've paid for the privilege of listening to them. Like most people who bought albums, I did so because I enjoyed the performance. I'd like to continue to enjoy those performances - playing from my empeg.

As I understand it, there was a supreme court decision (years ago?) regarding recording. The gist of which is that you should be allowed to transcribe from one media format to another, and not be in violation of copyright law. I could be wrong about this; and if so, I'm certain someone will correct me. None the less, I should be allowed to record the performances for which I've paid to enjoy in a media format suitable to the reproduction technology. This is not at issue here. What is at issue is whether I own an officially sanctioned and duly taxed copy of said performance. I can honestly say I own a number of such copies; but lack the means to record it into the desired format (mp3).

So, let's say I 'bump' into someone who happens to own one of the albums I'm looking for on CD, we could trade albums for a day or two. Is this Illegal? On the surface, I would think not; after all, I've paid for my album and, presumably, the other person has paid for their CD. It could be argued that I've not paid for the same 'quality'* of recording as this other individual. But that is a whole other argument which has been hashed over (ad nauseum) in the 78RPM/8-Track/Cassette/Reel-Reel/LP arguments - long ago.

Suppose, instead of trading copies of a particular album, I ask this other person to rip/encode his CD copy. Is that illegal? Again, I don't have any reason to believe so. We both have paid for our copies of the same album.

Suppose, one final time, this other person wants this common album title in cassette format, and does not have the means to do so, but I do. They rip/encode, I record to cassette - we trade media, and go about our day to day lives. Have we violated copyright law? Again, I don't have a good reason to believe so.

I can't put my 'big 10 inch' record of my favorite blues into the 'LP drive' on my PC to rip/encode it into mp3 - those 'LP drives' just don't exist for a PC.

It's not so clear cut.

*) The issue of quality is not too different from the Chevy/Chrysler/Ford, Coke/Pepsi/RC, Burger King/McDonald's/Wendy's, etc. arguments - when all is said and done, they are still vehicles, colas and hamburgers - it's just that they are perceived differently.

And yes, making copies of copyrighted material is okay. You have a right to make a copy of copyrighted material and give it to a friend. I "believe" this is Napster's main defense in there battle.

AFAIK, this is considered fair use in most European jurisdictions. I will have to check with my judge friend for Croatia.

Anyway, guys, one of the problems is possibility that empeg the company, because of RIAA-whipped anti-Napster, anti-MP3 hysteria, be automatically branded as 'piracy friendly' because of mere mentioning of alleged piracy tool on BBS devoted to its product, official or not. Granted, one could argue that one has to draw a line somewhere, but please let's not do that by puting our friends@emped at risk. (The argument here could follow that on copying from empeg, so let's not reiterate it....)

BTW, I use CDNOW samples to hear how an album I don't have sounds, but I would not feel cheating anyone if I used Napster for that. I end up buying CD anyway. Heck, I end up buying book I borrowed, read and liked!

Cheers!

Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Zagreb, Croatia
Q#5196, MkII#80000376, 18GB green

Another thought - Suppose a friend lends me one of their CD's saying, "You gotta check this out - It's great stuff!" I listen to it - am I now in violation of copyright law? I don't own the CD I just listened to.

Agreed.

Let's not put Empeg at risk.

Oh man - this is absurd. Are there really guys out there who haven't got material on their empeg which they borrowed from a friend? Have you never read a borrowed book?

Of course we don't want to drag empeg the company into the crap that's flying around about Napster, we just want to listen to music.

Of course it's absurd!

Where do you draw the line, and when have you crossed it?

Are there really guys out there who haven't got material on their empeg which they borrowed from a friend?

Uuuh, yeah - everything on my machine is ripped from my own licensed originals. Is this some kind of record?

Have you never read a borrowed book?

Yeah, but my wife stopped that after we got married.

One of the few remaining Mk1 owners... #00015

Your prejudging that is illegal, there hasn't been a ruling yet. It is legal until it is not. The money for Napster came from somewhere if you read the site he states that there is no problem with getting financial monies to operate. Strange as it may seem some corporation is fronting monies for it. Somebody is making money off of it or as history shows it wouldn't exist long.
As it stands it is legal and can be done.

#090000695 Mk2 BLUE 12Gig

Oh man - this is absurd. Are there really guys out there who haven't got material on their empeg which they borrowed from a friend? Have you never read a borrowed book?

Of course I read borrowed books and listen to borrowed CDs (I just said I buy those I like - I simply like to have them on my shelf :) I agree that the situation with 'intellectual property protection' is absurd (more in USA than Europe: both practices you mention are legal in, say, Germany, AFAIK), but I don't see how we can help it.

Of course we don't want to drag empeg the company into the crap that's flying around about Napster, we just want to listen to music.

That's all I asked: let's not endanger Empeg. But really, as I said, we have already argued this to death when discussing copying from empeg issue, so let's just live it here. Those of us using Napster have 'bootstrap' address to their private ring, perhaps some more private mail on the topic will be exchanged, nobody will be sued even by most greedy RIAA lawyers (who don't give a damn that they are probably damaging their employer's profits by those insane suits), so all is well.

Cheers!

Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Zagreb, Croatia
Q#5196, MkII#80000376, 18GB green

[qoute]Making copies of your friends music (or movies) is not illegal.

I thought it was. I thought that's where the line was drawn. I'm going to have to go back and read the AHRA again and see what it says on that point.
[/quote]

Only if you charge money does it become illegal.


#090000695 Mk2 BLUE 12Gig

It's not so clear cut.

All your points are nicely made. A good post, xavyer.

Let's muddy the waters a bit more. Suppose I have an album called "Pass in Review", a recording of a parade in England in 1962. I got that album by haunting estate sales on the internet, and I can just about promise you that you cannot find a copy of it for sale anyplace in the world today.

Am I violating copyright law by making a CDR of that album and giving it to my 1963 high school band teacher (yeah, I really am that old!)? Probably I am. But under what conceivable circumstances am I causing harm to anybody or any entity by doing so?

This isn't really a "Suppose". It accurately describes what is to my knowledge the only music piracy I have ever done. Under the circumstances I don't feel the least bit remorseful, and in fact would be very pleased to pay serious money for a CD professionally remastered from the original tapes, but that simply is not an option.

Do you suppose RIAA is going to come after me now after this confession? :-)

Oops, I forgot -- I also sent tfabris a copy of one of the tracks from that album. I guess that makes me a double pirate. Tony, watch out that they don't come after you too!

tanstaafl.



"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"

While the copyright infringement arguments rage on (elsewhere); it may be energy well spent (on our part) to set our own policy. What do _we_ think should be the policy? Maybe (worthy of discussion) the best course of action is to add an entry in the FAQ delineating what is considered 'acceptable' regarding music trading. Spell out where 'the line' is drawn (as clearly as possible), and when it is crossed. It may be that, having and enforcing such a policy, would be the necessary and sufficient requirements to deflect any future claims of 'copyright infringement'. Then again, maybe not; but it's certainly worth discussing.

FWIW, there has been some excellent craftsmanship from the 'mix masters' of the board; and I, for one, would not want to be denied the fruits of their labor. Technically, though, a 'mix' skirts dangerously close (I think) to 'copyright infringement'; enough so, that it would be difficult to decide which side of 'the line' it lands on.

What do we decide?

What do _we_ think should be the policy? ... Spell out where 'the line' is drawn (as clearly as possible), and when it is crossed.

I can't presume to speak for other people, but to me the line is absolute and crystal clear: If I take somebody's copyrighted material, copy that material and give it to somebody else without compensating the owner; or if I accept copyrighted material without compensating the owner, then I am stealing.

This applies to music, software, art, printed materials -- you name it. Barring extraordinary circumstances (see my previoius post about "Pass in Review") I don't do it.

Others may see things differently but to my mind there is no doubt or ambiguity involved.

I'm sorry if I sound "holier than thou" but this topic does press one of my hot buttons. :-)

tanstaafl.

"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"

I think even RIAA (reluctantly) agrees that recording your LP of CD on cassete to listen in your car is OK (as long as somebody else is not listening to the original LP at the same time - presumably one should coordinate listening timetables with one's spouse and kids :) It is quite logical that digitizing it into MP3 format should also be OK. If so, it should also be OK to obtain the said MP3 encoding by other means, as long as one has paid the royalty originally (as xavyer describes). However, using some perversion of logic lawyers are prone to invent, MP3.com is barred to provide exactly that service, i.e. providing the users with MP3 encodings of CDs they can prove they own. The argument mentions computers not being recording devices (implying, presumably, the comparative ease with which computer files are copied en masse as opposed to, say, audio cassettes - never mind the fact that MP3.com was streaming your copyrighted music, not offering downloads).

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that logic does not apply, corporate financial strenght does (which does not invalidate Doug's definition of the line). I would really like to be able to pay to authors directly, but that has also been discussed to death.

Cheers!

Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Zagreb, Croatia
Q#5196, MkII#80000376, 18GB green

Am I violating copyright law by making a CDR of that album and giving it to my 1963 high school band teacher

Unforch, yes you would under copyright law as it (used?) to exist in the UK. The copyright is established at the point of creation of the work, and exists for a number of years (50? I forget) until it falls into the public domain, at which point it cannot be re-copyrighted, and may be used by all. During the period of cover, for you to copy this to a friend (and even though in this case you gave it away for no gain) means you made a copy without the explicit permission of the original holder, and you are therefore breaking the law.

Do you suppose RIAA is going to come after me now after this confession?

"Nee nar nee nar nee nar..." (blue and red flashing lights outside front door)



One of the few remaining Mk1 owners... #00015

(Loud, rousing round of applause from the audience)



One of the few remaining Mk1 owners... #00015

I don't really want to get into the argument but if you'd like to understand the Napster side of it I encourage you to read the interview with the Napster lawyer that was in Wired.

I'd be interested in a similar link that distills the RIAA side of the argument.

-Dylan

Indeed, the legal line is 'crystal clear'; what is not clear is the BBS' policy regarding posts of the calibre similar to the one which started this thread. Although, I didn't state this clearly; this was what I had intended with the 'What do _we_ think should be the policy? ... Spell out where 'the line' is drawn (as clearly as possible), and when it is crossed.' comment.

what is not clear is the BBS' policy regarding posts of the calibre similar to the one which started this thread. Although, I didn't state this clearly; this was what I had intended with the 'What do _we_ think should be the policy? ... Spell out where 'the line' is drawn (as clearly as possible), and when it is crossed.'

The important thing is: what does PaulH think? He owns and operates the BBS, so his decisions in the matter would be the final ones.

In the private moderators-only forum on the BBS, Paul stated that he would like to officially non-endorse posts of this nature. The plan is to create an official "terms of use" statement which includes this information. That document has not been created yet, so no further mention had been made of it so far. Dionysus and I have offered to help create this document, however it will not be made with our personal opinions of the BBS usage- it'll be Paul's policies only.

In my opinion, it hasn't been a problem on the BBS so far, and this thread was only a hint of it possibly becoming a problem. So there's really nothing to panic about, and it's not a big deal. But just a heads-up: It is possible that posts of this nature might not be allowed in the future.

Note that when I say "posts of this nature" I'm referring to posts describing exactly where/how to download copyrighted material. The other posts in this thread, discussing the various legal and moral implications of copyright, law, and MP3 technology, will of course continue to be encouraged and supported.

There's a fine line to be drawn, of course. What about PaulWay's mixes? And the test tracks by A.P.P.? Discuss...

___________
Tony Fabris

There's a fine line to be drawn, of course. What about PaulWay's mixes? And the test tracks by A.P.P.? Discuss...

Or don't... Personally, I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with this whole thread and would much rather see it die a quick death. The issues being discussed have been beaten to smithereens many many times before (elsewhere) and I think it's highly unlikely that we can add anything worthwhile to the debate. At the same time, every additional post is bringing more attention to the one mention of mp3 trading on this BBS (that I'm aware of).

I agree completely that the policy is entirely up to PaulH and I'm sure he can make his mind up without everybody else pontificating extensively on the matter.

Regards,
Borislav