Inquiry Into RIAA's Piracy Crackdown Tactics

MongooseCN writes "Sen. Norm Coleman started an inquiry to check the RIAA's tactics on attacking online music swappers. He believes the RIAA's tactics may not be taking into consideration the damage they do to innocent people. It's good to know that someone remembered people in the US have Rights." As a former roadie, Senator Coleman doesn't oppose file sharing penalities, he merely wants to make sure the punishment fits the crime.

Comments

So what now?

[Tirel]

Why did they have to wait so long? Couldn't this have been done _before_ so many people lost their money/got expelled. Do we really need to make so much noise before they make things happen? All in all, I'm glad they finally got their act together, but I worry that the only reason they're doing this is because the RIAA has something else planned.. Apparently, you only have rights if you belong to a group big enough to actually influence politics.

Re:So what now?

[CptChipJew]

Couldn't this have been done _before_ so many people lost their money/got expelled. Do we really need to make so much noise before they make things happen?

[metaphor] Street lines aren't repainted until there are a few major accidents on the road. It's an unfortunate fact of life. [/metaphor]

Re:So what now?

[tommertron]

If the inquiry were to find something consequential, wouldn't the people being attacked by the RIAA have some grounds for a civil suit? Heck, even the support of a senator, if it doesn't go any further, might give good support for a class action lawsuit against the RIAA.

I could see class action cases started by lawyers working pro bono for recovery of settlement money, if it was shown to be coerced, or punitive damages for abuse to privacy, or even harm to minors (as many on the RIAA's list appear to be minors.)

When are we going to see a civil suit against the RIAA?

tommer

Re:So what now?

[gilmour14]

If the RIAA has a team of lawyers powerful enough to issue 871 subpoenas in a few days, I'm pretty sure they have the power to squash a couple of mediocre lawyers working pro bono.

Re:So what now?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

You have to understand the our founding fathers designed the government to be a little slow, on purpose.

In the Middle Ages, Lord would declare just about anything illegal that vaguely represented a threat to their power. Hell, before the American Revolution, England was so afraid of America becoming self-suffiecient (and thus not needing them anymore) they forbade metal tools from being imported or produced here.

Having been on the recieving end of such treatment, our founding fathers decided that government should only tackle the bleedingly obvious problems. You can't put someone away for what the might do, only what they have done, or were in the process of doing.

Frankly, seeing the mess that "preventative" lawmaking makes versus "reactive" lawmaking, I'd take "reactive" any day. The both have problems. But at least reactive lawmaking eventually fixes them. Preventative lawmaking ends up causing unforseen problems of its own.

It may sound like I have my head in the sand, but look at the track record of the Prohibition and the War on Drugs. Now compare that to the hand off (until it was mature) approach congress took with the Internet. Somewhere in the middle would by Radio and Television, which needed regulation from the start because all parties are competing for limited chunks of the broadcast spectrum.

Re:So what now?

[CptChipJew]

"Me failing English? That's unpossible!"

-Ralph Wiggum

Re:So what now?

[PerspexAvenger]

I'm not sure that's needed - I'm envisaging something like an enormous mail merge....

*clippy* You look like you're writing a subpoena. Would you like some help with that?

Re:So what now?

[mumblestheclown]

I'm confused - are you saying that people shouldn't have lost their money / been expelled over blatant, often industrial-scale copyright infringement and doubtless simultaneous violation of a whole host of AUPs and ethical codes?

Look - the problem is still 99% piracy and 1% RIAA overreach. it's nice that somebody is looking at the 1%, but don't forget that the major problem still is piracy.

remember the slashdot excuse pre-crackdown: go after the offenders, not the technology. support going after the offenders.

Re:So what now?

[WhiteWolf666]

I'm confused - are you saying that people shouldn't have lost their money / been expelled over blatant, often industrial-scale copyright infringement and doubtless simultaneous violation of a whole host of AUPs and ethical codes?

Look - the problem is still 99% piracy and 1% RIAA overreach. it's nice that somebody is looking at the 1%, but don't forget that the major problem still is piracy.

I'm saying that the government should define the problem away. Copyright is a limited monopoly assigned by the government to artists for the purposes of promoting the arts. IMHO, copyright should be 2-3 years. Most P2P copyright infringement would vanish. Me, I'm extreme enough to say that there shouldn't be any copyright past 6 months, but thats not going to happen.

Why is this not a copout? The notion of copyright was established in a different era, because of the costs associated with distribution and creation. Why would an artist produce anything if they couldn't capitalize on their works?

Now, things have changed a bit. I think artists can support themselves on concert performances. Indeed, most artists HAVE too---they don't make much from CD sales. Copyright is not something assigned by god, nor do I consider it some sort of inalienable human right. Recognize copyright for what it is----a limited MONOPOLY on a product assigned by the government.

Given that monopoly is no longer a necessary condition for the production of music, the monopoly only IMPEDES efficent economic distribution. Why? Because P2P, without cost (because distribution costs are borne by the P2P users) to artists, is the MOST efficent means of distribution currently avaliable.

If the Government eliminated copyright on music tomorrow, artists would still make music. And the world would keep spinning.

Indeed, what we would probably see would be extremely similar to what we have now----Where small and mid-level bands made their money on live performances, and large bands would make their money on live performances and sales of memorablia. Heck, if artist X produced a REALLY good album, sold it in a nice case, included a book of lyrics and information, wouldn't you buy it? I would.

Fact is, copyright on music is an outdated notion. So outdated, that technologies like Freenet WILL end it, without truely draconian government legislation. Like mandated palladium on steroids. Like banning all 'old' non-palladium computers. And I just don't see that happening.

Why won't that happen? Go look up the size of the music industry. Then look up the size of the home electronics industry. 'Nuff said

Good riddance, RIAA

Resistance is Futile.

Re:So what now?

[macdaddy357]

It is good that Senator Coleman is getting involved, but he doesn't understand some things. Copyright infringement is not theft. They are different, and file trading should not be considered copyright infringement, it's fair use. File trading networks are the new radio, and end users don't have to pay to listen to the radio. We can punish the RIAA ourselves without waiting for a Senate that unamimously passed the DMCA to do it by not buying CDs. Boycott the recording industry.

Re:So what now?

[ATMAvatar]

Every person faced with a lawsuit I've read about thus far has been forced to settle, whether they thought they were innocent or not. Piracy may be a problem, but giving the RIAA the ability to easily extort money from people at will seems worse than the problem it tries to solve, especially if you consider that the RIAA has gone after people not only for piracy, but for writing simple search engines and posting their own self-made mp3s on p2p networks.

For example, my brother has his own band and writes his own music. He's already gotten cease and desist letters for putting some of his band's music up on Kazaa. Were he to have kept the music on Kazaa, and the RIAA to follow-through with their threat, he would be forced to settle, even through he has every right to distribute those mp3s.

The big problem I see is that the RIAA's lawsuits are less about going after pirates than they are about getting as much money out of those people that probably won't fight back. The new battlecry is "We know you can't afford a legal battle with us. Fork over or perish."

Re:So what now?

[Reziac]

In addition to what gurps_npc said, doesn't the RIAA's C&D threat against your brother amount to an illegal restraint of trade?

IANAL, but my thoughts on a response: your brother should file copyright on his songs so he has clear and established rights, then take the C&D letter down to the district attorney's office, or whoever handles this sort of thing, and see if he can file a *criminal* complaint against the RIAA. That makes pursuing the case the government's job.

he's right.

[hatrisc]

though, i support file sharing, i agree with him on the fact that the punishment fits the crime. since there is no crime, no punishment. end of story.

Re:he's right.

[scottymonkeypants]

You're wrong on two counts:

• File sharing is piracy, and hence, stealing, which does indeed make it illegal.
• The punishment does not fit the crime.

The bottom line is, it is against the law to steal stuff, and pirating anything, be it software, music, or movies, is stealing. That's just the way it is.

I am, however, perfectly willing to promote and even perpetuate the robbing blind of the RIAA and the major labels until such a time as they either go out of business, or figure out that they need to start doing something a little more user friendly than the current model of price gouging and sodomy of not only the music buying public, but their artists as well.

My hope is that they just fold, because then perhaps the artists who actually matter will move toward the independent labels, you know, the ones that actually tend to care about the artists for whom they're releasing music? Yeah, I'd prefer the former, but I'll take the latter, also.

Re:he's right.

[OrangeGoo]

I'd just assert here that the fear among many musicians is that when (not if, because it will happen) the recording industry flops, there won't be any money for touring, which the musicians I know love best. Sure, they can still put on local shows, but it's expensive travelling all over the world, and the labels currently foot that bill. The labels also provide "mainstream exposure" because there are so few major labels and they are each fairly selective (though lately it would appear they're selecting the worst they can find). In a case where there are tons of independent labels, there becomes a flood of different things available - all well and good for those of us who listen, but the musicians are far less likely to be distinguished and will have a hard time finding money to tour nationally or internationally.

I don't like the RIAA or the record labels, either. Neither do most of my musician friends. But they are all worried about what happens when the labels fail, and I can understand their concerns. There's no clear-cut path for what happens next, and they're musicians, after all, not businessmen. They just want to entertain. Whether the current system works or not, it does allow them to do that, and as long as they're still able to put on national and international tours, they're not likely to turn tail from the labels.

Re:he's right.

[TheKey]

There's a thriving industry of indie music already. Most indie bands do indeed tour, at least nationally and quite a few internationally.

Re:he's right.

[Dashing Leech]

You are wrong on three accounts:

• File sharing is not illegal, unless you are violating a copyright. For instance, I can share all the files I've created or anything in the public domain.
• Sharing copyrighted files is not stealing, it is copyright infringement. This is an important distinction. Copying someone's work is not the same thing as depriving them of property, and is not handled by the same laws. At best, some people (e.g., RIAA) try to argue it is analagous to stealing, but it is not the same thing.
• Copyright infringement is generally not a crime. It generally comes under civil law, not criminal law. The RIAA is suing under civil law, not pressing charges under criminal law. (Which again, makes it distinct from stealing.) However, under certain circumstances it can become a criminal offense, usually when the violation is intentional and for profit.

Re:he's right.

[Pofy]

>Explain what copyright infringment is and why
>it's bad without using any concept of stealing or
>theft. I can't do it. I don't think you can,
>either.You cannot use the concept of paying
>people for their hard work if you enjoy the
>fruits of their labor, since not doing that is
>stealing.

Copyright ionfringement is creating a new copy of something which you are not allowed to do. That is, you gained something you should ne have been allowed to gain.

Theft has an additional part, which is that not only did you gain something, the one you stole from lost his copy of it (since there was not any copying involved creating a second copy).

In addition, copyright infringment works on non physical objects while theft works on physical ones (well, at least normally).

Finally, copyright infringement is limited in time, after a certain time (which is definately to long in my opinion right now), the copying IS suddenly allowed. If any copying would be stealing, how come it suddenly stop being theft just because the copyright expired, it is still the exact same copying.

It is also worth noticing that copyright infringment is NOT directly connected to money or value since even if there is no selling for money or other value transaction, it is STILL copyright infringement to to copy something you don't have the right to copy (even if someone holding the copyright for example is giving away copies for free which makes it very hard to claim the equality of theft in such a case, while it is still copyright infringement).

Re:he's right.

[Qzukk]

You're technically correct if you're a lawyer, but if you tell most people that file sharing is copyright infringement, not stealing, then since they don't understand what copyright infringement is, they will assume it's ok.

YOU stop it.

This entire line of reasoning has led to people who are afraid of their computers because they don't understand it, who are afraid of others because they don't understand it, and who are perfectly willing to let their government run amok because they don't understand it.

Maybe, instead of using hyperbole and calling things names they are not, if we actually educated people as to what "copyright" and "copyright infringement" are, people might actually understand. And an understanding populace might want change. I honestly have no idea what a fully informed American populace would want. Maybe they would sympathize with the back street boys and britney spears they've been force-fed, and demand the death penalty for the file-traders. But at least it would be an informed decision, not the result of the RIAA's crying or people telling them what to think.

Explain what copyright infringment is and why it's bad without using any concept of stealing or theft.

Copyright is a government-granted monopoly on the production (usually via copies of an original) and distribution of a creative work of art. Copyright infringement is attempting to compete with that production and distribution. Simple, isn't it? Originally, copyright wasn't about "access control" or "encryption", it was about who had the right to copy a given work. The DMCA (which doesn't protect copyrights at all, it protects encryption and access control methods, and if not repealed, will continue doing so long after the copyrighted work is released into the public domain - in a protected encrypted form) is just the latest in a long line of legislation and standard operating procedures that turned the copyright issue into one of locked-down corporate ownership of individuals' ideas and creations.

If you actually understood and accepted that the main costs of creating music and such are in the creation...

I thought that the major costs (at least in what the RIAA labels charge the bands) were for promotion and such. I know using a professional recording studio is pretty expensive, but I don't see how it can trump the cost of whatever passes for radio payola these days and other forms of advertising.

If you support filesharing, you support Microsoft adding whatever they want from Linux into Windows while keeping Windows proprietary.

Heh heh heh that will blow a few minds. It is the exact same thing. Well almost... the core rules governing it are the same, but the GPL is enforced with a written license, while CDs do not come with explicit instructions indicating that I cannot convert the CD into a format I can put on my ipod. (and yet, with the industry attempting to produce unrippable cd's, that seems to be what they don't want me to do)

Copyright Infringment

[linuxislandsucks]

Since legally coipyright infringment damage can only me measured in economic terms of lost sales..

How can RIAA claim any loss in salse when the people sharing files do not have the dispoable income to purchase Cds in the firs tplace?

So where is the damage, again RIAA?

Its about like RIAA's position on piracy sales outside the US in that the CDs go for about $5 or less and yet RIAA claims loss at ful price not the actual money exchanged..

to me the actual money that was exchanged is the legal monetary damage of the piracy not invented figures..

Re:Copyright Infringment

[Rhubarb Crumble]

How can RIAA claim any loss in salse when the people sharing files do not have the dispoable income to purchase Cds in the firs tplace?

mmmmmkay, they spent their last few cents on their broadband connection and huge hard drives so they can't possibly afford CDs... RIGHT.

maybe they should seek damages from the people who get the "disposable income" instead, like pizza deliverers and breweries? ;)

o me the actual money that was exchanged is the legal monetary damage of the piracy not invented figures..

true of course, but it IS non-zero. let's not kid ourselves about that.

Re:Copyright Infringment

[GammaTau]

How can RIAA claim any loss in salse when the people sharing files do not have the dispoable income to purchase Cds in the firs tplace?

Their business is based on the distribution of music and charging money for it. If someone else distributes music that is covered by the exclusive right the law has granted them (copyright), it weakens their business. It's not "one illegal download = one lost sale" as they like to think, but it's also deceptive to say "illegal downloads = no impact on business".

Illegal distribution of copyrighted material hurts the business of the corporations the RIAA presents. I don't really care of their business and I'd rather want to legalize this currently illegal distribution but that's different from saying it wouldn't hurt them.

Re:Copyright Infringment

[chrisbw]

Its about like RIAA's position on piracy sales outside the US in that the CDs go for about $5 or less and yet RIAA claims loss at ful price not the actual money exchanged..

Of course they are claiming full price, they did lose the full price... the pirated CD might only sell for $5, but since it's pirated, nothing is going to the publishing company of the music! It's an illegal copy!

Re:Copyright Infringment

[mark_lybarger]

they didn't lose the full price, they didn't loose anything other than potential to make a sale. and actually they still have that potential. the money was never theirs so the money wasn't stolen. copyright infringment does not mean loss of a sale and or money.

some people like to wear levi's jeans, and some are ok with wearing a knock-off.

Re:Copyright Infringment

[FroMan]

How can RIAA claim any loss in salse when the people sharing files do not have the dispoable income to purchase Cds in the firs tplace?

Couple things here. What makes you think you deserve something simpley because you cannot afford it? Where I come from this is wrong. If I cannot afford something, I don't get it. Second, do you truly believe that everyone who does file sharing of copyrighted material cannot afford it? I know serveral folks that make more than $50k a year who file trading. They can afford the broadband and computer to do so, sorry, you are not "unable" to afford the copyrighted material. Now you are a liar and infringing on copyrights. Thirdly, when copyrighted material is sold, it is done so for a purpose. To make money, in a legal fashion. Copyright has existed in this country since nearly the beginning for a reason.

If you do not believe the price the labels put on their media is worth it, do not buy it. Personally I find the RIAA going after individual file traders the right tactic. I don't think the wide spread dragnets are right, but suing individuals who they know are trading their content is perfectly viable. Those people are breaking the law.

Re:Copyright Infringment

[artemis67]

How can RIAA claim any loss in salse when the people sharing files do not have the dispoable income to purchase Cds in the firs tplace?

You're suggesting that people who can afford computers and internet connections can't afford a $15 CD?

Re:Copyright Infringment

[KingJoshi]

You're suggesting that people who can afford computers and internet connections can't afford a $15 CD?

I don't endorse copyright infringement/piracy so I don't want this to be construed the wrong way. I've done it in the past but have stopped.

Anyhow, your statment is absurd. One can allocate resources for education (computer, internet, books), housing, food, bare essentials and not any any left over for movies or music. Being able to afford a computer does not imply being able to afford $20 DVDs or $15 CDs.

RIGHTS?

[darkmayo]

The only right good ole Mericans have is the right to pay for the new Metallica.. and if they don't like it then let the fury of RIAA rain upon them!!!

oh sorry was channelling Hilary Rosen for a minute... ewww.. I feel dirty now.

What I'd be more intrested in...

[Sir Haxalot]

He believes the RIAA's tactics may not be taking into consideration the damage they do to innocent people
I'd be more intrested in questioning the legality of the RIAA's 'tactics'.

This guy earns my vote, and should earn yours too

[xThinkx]

I'm not from Minnesota, but if I was, I'd suddenly be sparked to start a massive campaigning effort for this guy.

Regardless of what side of the p2p issue you're on, you have to admit that this guy is the first Senator in a LONG time to openly investigate possible infringements on the rights of the common Joe by big business. With so many of our senators and representatives in the pockets of corporations, this man deserves the utmost respect, and if you are from Minnnesota, your vote.

Now, on to my side of the p2p battle, this is just another sign that the RIAA is eventually going to eat it for their practices. Senators hate to be wrong

well.

[Meeble]

to answer the first post - it took this long because now is the perfect opportunity for a politician to finally speak out and garner some public support for their election given the latest round of subpoena's has indicted innocent victims or third party individuals who were a matter of circumstance. It's best summed up in this paragraph:

>>> "The industry seems to have adopted a 'shotgun' approach that could potentially cause injury and harm to innocent people who may simply have been victims of circumstance, or possessed a lack of knowledge of the rules related to digital sharing of files," Coleman wrote. >>>

Before it was students etc they were filiong against and the claims were pretty justified - there wasn't much leeway for a politician to step up - now there is a distinct case to be made and popular support to be garnered from it.

Re:well.

[Blue Stone]

"Before it was students etc they were filing against and the claims were pretty justified..."

Hardly. The student who wrote a search engine; the hard-up students "cheekily" bootlegging some music, being hit for their lifesavings?
Not what I'd call "justified."
Now say that about people "pirating for profit," and I might agree.

The claims the RIAA made for damages were and are, outrageous and unjust.

Re:well.

[Meeble]

you are correct about the search enghine student, I was being vague; I apologize. I meant in the initial round of filings the sharers who were sharing 5,000 + music files there wasn't much leeway with.

unfortunately in the search engine case, there wasn't as much media hype because it simply affected only that one student. The tech world was pretty informed on it, however the 'mass sheep' were not for the most part. This case is completely different because it affects so many and is a big media story.

albeit [IMHO anyhow], the public would still be somewhat in the dark if TechTV and the like hadn't gone digging thru the legal system to find what suits the RIAA had brought up.

In the RIAA's eyes..

[MImeKillEr]

..there are no innocent people. They could give a flying flip who gets crushed under the wheels of their 'machine'.

Also, from the article:

"Theft is theft, but in this country we don't cut off your arm or fingers for stealing," said Sen. Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican who was a rock roadie in the 1960s.

And yet, all Coleman wants is to see a copy of the subpoenas & any measures the RIAA is taking to ensure that 'innocent people' aren't getting snagged.

How about doing something useful, Senator? How about imposing a cap on the amount of damages the RIAA can levy against its victims? You're not at all concerned that they're claiming damages upto $15,000 per song? Is 'Oops! I did it again' really fscking worth $15,000 to anyone?

This is just another example of a gubment windbag trying to grab some press for being the 'good guy' while not actually doing shit for his constituents.

Coleman was great up to the end of the interview

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

At the end of the article:

"I must confess, I downloaded Napster, and then Napster was found to be the wrong thing," he said. "I stopped."

So, he's a former roadie, and a Senator, and he waited until the justice declared Napster the wrong thing to stop using it? when he downloaded songs off Napster, shouldn't he have sensed that guilt that should have come from his being a former roadie, and his current position as (supposedly moral) senator?

So yeah, go Senator, but I wonder if he's not just another file swapper with a louder voice than everybody else, who tries to hide the fact behind "I recognize the very legitimate concerns about copyright infringement" statements, so as to not be labeled as a pirate by the RIAA.

a group big enough to influence... like the EFF?

[*weasel]

if you think that the RIAA planned to -stop- suing after this first round, you're awfully naive.

notice how every victory emboldens them? this last time they didn't even necessarily want to go to court, they were just looking for 2000 settlement checks, much like DirecTV.

and did the gov't finally get its act together? or did we, their constituents, finally get -our- act together?

if you want to protect your rights, how about you email your representatives and write your check to the EFF?

you can rail against the system, or you can use your power as a voter to get things done.

RIAA not understood

[pschmerg]

I think one of the reasons nothing has been done before about the RIAA's ability to walk all over people's rights is because none of the higher ups understand. The main reason why the RIAA has so much power is because the people who pass our laws don't realize they have it. Our congressmen/senators are on average in their 50s, 60, 70s. Not to stereotype too badly, but most of the older folks in the US know the basics of email, word maybe, and quicken. The way the RIAA approached the whole file sharing fiasco is similar to if someone who doesn't know much about cars takes their car to the shop to get fixed, and on top of it the mechanic slaps on $2500 of fony repairs. The way everything is now the RIAA will always be right, and the average person going up against them will lose. Bad situation, but that's the way it is.

Re:RIAA not understood

[EvilTwinSkippy]

It's called "write a letter to your Senator and Representative." You see, there is a whole lot that they do not understand. Their job is to listen to you, the people who elected them.

I can't tell you how many times on CSPAN I've heard a congressman cite a letter he/she recieved from a constituant. I have seen first hand how a letter to a Representative or a Senator can clear up some confusion about beuracratic issues.

Indeed if you ask any one of these folks who tell you that Government doesn't respond to my needs, I will bet you that 99% of them have never written to a member of Government.

As far as the $2500 car repair goes, you hit the nail on the head. The issue is cluelessness and the cure is curiosity. I can't tell you how many times my wife calling around for estimates have saved us on the order of $300 or more. (Last inspection in fact they dealer wanted $900 for a brake replacement. The local garage did it for $300.)

I'm thinking...

[miketang16]

class-action lawsuit against the RIAA by the innocent people caught in their massive web.

Fight fire with fire.

What I still find hard to believe

[hype7]

Is how the RIAA rolled Verizon. That was where things really started heading down the tubes - any idiot could walk into a courthouse, lodge a form with a court clerk and the process is started.

There should be a higher burden of proof - a judge should be looking over it. Or, you'll clog the court system, as is happening with the RIAA and it's 900+ subpoenas. It would also encourage them to go after the serious people (those making money through piracy) as opposed to the college kids and grandparents (who will normally just roll over instantly due to potential legal costs).

However, I don't think it's going to take them much longer to hit critical mass for "people fucked off". Then it'll start to get interesting again. No more Mickey Mouse Preservation Acts, etc then: they'll blow the goodwill the $$$ in politicians pockets bought them.

-- james

Show him your support

[Phoenix666]

send him a contribution, or just a kind letter thanking him for his efforts. Then explain to him that copyright infringement is not theft; it's just copyright infringement. Then if you get that far, gently suggest that content companies have bastardized the entire concept of copyright law, and that it should be done away with.

$15,000 for a copyright violation? hmmm....

[Connectmc]

Here's the new age strategy for getting rich :

1. Record/buy copyrights to a song which would otherwise sell a couple of thousand copies at most.

2. leak it out somehow, wait for those few thousand people to download it.

3. Sue these guys and recover $15,000 from them each.

4. Profit???

Much better than actually selling good songs, isnt it? Maybe this is why Britney & gang were promoted endlessly...:)

Re:This guy earns my vote, and should earn yours t

[Anonymous Coward]

Truth is, apart from this one benevolent act, Coleman is kind of a pud and is completely in the pockets of corporations, esp. ADM. He replaced Paul Wellstone who did "investigate possible infringements on the rights of the common Joe by big business." Don't delude yourself.

Bah... either way

[magsymp]

I've decided to stop swapping music files and go back to stabbing hookers.

In other news...

[Lawst]

"It will confirm that our actions are entirely consistent with the law as enacted by the U.S. Congress and interpreted by the courts," the RIAA said in a statement issued to The Associated Press.

In other news, the RIAA has cut off the hands of 75 people today in Iran for downloading Busta Rhymes songs.

In a statement issued by the RIAA in Iranian newspapers...

"It will confirm that our actions are entirely consistent with the laws as enacted by the Iranian government and interpreted by the courts". The statement continues, "Yes, we realize many of our artists publish songs that support killing policemen, and raping and beating women, but downloading copyrighted material is wrong and totally unjustified!!"

If you write to Congreeman Coleman...

[vudufixit]

Keep in mind that the form requests that Minnesotans identify themselves I suppose to let his staff triage and prioritize his email. However, that's better than a lot of congresspeople's sites, which tend to make a person feel that they don't want to hear from anyone outside of their state or district.

Re:If you write to Congreeman Coleman...

[djeaux]

Keep in mind that the form requests that Minnesotans identify themselves I suppose to let his staff triage and prioritize his email.

This demonstrates that Sen. Norm Coleman's first priority is serving his constituents.

And let's just say that my 5 minute cursory review of the RIAA website did not turn up the state in which RIAA is incorporated. I do not think it happens to be Minnesota...

Something tells me that if it really came down to an "unsuspecting grandparent" vs RIAA, Coleman would come down on granny's side. And probably so would the Court.

Perhaps we should hope that RIAA brings these cases to trial a.s.a.p. & that some "angels" fund a good legal defense. I think the outcome might be interesting: in all likelihood, RIAA would win a settlement, but in the process so alienate artists & decent-minded folks everywhere that it would destroy itself.

Dream on...

Mosquitos with a howitzer

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I'm glad to see someone asking the tough questions. The whole point of copyright law is for a company to have the means to persue others for unauthorized duplication.

Unfortunately with computer technology the very act of playback requires duplication.

The copyright law foreseeing that things are often copied on a small scale by people tossed in a clause for Fair Use. Fair Use was OK when folks copied tracks of the radio, or put together custom casettes. The problem is that people are doing this Fair Use cut and paste en masse.

We ran into the same issue when the Radio was developed. As a solution we developed compulsory licensing. Everyone who owns a radio station (and hence is easily tracked down owing to their FCC license) pays a flat fee to AASCAP or similar organizations. They also track how often the play what songs, and the compulsory licence folks divvy the spoils amoung the folks who got the most air time.

The problem with the Internet is that you don't need a license. Tracking down individual "broadcasters" is a little difficult.

Now the RIAA does have a gripe. But their hands aren't clean either. They have been pushing for exorbinately high fees for internet broadcast rights. They have also been fighting the compulsory licensing scheme for internet file sharing.

The answer has yet to be found. Grabbing congresses' attention is a good sign.

Senator Coleman (Republican - MA)

[Picass0]

Interesting that his party affiliation didn't make it into the article. If he were a democrat fighting the good fight it would have been mentioned.

Re:Coleman was great up to the end of the intervie

[TheMidget]

shouldn't he have sensed that guilt that should have come from his being a former roadie, and his current position as (supposedly moral) senator?

No. Napster was innocent until proven guilty by a court of justice. Coleman did the right thing.

Or else, all $BigCorp had to do was spread some fud about questionable legality of its competitor, and everybody would just oblige and roll over? First let's the courts decide, and only then be part of the punishment.

relevance?

[cascadingstylesheet]

Isn't this the guy ... Who, after his political opponent Paul Wellstone was killed in an airplane crash, gave his first televised interview posing against a small private plane in a hangar?

Dunno; would that be relevant, somehow? Is nobody allowed to have private planes after their political opponents die in plane crashes?

Theft is theft, copyright infringement is theft

[Rogerborg]

And so on. Interesting opinion. Unfortunately, it's incorrect.

Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun back, Dowling v. the United States: 'It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner," that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, "is an infringer of the copyright."'

I know that this is playing to the gallery, but if we're simply going to redefine terms to suit ourselves, how about try a bit of it ourselves. For example:

1. Copyright infringement becomes theft
2. Citizens - sorry, consumers - becomes suspected thieves

Then we get a go:

1. Cookies become spy-bugs
2. Closed source becomes untrustable
3. capitalism becomes plutocracy
4. republic becomes oligarchy
5. Congress person and RIAA/MPAA become whore, moron and/or mobster.

Not perhaps technically accurate, but hey, they started it.

I'm sorry... power? as a voter?

[Craig Ringer]

I'm afraid that voters really don't seem to have much power, not anymore. Not when politicians have to take legal bribes to afford the advertising they need to get elected.

So if you don't have the money to get them elected, it does them little good to listen to you.

Depressing, but that's how it seems. At leasst from my perspective, not being a US resident and all.

In Australia, it often feels like we may as well be a US state in terms of how strongly US events affect our own laws and politics, but we don't get a vote in the events that largely determine our eventual laws. As if the politicians think we're another US state...

Re:I'm sorry... power? as a voter?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Actually the voters in the United States have spoken. New laws are taking effect this year that bar anyone who is not a legal voter from contributing to a compaign. Legal voters are limited to $2000. Granted, folks like Bush can still raise millions of dollars for a federal campaign, but at least they have to get individuals involved.

Of course the only reason it's coming up is because everyone was so disgusted with the 2000 election that anyone who is in office now knows they will not be if they vote against it.

Kind of funny how democracy works. It may not turn on a dime, but it does manage a few quite miracles.

Re:I'm sorry... power? as a voter?

[tomstdenis]

support the EFF to defend our liberties

support the ACLU to defend our liberties

This I don't get. At least in this matter. What "liberty" do you have to pirate media via P2P? So what people don't like getting sued for pirating [in this case] music. Ah too fucking bad.

Tom

Give the guy a chance

[tgma]

The fact that this is a daily topic on Slashdot, with a wide spectrum of opinions, suggests that this is a grey area. It's therefore asking a bit much to insist that he start following your agenda without doing some research. Or is it a good thing when politicians react in a knee-jerk fashion without looking at the facts?

He may well be a gubment windbag (the fact that he is a senator significantly increases this possibility) but at least, for the time being, on this issue, he's OUR gubment windbag. The pro-file sharing lobby has been screaming that Capitol Hill is in the pockets of the **AAs, so it's nice to see that one of them isn't. And at least calling for information is a warning shot across the bows of the RIAA that they will be expected to conform to the letter of the law. I'm relieved to see this, because the tide had been running firmly in the other direction, what with the DMCA, and the Patriot Act, and all. It's nice to see the elected representatives doing something on behalf of the people that they are representing, even if it isn't exactly what the file sharers would like him to do.

Conspiracy Theory...

[kenthorvath]

Point 1: The new CEO of the RIAA is a former staff member of former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a repulican from TN.

Point 2: The RIAA is seeking the close assistance of republicans with point 1.

Point 3: Sen. Norm Coleman is a republican.

Point 4: The parties mentioned in (3), merely question the methods that the RIAA used to get their subpoenas and whether or not the penalties are affecting "innocent" people. He does not think that P2P is legally or morally OK to use. In fact, he calls the copyright infringement "theft", which clearly it is not.

Theory: RIAA uses its connections to the Republican party to pass new laws, all the while the unsuspecting consumer is egging the republicans on because they are "talking a good talk". While I'm optimistic at the sound of this inquiry, I won't hold my breath for a favorable outcome, and I am suspicious of Coleman's motives.

Re:Conspiracy Theory...

[avdp]

How is it "clearly" not theft? You can't make statements like that without explaining a bit. It's hardly an acknowledged fact, even on slashdot.

Re:Conspiracy Theory...

[deanj]

So, by this theory, anyone getting in bed with a particular political party shows proof that political part is not to be trusted?

That's pretty interesting, considering that the head of RIAA, the group that's been causing all of these problems so far, is a supporter and contributor to the Democrat party:

Check out this link:

right here

And type "Recording Industry" into the link. Guess what? It's Hilary Rosen contributing to Gephart's campaign, Kerry's campaign and the like.

Like it or not, this isn't a one party issue, and the party that the head of RIAA is with right now are the Democrats.

They rolled Verizon because....

[tgma]

...they were able to roll Congress into passing the DMCA. Verizon had no choice but to comply, because the DMCA forces them to give up the addresses of file sharers. (Or was it the Online Child Protection Act - apologies if it was). IIRC, Verizon and other ISPs lobbied against the DMCA, and were unsuccessful. Once it was passed, they had to obey the Act, because they didn't have the option of retreating to Montana and pretending that it didn't exist.

Here's how to contact Norm Coleman

[Warpedcow]

Send you ideas, thanks, whatever to Norm here:

http://www.senate.gov/~coleman/contact/index.cfm

This is what I sent, short and simple:

Thank you for taking a stand against the ridiculously strong-armed tactics that the RIAA is taking against innocent people. $15K to $250K per song is "Cruel and Unusual"

Why is thie modded as a troll

[kajoob]

You know, I got karma to burn so mod me down too, but this guy is right. When Ashcroft does something stupid, it's "Ashcroft the Republican is at it again!!", but when a Republican does something that our little gang here tends to agree with, no party affiliation is given. It's not just this article, it's very consistant. And the converse is true as well - if a Democrat does something idiotic, he's spared the idignity of embarrassing his party here on slashdot because it's kindly left out, but if in this case the Senator was a Democrat, he'd put on his pedastool where he belonged. Just be even-handed folks, it's all many of us are asking. If you did that, I'd forget about all the spelling errors and dupes. ;-)

With as much crap that gets modded up, I can't believe this gets the "troll" label - save that for the ascii goatse.cx posts. This never happens when I have mod points! arghhh.

Re:Why is thie modded as a troll

[deanj]

That's because if a Republican makes a legimate stupid mistake, everyone, including Republicans, jump on their case. If a Democrat does the exact same thing, the same Republicans still get on their case, but the Democrats NEVER EVER admit they're wrong. NEVER.

Re:Why is thie modded as a troll

[deanj]

At the time the statement was made, we believed that was true. The British government, the source of that quote, still stands behind it to this day. The BBC said it was "sexed up", and even the government inquiry into it said it didn't find any evidence of the BBC's claim.

In any event, finding out something you believed to be true at one time is now false isn't lying.

The main point, and the one you've completely ignored is that the Democrats never EVER admit they're wrong. NEVER.

Stealing is a crime against society!

[notetoi]

and ignorance of the law is a crime against civility.

Something has to be done

[slusich]

Even putting the debate on file sharing aside, if something isn't done soon the RIAA is going to have the court system so bogged down with all of these cases that others will fall by the wayside. No one group should have the right to monopolize the legal system in such a way.

Ironic

[JRSiebz]

Isn't it funny that you'll recieve a lesser punishment for getting caught shoplifting a cd, then you would for getting caught sharing one song?

Guess we'll just have to get our music old school style. I wanna ask Winona Ryder for some tips.

Time for a Copyright Reform Bill

[ajs318]

Why not write to your elected representatives and propose a bill to limit the term of copyright to five years from the receipt of the first royalty payment, or five years from the date of publication if no royalty payments are rceived within that time, after which the work enters the public domain. This term should not be extensible under any circumstances and, if any technological measures are used to prevent copying, at least one unprotected copy should be placed in escrow with the relevant authorities in order that the work can actually be placed in the public domain. Circumvention of protection on a work which has, or should have, already entered into the public domain should be explicitly permitted.

The whole idea of copyright is to provide a limited term of exclusivity so you can make money from your work, in return for the promise that one day, your work will enter the public domain. Frankly, five years should be enough time for anyone to make a fair profit {which is why I think it should be counted from the receipt of the first royalty payment}; and, if you haven't made any money out of it in that time, you're never going to, so you should cut your losses.

I'll maybe rewrite this in more bill-like terms and repost it, if anyone else thinks it's a good idea.

Death Penalty for Parking Violations!

[karlandtanya]

It works. That's all that matters, right?

any idiot? hey, that's me!

[Heisenbug]

"any idiot could walk into a courthouse, lodge a form with a court clerk and the process is started."

Wait a minute. Could *I* do this? Could I perhaps inadvertantly target, say, certain industry associations, because my spidering software had mistakenly identified them as distributors of my IP? Could I then hold them to the same standards of proof that they are holding random Kazaa users, and force their lawyers to establish a precident, as the defendants, for just what you have to show in court before you can win such a case?

Seriously, it seems that there's a nice legal hack to be had in creatively abusing the ability to send subpeonas without a judge. Could someone who IAL suggest some possibilities?

Re:That's wonderful!

[WhiteWolf666]

It won't FIX the problem.

It will improve it, though----You have to remember, sneaky people can get around laws

And politicans are the sneakiest of the bunch. These laws will improve the situation somewhat, until some more corruption is unveiled by the media, and then another iteration of laws will be implemented.

Anyways, I'm hoping for the best :)

I am so SICK of this "just vote" line

[Sodade]

When do I get the chance to vote for:

1. Revoking the corporate charters of: a. corps that are blatantly destructive to the environment and b. the members of the RIAA

2. Tar, feather and ride on a rail Bush and all his cronies for their obvious imperialistic and profiteering war mongering
Need I go on? There is no representation in American politics - we are back to the tea party and active resistance is the only way to make our voice heard.
Back on topic:
Do you think that this one senator really represents the consumer? He's just playing us in the hopes of bounding the argument. At the end of the day, it is corporation vs. consumer and our government is failing to do their duty and protect us. The only solution is to pick up your "guns" and fight. Come on all you 1337 hax0r5 - build a better Kazaa that they can't stop - force them out of business. Then you better do the right thing and build a way for the artists to get paid directly.

Revolution

[plnrtrvlr]

OK, so we all recognize that obtaining music without renumeration for the various artists that made the music is WRONG. I don't care what you call it, semantics may be useful for shaping public opinion, but the general opinion is that it is just plain WRONG to get something for nothing. The problem I see is that no one can make up their minds and decide if we are going to revolt against the music companies that rob both artists and listeners, or if we are going to be good little sheep and not do ANYTHING. In order to change the way the music business operates, either the existing structure needs to be taken down by less than desirable means, or else we need (somehow) to get our congresscritters out of the pockets of executives. It would certainly help if some high profile artists would endorse and use alternative distribution methods while abondoning the big labels. Otherwise, the only thing that will work is if EVERYONE starts trading songs with complete abandon: swamp the RIAA with massive lists everwhere... hackers writing viral song swapping code so that everyone who logs on to the net is guilty in the RIAA's eyes... I think I'd rather see a change that was initiated by the artists and consumers themselves whereby I could legally (and simply) download my music for a FAIR price while being assured that most of the $$ goes to the artist, but remember, the toothless get ruthless.

Interview?

[kwhite]

So this senator seems interested in the dealing of the RIAA, would anyone else be interested to hear his views on this and other technical things. Perhaps his thoughts on the DMCA, open source, etc. Just a thought since it looks like he may be interested in these type of things.

Re:What exactly are their tactics...

[A55M0NKEY]

Removing any identifying information makes the file practically invisible to anyone looking for a brittany spears song. They would only find your song by searching for 'foo'. If the files are searchable by any other attribute then that attribute must by definition identify the file. Basically the RIAA doesn't care if you have a legal MP3 copy of brittany shpears song Y shared if nobody can find it to download. It's security through obscurity which is good enough to make you not as nice a target as someone who shares files under their right name.

Re:Copyright Infringment MOD PARENT DOWN

[mumblestheclown]

How the hell is such tripe "insightful?" Will you even spend a second thinking before you post such crap?

Let's say a person with zero assets downloads such music. How does this hurt the coprightholders?

Some examples:

• It signals to others (by expanding the amount of traffic on the pirate network) that the music is available free of charge. i don't mean this from a technical standpoint, but from a sociological one. "why should I pay when so and so got it free?" in aggregate, the result is lost sales.
• the act removes the copyright's holders ability to present its art as it sees fit. this lessens the overall perception of value, thus lessening the future potential incomestram for copyrightholders.
• the person with zero assets now may acquire assets later. however, there is a reinforcement effect - if he gets away with piracy now, he'll likely think it's ok in the future.

here is a very crucial point:

THE RIAA SUING COLLEGE KIDS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO BECAUSE THE KIDS HAVE NO ASSETS.

It shows that the RIAA is interested in STOPPING THE BEHAVIOR, not collecting damages. Yes, they might sue for 10B, but they'll never collect. What they are clearly doing by going after asset-less individuals and getting outrageous-sounding judgements is SENDING A MESSAGE. It's the RIGHT message - RESPECT OTHER PEOPLE'S COPYRIGHTS. The US produces a hell of a lot of IP in arts and sciences compared to, say, China largely because we have well-structured IP systems.

Are there excesses? Surely. Is the mickey mouse extension, well, mickey mouse? absolutely. but is copyrightholders going after music-infringers in order to send a message that such behavior will not be tolerated wrong? absolutely not.

the music industry is trying damn hard to provide music in digital form now - but what's the problem? the problem is that everybody's running around trying to figure out how to do this while not basically 'giving away the store' given how easy digitial redistribution is. iTunes has been a success, though it is mac only. others have had less success because they are either toe-in-the-water ventures with limited playlists or because the music is overly encumbered with DRM. but why is this so?

BECAUSE OF PIRACY!

if there were no idiots out there like you trying to justify blatant piracy on any number of grounds, that is to say, this whole cloud of pseudo-justifications for widescale copyright infringement and a general climate that tolerates such behaviour, we'd RIGHT NOW have 50c music dowloads as far as the eye could see.

we'd have LESS middlemen, MORE choices of artists, and BETTER digital portability if it wasn't for the fact that every self-styled h4xor seems to think that he is a) smarter and b) better than the law, and even if the law isn't so bad, he isn't going to get caught anyway. THAT is what's keeping a flourishing of online music from happening.. a climate that tolerates or even encourages piracy.

--- END OF RANT ---

"Fact of Life" != Today's Rampent Corruption

[FreeUser]

[metaphor] Street lines aren't repainted until there are a few major accidents on the road. It's an unfortunate fact of life. [/metaphor]

That is not a "fact of life." Birth, death, and the need to consume food in between are facts of life.

Street lines not being repainted until people are injured or killed, environmental laws being repealed to appease Baby Bush's oil buddies, and draconian laws that don't get fixed until the lives of thousands are ruined or threatened with ruination are NOT "facts of life," they are the actions of an unprecedented period of corruption in high places here in America (worse than even that which followed the civil war), and the fact that nearly everyone on capital hill, democrat and republican alike, is little more than a whore for those who bribe them, legally and on the public record via campaign contributions (what some would erroneously call "above board", as though making a bribe technically legal somehow makes it OK and undoes the terrible harm it cuases our civil institutions).

It is a fact of corruption and politics in a degenerate government of, by, and for attorneys and their corporate masters, not a fact of a properly functioning democratic republic (which, believe it or not, the US had for a brief time), much less a "fact of life" in its more general sense.

Re:"Fact of Life" != Today's Rampent Corruption

[MrR0p3r]

While I respect your relatively low user id #, your views are somewhat mislead. Understand that here in America (don't know if you're american or not) we have a rule by majority. Concentrate on that word..majority. It takes a larger group of people to get hurt or angry before something will be done about what is hurting them. Until now the RIAA had both the loudest and the most numerous voice, thankfully the right number of people have spoken up for some action to finally be taken.

I will conceed that some corruption happens on the hill on a daily basis, it's gonna happen because some people feed on that. However, I will not conceed the point of view that all people who make a living running this country are corrupt. They do what is either in the best interest of their constituants, or they listen to those people when they change their minds (as a majority). He still needs to get votes to keep his job.

On a side note, yes attorneys have a large voice in DC, but that's because they hire a ton of folks to do lobbying for them. It's not what you say, it's how many voices you say it with.

Re:"Fact of Life" != Today's Rampent Corruption

[op00to]

Especially if those voices are tens or hundreds of thousands of little green George Washingtons!

Re:"Fact of Life" != Today's Rampent Corruption

[gerbache]

Yes, we do have majority rule, but the entire point of a democracy is to allow majority rule while still protecting minority rights. Ever heard of the civil rights acts? Think the majority really felt strongly about that?

Besides, we haven't had a true majority rule in anything other than congress in years. Presidential elections nowadays are rarely won by a true majority. Closer to the truth would be that a plurality rules in America, but even this is stretching it a bit considering that we have a representative form of government, so in reality we have a very small minority making most of our decisions (Congress, the President, etc.). Sure, we elect them, but only once every few years, and even then, no one pays attention to everything their congressmen do, so they're free to give lip service to the big issues and then do whatever they want. Therein lies one of the problems of a representative government.

Re:"Fact of Life" != Today's Rampent Corruption

[ATMAvatar]

On a side note, yes attorneys have a large voice in DC, but that's because they hire a ton of folks to do lobbying for them. It's not what you say, it's how many voices you say it with.

With this line, you effectively made the guy's point for him. Your say in Washington is directly proportional to the number of lobbyists you can hire (i.e. how much money you throw around).

Re:"Fact of Life" != Today's Rampent Corruption

[macdaddy357]

The Bens have more influence than the Georges. Just ask Sen. Mitch McConnell(R- Kentucky) He's legalized bribery's best friend in Washington, and the one real obstacle to campaign finance reform.

Re:"Fact of Life" != Today's Rampent Corruption

[jbs0902]

the entire point of a democracy is to allow majority rule while still protecting minority rights.

No, democracy (in its purest form) has not a damn thing to do with protecting minority rights. That is why we had to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, to protect the minority from the tyranical power pure-democracy allows the majority.

Yeah, in the American verion of representative democracy, we protect minority rights, but that is because of the modifcations we've made to the idea of democracy not because of democracy.

You'll notice in the definition below that the word "minority" is never used.

democracy (di-mokre-se) noun
plural democracies
1.Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2.A political or social unit that has such a government.
3.The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4.Majority rule.

[French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek demokratia : demos, people + -kratia, -cracy.]

Re:"Fact of Life" != Today's Rampent Corruption

[gerbache]

Well, it's true that unfortunately we don't really provide the minority protections as we ought to. However, even though it took far too long to happen, eventually the civil rights movement did pick up enough supporters to succeed, at least as far as the laws themselves are concerned.

I'm afraid that it seems the laws regarding to the RIAA's punishments have been somewhat slow to develop, but that is because this is the first time it's been this easy to violate their copyrights (which is what's happening legally, regardless of whether or not we feel like it's right). If we give it enough time, something will sort itself out, it's just that a few people may unfortunately get burned in the process.

As an aside, I think it's really unfortunate that the ones who stand to be prosecuted most often are the college students. File sharing for music files has become so popular around the campuses that many of the students, who wouldn't be likely to keep up with this sort of debate online, don't realize that they're playing with fire right now to be sharing music. They aren't usually intentionally trying to screw the music industry out of the supposed billions they lose through piracy, but they are being prosecuted as if they were professional pirates. That's where I think the government ought to step in and provide some protections, but sadly, as you mention, it will require a critical mass before this happens, and as long as it's just a few college students who are being screwed, it isn't likely to reach that level.

Re:"Fact of Life" != Today's Rampent Corruption

[Epistax]

Want of the majority out weighs the need of a few, eh? Everyone's out of the majority in one issue or another. If every minority gets killed, everyone dies.

As a former roadie?

[jabber01]

I can see "as a former roadie, speakers are heavy, but the groupies make up for it". But the logic of "as a former roadie, I feel qualified to talk about the motivations of a Senator dealing with the legal issues of the music industry" somehow eludes me.

Norm Coleman: A Brief Political History

[swb]

Norm Coleman's big political break was getting elected as Mayor in St. Paul, Minnesota as a *democrat*. During his first term he switched to being a Republican and was elected to a second term.

He was a major booster of St. Paul during his terms, which really had slid downhill in terms of its downtown. He worked hard to get a stadium built to ensure an NHL expansion franchise and to provide subsidies for new buildings to entice major corporations to relocate there, his biggest success being the luring of Lawson Software. I think he was also involved with the new science museum built on the downtown bluffs overlooking the river.

To his credit, the St. Paul waterfront and downtown are much more attractive and vibrant, and have less of a "where'd everybody go?" run down feeling, and the hockey franchise has done good things for the bar and restaurant situation near the stadium.

A number of people have condemned his boosterism as corporate welfare built on the backs of St. Paul taxpayers, since much of his generosity was funded by city-issued bonds, along with the usual arguments about the financial 'returns' of a sports franchise.

Strangely fewer people are critical of his political chameleon act than his economic boosterism. Personally I find this the scariest and most telling, as it demonstrates a willingness to do or say anything for political advantage.

However, a reasonable person may argue that the DFL (as the democrats are known in Minnesota) party of St. Paul and Minneapolis is *radically* liberal, and Norm may have made a reasonable decision that the party no longer supported his values.

RIAA sues for thousands. What about pricefixing?

[portnux]

If each song available for download is worth from $750-150,000, why are the music companies not being charged equivalent amount for each cd they have sold over the years at prices inflated through pricefixing? File sharers profited nothing through sharing, where the music companies reaped HUGE returns through price fixing and that continues today unabated. That is what the government should be looking into. If anyone is stealing, it is the music industry itself.

Save the Children!

[teamhasnoi]

Norm's Children that is

I was wondering when this would come out...

Coleman, who has two children, admitted that he's faced the issue himself as a parent.

"I've had this problem in my family," Coleman said. "I'm sure my children have used file-sharing programs."

"I have confessed to using Napster," he said, adding that he does not use any file-sharing programs anymore.

Sure, Norm. You just downloaded 'Frampton Comes Alive' and 'Thriller' from my FTP server last week....

"The punishment fits the crime"

[mackman]

So what, the RIAA doesn't get to take my money, just make good quality color copies of it?

Still wrong on 2 counts

[bbsguru]

First, file sharing is not stealing, according to the US Supreme Court. It is copyright infringement, which is a different crime. Nobody is hijacking truckloads of CD's here. Get it right.

Second, This seems to be a case of making the Crime fit the Punishment. People who committed no crime at all are just as likely to be punished by the irresponsible and confiscatory actions of the RIAA as those who do. The industry's remedy for this seems to be to declare them crimainals anyway.

write your senator

[capoccia]

as i live in ohio, one of my senators (voinovich) is on this investigation subcomittee. i sent him this letter (through the online form) to encourage him to support coleman's efforts:

I read today that Senator Norm Coleman has launched an inquiry into the use of legal action by the Recording Industry of America Association (RIAA).
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/brea king_news/6428142.htm

As you are my Senator and also on the Inquiry subcommitte that Sen. Coleman chairs, I would urge you to support his efforts.

There is plenty of room for abuse when a corporation uses legal bullying to act as law enforcement. The rights of the accused can be circumvented and innocent people can be dragged into a situation where it is very costly to defend themselves.

With the RIAA purportedly filing 75 subpoenas each day against users of online filetrading software and their Internet Service Providers for copyright infringement, there should be some level of accountability.

Don't worry about the RIAA suing you for sharing

[A55M0NKEY]

files unless you have REALLY bad taste in music. The list of artists they chose to search for in order to sue makes me feel pretty safe with my collection. ( although I really don't go on those things much. I didn't happen to use file sharing for the three months prior to their round of suits ) The list had Michael Jackson among others. The RIAA is the least of the problems of people who like to listen to Michael Jackson IMO.. ( Although, I disapprove of his young boy fetish, and think his music stinks, I have to applaud him for telling the RIAA to go easy on downloaders. ) I think he must have been tipped off to the fact that his songs were being used to target downloaders and didn't want to piss off his fans. ) Most music artists realize that the file sharing services are like Radio airplay.

Back in the early days of radio, the FCC had to step in and prevent record companies from PAYING radio stations to play their songs, so that people could listen to more than the music the record companies wanted to promote. Nowadays, the radio stations do not pay a fee to broadcast copyrighted music, though they could in theory be charged for it. The record companies know it would not make business sence to charge the radio stations for free advertising.

Nowadays, most artist's contracts are set up so that they don't make much at all from CD sales. That is the record company's cut. The artists make money from concerts. The only reason the artists bother with signing with record companies is the advertising and promotion that they provide. Without this adveritsing and promotion, artists wouldn't be able to command such large crowds while on tour.

But file sharing services have the ability to promote artists without the need for a record company to send free CDs to a radio station or put up posters and ads, or produce videos for MTV2, or market songs to Clearchannel execs.

This is good for artists. File sharing services, like radio stations are a form of airplay which serves to promote the artists. It's free word of mouth adverising - the best kind.

The record companies are scared out of their pants because they realize that they won't be needed if people can download the music they want when they want it. Without the record companie's monopoly on promotion and distribution, record companies know artists won't need them. And neither will consumers, since most computers nowadays come with CD burners.

Now freely and easily tradable, songs will compete on merit. The really good ones will make their creators famous and they will get rich off their popularity by giving live performances. Music will go on, customers and artists will be happier, but the record companies will be cut out.

OH NO! They scream! File sharing is *destroying our business model* government, protect us from these thieves!

Society as a whole does not hold 'business models' sacred enough to protect, so they say that this thieving will hurt artists and consumers. Most artists and consumers know better. The fact that record companies are on the verge of becoming obsolete is obviously a good thing. But that means their continued existance, and continued profit taking - if it is allowed to continue through legislation to protect their business models - is parasitic on the music industry as a whole and decreases the amount of fundage available for making music for consumers.

The current litigations against file swappers will, if continued, only cause people to switch to more anonymous file sharing networks. As there is a tradeoff sometimes between security/privacy and speed, consumers will choose the least secure system that they think will keep safe from the RIAA. If the RIAA breaks into that one, a more secure one will be built and used.

The record companies are doomed, and they know it, unless radical legislation is put into place to protect their 'business models' i.e. their ability to keep parasitising the artists and consumers they deal with now that they are no longer needed.

Ahem. NOT.

[72beetle]

Bush got more votes, so Gore lost. Simple as that. Get over it, quit whining and move on.

How soon they all forget.

Gore won the popular vote - he had more ballots with his name on them.

Bush won the electoral college - he won more states.

'Sheep, thought I.' - Anthony Burgess

-72

Re:Ahem. NOT.

[NanoGator]

"Gore won the popular vote - he had more ballots with his name on them."

Oh please. The only way that this situation could have happened is if niether candidate was ideal. Face facts, Gore may have had a handful of more votes, there's still half the country that didn't want him in.

Innocent victims

[MintyGreen]

Disclaimer: This isn't about the RIAA, it's about the Interactive Digital Software Association. It could have happened with RIAA, though.

A client of mine got an email from their cable ISP yesterday, claiming they were violating their agreement by offering copyrighted materials (computer games) on KaZaA. The attached log (from the IDSA) had a timestamp of June 30th, three days before my client's new firewall picked up the IP in question.

A simple phone call cleared the matter up, but what if the copyright holder demanded contact information, instead? I'd hate to end up in court just because DHCP handed me a "dirty" IP.

Does the Punishment Fit the Crime? Do the laws?

[Cloudgatherer]

I really wish someone would ask that question. Seriously, the 'crime' is copying data. The punishment is a 150K fine per instance (max). Seems *very* steep for an act that could be done accidentally.

Take this a step further, who made those laws? Content providers, naturally. So, of course it's illegal, they made it that way as well as the steep penalty! Now they attempt to apply this to Joe Consumer and we are seeing the reults.

As far as theft vs. infringement, the distinction is justified. Theft displaces wealth. While P2P may hurt record sales, it does not 'displace' money from the RIAA.

Good works will generate revenue. Crap will not. Unfortunately, there is very little to preview. To watch a movie, you have to pay. The movie might be really bad, and not worth the money. However, you have to pay money just to find that out. Pirate the movie and pay a tremendous fine or go to jail. Talk about a trap.

check if your on the list!

[armus]

RIAA's Hit List

The Coming Storm Has Yet to Hit

[Nom du Keyboard]

Not a single lawsuit in the coming promised mass wave of them has yet to be filed, and we already have all this noise, heat, and light.

So is the RIAA hoping everyone will get exhausted by their one-step-at-a-time process to get to that point...

...or is an order of magnitude greater outrage going to hit when the actual lawsuit filings start to happen?

And what if people actually do start going to court over this? Lots of people?

There's a rough ride ahead boys.

Re:Nothing to do with dollars

[EvilTwinSkippy]

You think censoring is OK as long as you are turning down the volume on the "Bad Guys".

Bullshit. I think the rules should apply equally to everyone. Exactly what political biases are you attributing to me? I hate the liberal every bit as much as the conservatives. But what I hate most of all is GroupThink.

Yes indeed, I believe we should let everyone speak. What I despise are the megaphones people erect in the form of Political Action Committees.

Any message worth sending resonates from the masses. It does not require an amplifier. Indeed, PACs are an idea seeking an consituancy more than consituants expressing a message. It creates a situation of Ins vs. Outs. PACs represent their interest at the expense of the common good.

To Quote:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Lots of stuff about uniting for a common good. Indeed, it would seem that the Consitution was designed to handle Americans as a whole, not in chunks.

Okay, I can here your response now... "You are only scratching the surface, the Constitution states a lot more."

You are right.

• Article I describes the Legislative branch.
• Ariticle II describes the Executive branch.
• Article III describes the Judical branch.
• Article IV describes the roles of States.
• Article V desribes the Admendment process
• Article VI is some legal housekeeping to handle the transition from the Confederacy.
• Article VII describes the processes of ammending the Constitution.

So much for any legal arguments there, the Constitution describes the basic structure of our government. Onto the Admendments.

• Admendment I - Freedom of Religion, Speech, the Press, and to Peacibly assemble
• Admendment II - Right to bear arms
• Admendment III - Quartering of Troops
• Admendment IV - Search and Seizure
• Admendment V - Grand jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process
• Admendment VI - Criminal Prosecutions, Jury trial, Confront, Consul
• Admendment VII - Common Law Suits
• Admendment VIII - Excessive Bail
• Admendment IX - Non-Enumerated Rights
• Admendment X - Rights Reserved to States
• Admendment XI - Suits against a State
• Admendment XII - Election of the President and Vice President
• Admendment XIII - Abolition of Slavery
• Admendment XIV - Equal Protection, Some Civil war housekeeping
• Admendment XV - Equal Rights for all Races
• Admendment XVI - Income Tax
• Admendment XVII - Election of Senators
• Admendment XVIII - The Prohibition
• Admendment XIX - Women's Suffrage
• Admendment XX - Presidential Succession
• Admendment XXI - Repeal of Prohibition
• Admendment XXII - 2 Term Limit for Presidents
• Admendment XXIII - DC gets to vote in Presidential Elections
• Admendment XXIV - Repeal of Poll Taxes
• Admendment XXV - Presidential Succession
• Admendment XXVI - Voting Age 18
• Admendment XXVII - Compensation for Members of Congress (closeing a loophole)

So, there is a lot to digest, Lets first exclude everything that doesn't have the vaguest parts of what we are discussing: namely the rights for organizations to influence the political process.

That leaves us with the following items to consider:

• Admendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Re: NO, we don't have rule by majority in the USA

[kaltkalt]

Go read Federalist No. 10 (Madison's comments on rule by factions). America is absolutely NOT a majority-rules country. There are plenty of countries that are, and if you want to live in one of them, I can send you a list. If america were a majority rules country, we would not need a constitution or bill of rights; only ballots. Slavery would still be legal, gays would be oppressed (even moreso than they currently are), we would have a National American Church of Christianity (which you'd be forced to belong to and pay taxes/tithings to), and all sorts of other horrors. Rest assured, even if 99.9% of the population wants something, the minority is protected. At least in theory. Yes, a certain majority can amend the constitution, but history and the actual process involved show that that is very, very hard to do. An "Equal Rights (for women)" amendment couldn't even get passed.

Democracy !?!?!

[IamGarageGuy 2]

I am not an American but I seem to realize what every American should know but refuse to believe.
Nowhere in the bill of Rights, Constitution or any other original documents is the term DEMOCRACY used. This is not afterthought but intentional. Your form of government is not a Democracy - period. It is a Constitution Republic. It may be turning into a democracy but it was never intended to be one. A democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. A Constitution ensures that the rights of one are not threatened by the majority. In Canada we have a sham constitution that does not even protect our right to own land. Please do not keep spreading this fallacy about the US being a democracy for fear of destroying your constitution.

It bothers me that most Americans are ignorant of their history and how their great country can into being.

hmm...even the lawyers know it's a bit unethical

[FaerieBoy]

"It will confirm that our actions are entirely consistent with the law as enacted by the U.S. Congress and interpreted by the courts," the RIAA said in a statement issued to The Associated Press.

A very interesting statement, a very conservative statement...the RIAA knows that the majority of americans and congress are going to think the fines involved are excessive...grossly excessive...especially after the supreme court recently ruled against excessive punitive damages ...apparently they are currently safe from challenge because the law states specific remedies...but they wont be safe for long and they have to know that...congress or (possibly) the courts will trim the penalties down to size...if they're smart they'll settle any tear-jerker cases out of court -- it's the only way they'll profit from their fear campaign without getting burned with backlash and/or ending up mired in red tape whenever they want to subpoena...

i.e. how long do u think a clerk of court is going to be in charge of approving the release of personal information from an isp?