Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
I write code.
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.
"I am a kernel in the linux army"
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'.
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
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.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
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...:)
The Dirty Work Group
I've decided to stop swapping music files and go back to stabbing hookers.
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.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
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.
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.
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:
Then we get a go:
Not perhaps technically accurate, but hey, they started it.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
Send you ideas, thanks, whatever to Norm here:
m
http://www.senate.gov/~coleman/contact/index.cf
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"
moo
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.
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.
Whatever man, I spelled it write!
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
-Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.