Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday October 12 2019, @03:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the trying-to-be-clever dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1337

Get the popcorn.

New blockchain-based music streaming service Audius is a copyright nightmare

New startup Audius says its blockchain-based music streaming service is the solution that finally pays attention to indie artists' needs. It's also full of pirated material.

Audius' website says "music platforms were at their best when they listened to what artists and fans wanted - not corporations or major labels" and that uploaded tracks can "never be censored or removed." TechCrunch called Audius' blockchain move its "secret sauce," while Yahoo finance said it is "adequately addressing the most pressing needs within the industry." But one of the most pressing problems in music right now is copyright. Audius contains infringing material — such as an unlicensed version of Ariana Grande and Iggy Azalea's "Problem" — that, if its promotional materials are right, the company cannot remove.

[...] "They say 'We don't have the ability to deplatform you or censor you.' What I hear when I read that is, 'It's going to be real difficult for us to take down anything that you put up,'" says Kevin Casini, a professor of entertainment law at the Quinnipiac School of Law in Connecticut. "They're trying to speak as if they're talking to people who are afraid of this bogeyman intermediary. And they're also saying, 'Hey, this is a new spot where you can, at least for a brief amount of time, upload something, and we're not going to look at it and see what it is.' It seems that they know this is something that is going to happen quickly for them, and they're signaling and advertising to the people that actually know what they're saying, which is: 'You can come here and do it.'"

[...] But the problem is, all of the things Audius says it's solving with the blockchain — a more direct line between fans and artists, discovery, self-monetizing — can be done without the blockchain. In fact, this is being done without the blockchain on Bandcamp and Patreon, among others.

[...] "On the surface, a lot of people think, 'blockchain is perfect for this,'" says Jack Spallone, senior product manager at ConsenSys. "Not quite. If [the music industry] could use Excel really well, it might not even be an issue."

Audius is trying to avoid SoundCloud's copyright issues by not hosting the user-uploaded content itself. Its open-source protocol, built on blockchain, means that the responsibility of hosting and making uploaded content available is spread out among people who register as node operators. They say this method should protect them from liability and the claws of major labels. This is actually an open question. Copying and distribution initiated by the user but carried out by a system has insulated some companies in the past, but it has not been a sufficient argument for others.

[...] Whether this business model holds up in court or not, lawsuits from major publishers or labels could easily wipe out Audius' capital. And if you're buried with lawsuits, you have no money for anything else. It remains to be seen how labels and other rights holders will react to Audius, which has, in a short time, become saturated with infringing material.

[...] Even if Audius isn't directly liable for infringement, it can still be held secondarily liable if a court finds it promotes "its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement."

Experts are skeptical about whether being on the blockchain is enough to protect Audius from washing their hands of bad actors. Historically, services like Grokster used similar arguments. After all, Grokster didn't host any material; it only allowed the means for people to share files with each other. But it lost that fight in the Supreme Court, and it shut down in 2005. "That's what all the early peer to peer services said too and it didn't super work out for them," says John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Sunday October 13 2019, @12:00AM (19 children)

    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Sunday October 13 2019, @12:00AM (#906461) Journal
    This isn't a mail room. The state can order a server be unplugged, they do it all the time. Having a server with some legal content doesn't stop them as long as there's illegal content. They do it all the time. Ask Kim Dot Com.

    There's no freedom of speech issues that when you are the conduit of illegal content.

    --
    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 13 2019, @12:28AM (18 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 13 2019, @12:28AM (#906475)

    There's no freedom of speech issues that when you are the conduit of illegal content.

    Sure there are; it's just that our government ignores the "shall make no law" portion of the first amendment entirely.

    • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Sunday October 13 2019, @12:43AM (17 children)

      by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Sunday October 13 2019, @12:43AM (#906480) Journal
      Freedom of speech has several limitations. Defamation, death threats, harassment, hate speech, none of these are protected speech, and since it's the states and not the feds that control criminal laws in each state, and the 1st amendment only limits the feds from passing such laws, you're wrong as a matter of law.
      --
      SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
      • (Score: 1) by zion-fueled on Sunday October 13 2019, @12:55AM

        by zion-fueled (8646) on Sunday October 13 2019, @12:55AM (#906484)

        Think "hate speech" is still good there and defamation/harassment have to be proved in court. Someone's copyrighted work is a much easier battle.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 13 2019, @01:20AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 13 2019, @01:20AM (#906486)

        Freedom of speech has several limitations.

        In utter defiance of the Constitution, mind you. The First Amendment only has such limitations in the eyes of the courts, which are the very same courts that approved of Japanese internment camps and other atrocities. They can be wrong, and here, they are wrong. "No law" means no law. It can't be more clear than that. If someone doesn't want that to be the case, the proper procedure is to amend the Constitution.

        hate speech

        Even under the US's insane legal system, hate speech is not a thing.

        and the 1st amendment only limits the feds from passing such laws, you're wrong as a matter of law.

        That used to be the case, but we have the 14th amendment.

        • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Sunday October 13 2019, @01:04PM

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Sunday October 13 2019, @01:04PM (#906597) Journal
          14th amendment doesn't apply in such cases. Ask anyone convicted of distributing kiddie porn how their 1st amendment rights arguments worked out.
          --
          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday October 13 2019, @02:30AM (2 children)

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday October 13 2019, @02:30AM (#906499) Journal

        Speech is speech, content is irrelevant, being "wrong as a matter of law" is why we need technology to defeat the censors. Society is inadequate to protect our rights.

        Anyway, any judge who intentionally misreads "no law" should be removed from the bench immediately.

        *sigh* It's such a stupid thing to argue over. Hopefully somebody develops the technology the can render the issue moot and shut the tyrants down.

        --
        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
        • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Sunday October 13 2019, @01:01PM (1 child)

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Sunday October 13 2019, @01:01PM (#906596) Journal
          States rights means that individual states are free to pass their own laws. That's why every state has its own criminal code, and why what's legal in one state may be criminal in another.

          To people who live in a country where only the federal government can make criminal laws it seems strange, but that's the way it is in the USA.

          Has nothing to do with judges misinterpreting anything - the system was set up that way. It's why individual states can pass gun control laws, have different rules for murder cases man slaughter vs criminal negligence , etc . It's also why lawyers need to be licensed separately in each state they practice law in - the laws very by state.

          --
          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday October 13 2019, @04:50PM

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday October 13 2019, @04:50PM (#906654) Journal

            The judges are not important to me on the matter of censorship. I can't do anything about their corruption. It makes all arguments about law absolutely meaningless. All they do is breed disrespect. Only technology (p2p, ad hoc mesh networks not tethered to the ISP, working encryption, etc) can overrule them and all others who believes that censorship is a good thing. We have to *terminate their command*

            --
            La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 13 2019, @04:56AM (10 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 13 2019, @04:56AM (#906535)

        since it's the states and not the feds that control criminal laws in each state, and the 1st amendment only limits the feds from passing such laws, you're wrong as a matter of law.

        However, The Fourteenth Amendment [wikipedia.org] says otherwise, and applies those restrictions to the states as well.

        As such, it's you who is wrong as a matter of law.

        N.B. IANAL

        • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Sunday October 13 2019, @12:52PM (9 children)

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Sunday October 13 2019, @12:52PM (#906594) Journal
          And yet states have criminalized all those things you say are protected by the 1st amendment. You can't get around that fact no matter how much hand waving you do.

          Try making death threats and claiming that it's protected speech under the 1st amendment. Come on, we all need a good laugh once in a while. Or you can distribute kiddie porn and try to claim that is protected under the 1st amendment. I wonder why people go to jail for that if what you claim is true. Maybe you should be their lawyer?

          Seriously, objective reality is a bitch, your arguments are wrong on their face, but feel free to educate all those prosecutors who brought cases against people making death threats, or distributing kiddie porn, of how wrong they are.

          --
          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 13 2019, @10:10PM (8 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 13 2019, @10:10PM (#906737)

            And yet states have criminalized all those things you say are protected by the 1st amendment.

            What things might those be? You have me confused with a different AC.

            I said, in response to you post (quoted here for your convenience):

            since it's the states and not the feds that control criminal laws in each state, and the 1st amendment only limits the feds from passing such laws, you're wrong as a matter of law.

            However, The Fourteenth Amendment [wikipedia.org] says otherwise, and applies those restrictions to the states as well.

            As such, it's you who is wrong as a matter of law.

            N.B. IANAL

            And by the way, where did you get your law degree?
            https://employment.law.tulane.edu/articles/history-of-law-the-fourteenth-amendment [tulane.edu]
            https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3880&context=ndlr [nd.edu]
            http://www.proadvocate.org/1st-and-14th-amendment-defined/ [proadvocate.org]
            https://news.yahoo.com/10-huge-supreme-court-cases-14th-amendment-105017296.html [yahoo.com]
            https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-First-Amendment-apply-to-state-and-local-laws?share=1 [quora.com]
            https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment [cornell.edu]

            • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Sunday October 13 2019, @11:28PM (1 child)

              by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Sunday October 13 2019, @11:28PM (#906767) Journal
              You're still wrong. Individual states have their own criminal codes. This includes criminalizing things like distributing of child pornography, despite the 1st and14th amendments. Just because you think the law should work in a certain way doesn't make it so. Show me where distribution of child pornography is protected speech. Oh wait, you can't.

              BTW, I've argued and won criminal cases in real court (not lower level municipal court, which is the junior leagues) as wall as human rights tribunals, and will be gearing up for another human rights case in the coming months. What's your experience that anyone should believe your opinion is worth anything?

              --
              SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 14 2019, @12:00AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 14 2019, @12:00AM (#906777)

                You're still wrong. Individual states have their own criminal codes. This includes criminalizing things like distributing of child pornography, despite the 1st and14th amendments.

                Right, because child porn [wikipedia.org] is legal under Federal law. Yeah. Not so much.

                First Amendment free-speech protections are not, and have *never* been, absolute.

                From where did you get your law degree? You make these claims (I've relied on jurisprudence from the courts and documented them) but you haven't backed your claims up with some, you know, *evidence*. How about one recent court case that claims the 14th Amendment doesn't require state to respect individual constitutional rights.

                Come now, oh experienced litigator, just one case. Pretty please.

                That states have their own criminal codes isn't any kind of revelation to anyone (except you, perhaps?). Nor does it invalidate either the 14th Amendment or the supremacy clause [wikipedia.org].

                Just because you think the law should work in a certain way doesn't make it so. Show me where distribution of child pornography is protected speech. Oh wait, you can't.

                Uhh...When did I make such a statement? Or even one that bears resemblance to such a statement. Oh wait. You can't.

                What's more, I'm not sure what your point WRT child porn might be.
                Are you advocating for the recorded abuse of children? And no, that's not a "think of the children" argument at all.

                Whether it's child porn (children are unable to provide *legal* consent, so all child porn is, by definition, non-consensual) or non-consensual distribution (whether the initial recording was consensual or not) of *any* depictions of persons, child or adult are, in fact illegal in the United States.

                Do you think those laws should be changed? If so, why and in what manner?

                I've argued and won criminal cases in real court (not lower level municipal court, which is the junior leagues) as wall as human rights tribunals, and will be gearing up for another human rights case in the coming months. What's your experience that anyone should believe your opinion is worth anything?

                Given your apparent lack of understanding constitutional jurisprudence, I'd be leery of hiring you to do anything WRT any legal issues I might have.

                I'd also be leery of hiring me, as I'm not a lawyer -- as I pointed out myself in my initial post.

                So I'll ask one more time. From which law school do you have a degree? I thought so.

                However, You're adorable! Do you do parties? It'd just be a small honorarium, but you could have as much food and drink as you wanted, while blathering your uninformed bullshit. Good times!

            • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Sunday October 13 2019, @11:33PM (5 children)

              by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Sunday October 13 2019, @11:33PM (#906768) Journal
              BTW, your links are worthless in the face of the fact that free speech is curtailed regularly by the courts, deeming threats, kiddie poem, and other communications illegal. The courts interpret the law, and their interpretation means that you are wrong. They are the experts. You're not.
              --
              SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 14 2019, @12:28AM (4 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 14 2019, @12:28AM (#906782)

                BTW, your links are worthless in the face of the fact that free speech is curtailed regularly by the courts, deeming threats, kiddie poem, and other communications illegal. The courts interpret the law, and their interpretation means that you are wrong. They are the experts. You're not.

                Which interpretation says that the 14th Amendment doesn't require states to respect individual rights protected by the Constitution? By whom?

                As that's what I said. And nothing more. Please, take your time. I don't want you to feel rushed or anything.

                Please provide specific cases. You know, like I did.
                Here's one for you: Lawrence v. Texas [wikipedia.org]:

                The Court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Lawrence invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized sodomy between consenting adults acting in private, whatever the sex of the participants.

                Or how about Texas v. Johnson [wikipedia.org]? There, the Supreme Court found:

                The Court rejected "the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled 'speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea," but acknowledged that conduct may be "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments."[8] In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, the court asked whether "an intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it."[9]
                [emphasis added]

                Or perhaps W. Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette [wikipedia.org], where the Supreme Court (on First Amendment grounds, through the 14th Amendment) invalidated a state law requiring students to recite the "Pledge of Allegiance" [wikipedia.org] in class or risk expulsion.

                So. Even though I had *already* supplied significant evidence that the 14th amendment requires states to respect constitutional protections, those are a few more for you.

                I invite and encourage you to attempt to refute these arguments. I do, however, request that you provide some *actual evidence* for your argument, as I have.

                I'll be here, whenever you would like to respond!

                Ciao Bella!

                • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Monday October 14 2019, @12:37AM (1 child)

                  by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Monday October 14 2019, @12:37AM (#906789) Journal
                  Get over it already. I've given examples where the first amendment is overridden by the operation of state criminal laws. Only needed one example to show that the 1st amendment is not a blanket protection of freedom of speech. Didn't bother reading past the first line of your latest reply because it's obvious you think your opinions are worth more than real-world facts.
                  --
                  SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 14 2019, @03:21AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 14 2019, @03:21AM (#906823)

                    Only needed one example to show that the 1st amendment is not a blanket protection of freedom of speech.

                    Who said that that it was? Certainly not me. The entirety of my point was:
                    The Fourteenth Amendment (via the due process clause [wikipedia.org]) requires the several states to respect the restrictions on government action enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Full Stop.

                    You then went off on some ridiculous rant that isn't supported by *any* jurisprudence.

                    Where *exactly* did I say that "the 1st amendment is a blanket protection of freedom of speech"? Read through the thread. You won't find it, because it isn't there.

                    As such, it seems like you're arguing with someone other than me. Which is odd, since you keep replying to *me*.

                    If you'd bothered to actually read what I wrote (and not just my last response, all of them, rather than making unfounded assumptions) you might have figured that out. Then again, perhaps you have some sort of comprehension issue?

                    Carry on. Reading your posts while you make a fool of yourself isn't as much fun as other things, but it is mildly amusing. Please, don't stop.

                • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Monday October 14 2019, @12:40AM (1 child)

                  by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Monday October 14 2019, @12:40AM (#906792) Journal
                  Scanned part of your reply, and it's obvious you can't differentiate between civil and criminal law. The law requiring students to recite the pledge of allegiance wasn't criminal law. Sheesh, get a clue - there's a big difference between civil and criminal laws.
                  --
                  SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 14 2019, @03:28AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 14 2019, @03:28AM (#906826)

                    Scanned part of your reply, and it's obvious you can't differentiate between civil and criminal law. The law requiring students to recite the pledge of allegiance wasn't criminal law. Sheesh, get a clue - there's a big difference between civil and criminal laws.

                    Actually, it *was* part of the West Virginia criminal code (W. Va. Code § 1734 (1941)) [wikipedia.org], and:

                    Failure to comply was considered "insubordination" and dealt with by expulsion. Readmission was denied by statute until the student complied. This expulsion, in turn, automatically exposed the child and their parents to criminal prosecution; the expelled child was considered "unlawfully absent" and could be proceeded against as a delinquent, and their parents or guardians could be fined as much as $50 and jailed up to thirty days.

                    You're grasping at straws here. It's really sad, but my tour [xkcd.com] is over. Good luck. You're gonna need it!