'Jane Doe' Lawyer Glenn Peterson Talks With GrepLaw

scubacuda writes "Glenn Peterson, attorney at McDonough Holland & Allen, represents 'Jane Doe,' one of the first to fight the constitutionality of recent RIAA subpoenas. In this GrepLaw interview, Glenn gives his thoughts on recent RIAA strong arm tactics, Matt Openheim's assertion that Jane Doe's arguments have 'already been addressed by a federal judge,' and the danger of giving subpoena power to anyone pretending to have a copyright claim."

Comments

groklaw or greplaw

[yipyow]

Well which one is it? The editors don't seem able to decide. If I'm not mistaken it's GrepLaw...but I could be wrong.

http://sqrville.org

Re:groklaw or greplaw

[Anonymous Coward]

Greplaw is a technology law and policy news/discussion site at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society (Harvard).

Groklaw is a site about the ongoing SCO law suit, hosted by a paralegal.

They are not the same.

Re:groklaw or greplaw

[yipyow]

I thought I had heard of GrokLaw before, but the article linked to was GrepLaw. Oh well. I suppose I'm just picking nits here anyway...thanks for clearing that up.

sqrville

Rationale

[w.p.richardson]

The reason the RIAA wants to use the DMCA for subpoenas is that they can pick and choose who they target. Since they don't have to file suit to run someone in, they can pick an undesirable person and parade them around publicly as some sort of miscreant who is stealing from the hard working musicians, technicians, and record executives.

The tactic of any defense suit should be to challenge the DMCA on fourth amendment grounds. Nowhere in the US constitution is the right to subpoena, search, and seize given to corporations or their representatives.

HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that the RIAA are in the wrong necessarily. If they want to enforce the copyrights that they hold, they have to do something. I have always preferred the idea of targeting individuals who were infringing rather than mass lawsuits against "P2P", which was their tactic until recently. The method for doing this should be through normal legal channels though, not based on "PR".

Re:Rationale

[Anonymous Coward]

The artists and musicians should open up the books to show how much money the record companies and record executives earn versus how much the artists themselves actually make. Then we'll see who the real miscreant is.

Re:Rationale

[Hierarch]

Ye Olde Blockquote:

HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that the RIAA are in the wrong necessarily. If they want to enforce the copyrights that they hold, they have to do something. I have always preferred the idea of targeting individuals who were infringing rather than mass lawsuits against "P2P", which was their tactic until recently. The method for doing this should be through normal legal channels though, not based on "PR".

Yeah, but at the same time they need to get the word out. A lot of people genuinely don't realize that what they do is illegal. Doe's lawyer even makes the same point: teenagers in an environment where they can't be expected to know that what they are doing is illegal. I actually know a couple musicians who think that, because they are musicians and need access to musical works to practice for covers, think that this gives them a right to infringe - perfectly above-board and legally. They honestly believe this, and they tell their friends, too!

So, to protect legitimate copyright claims (yes, legit. I'm talking law, not ethics, not justifications!), the RIAA has to get the word out. They can buy publicity spots and crank out the infommercials. Will anybody listen? Not even during the Superbowl! Or, they can make a few examples, make them firmly, juice them for PR and maybe scare people into listening. It's unfortunate, but there just isn't any better alternative for them to protect their intellectual property.

More importantly, and more germanely, they don't necessarily need the massive subpoena authority granted under section 512. They could still pick a representative handful of people and make their lives a living hell, and make sure the rest of the unaware file-sharing community knows it. Coming from RPI as I did, and personally knowing one of our $97 Billion RIAA Sweepstakes Winners, I'd sit up and take notice in a hurry. It only takes having one person you know get nailed before you stop and think about it.

I think it goes without saying that, as a community, we generally believe that they're better off not enforcing these claims too vigorously. We've all seen the studies that, as sharing goes up, so do sales. But holding to a broken business model doesn't change their rights under broken US law.

Re:Rationale

[3terrabyte]

Amen. Also, maybe a long printout of publicly available documents showing all the cases the Music Cartel has been proven guilty of Price Fixing & Price Inflation.

Re:Rationale

[Anonymous Coward]

About the musician thing: I never met a musician who wouldn't let another musician listen to his music. So yeah most musicians don't care about infringing (whatever that means) if they just need to hear how a song sounds. The idea that a cover band should buy every piece of music they play is pretty silly to me. Its probably illegal to be a cover band in the first place but nobody cares.

Re:Rationale

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but at the same time they need to get the word out. A lot of people genuinely don't realize that what they do is illegal.

Well, the whole point of the lawsuits is to get the word out. And come on, you don't think that the word has long been out?

First Napster was famously shut down for contributory copyright infringement. More recently the RIAA sent out millions of IM's over Kazaa, and there have been countless stories in the press, as well as sponsored promotional campaigns (even in movie trailers) -- frankly I find the "I didn't know it was wrong" excuse hard to swallow.

And for that matter 'ignorance' has never been an excuse that absolves guilt anyway, though it certainly may be taken into account when considering the appropriate punishment.

It's important to separate questions regarding this fast subpoena process from whether it's appropriate to specifically pursue the people directly infringing on copyright.

No doubt if we're going to maintain that P2P shouldn't be held accountable for how some may misuse it, then we acknowledge that some may misuse it, and a response to such misuse is to be expected.

This isn't about just music -- an independent coder (like me) is protected by the same copyright that protects music.

And for that matter, the very same copyright also protects GPL. So if it's phooey on copyright for music, then it's phooey on copyright for code too (both GPL and non-GPL).

Re:Rationale

[jtev]

No, not illegal, you just have to pay royalties to the person who wrote the song. I know several musisians, and many of them do covers.

Re:Rationale

[Kwil]

Sorry.. if there is no copyright law, then there is need for the GPL.. otherwise what you have is BSD.

Re:Rationale

[turnstyle]

"The GPL is completely different than the restrictive copyrights on music.. how can you even compare the two??"

Because when violations of the GPL need to be litigated, the fall-back protection on behalf of the author is based in the copyright held the author.

Put another way, even the FSF advises against putting your code in the pubblic domain:

"The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software. They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away."

Re:Rationale

[Razor Blades are Not]

But only because of Copyright can the middleman enforce his claim to the proprietary software.
If there were no copyright laws, you could reverse engineer the middlemans code and reuse it and he would have no recourse. Or, you could copy it and redistribute it without modification
All without fear of legal retribution.

That's the difference between "copyright exists, but software was in public domain" and "copyright doesn't exist"

Re:Rationale

[turnstyle]

There's really no argument here, quite simply, from the GNU site:

"Under US copyright law, which is the law under which most free software programs have historically been first published, there are very substantial procedural advantages to registration of copyright. And despite the broad right of distribution conveyed by the GPL, enforcement of copyright is generally not possible for distributors: only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the copyright can enforce the license. If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors.

In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the recordkeeping and other requirements of registration, and in order to be able to enforce the GPL most effectively, FSF requires that each author of code incorporated in FSF projects provide a copyright assignment, and, where appropriate, a disclaimer of any work-for-hire ownership claims by the programmer's employer. That way we can be sure that all the code in FSF projects is free code, whose freedom we can most effectively protect, and therefore on which other developers can completely rely."

Re:Rationale

[Razor Blades are Not]

Umm .. yeah.
Look, it's like this. Without Copyright, the GPL isn't necessary. But that's not the same as saying code should be in the public domain.
The GPL uses copyright law to prevent the middleman scenario, because Copyright is the operating universe of discourse in which it must work to achieve it's aims.
If there were no copyright laws, the GPL wouldn't work, but neither would it be necessary, since it would be "anything goes" with regards to copying stuff.

So in essence we're in agreement.
I was just, you know, using my *own* words. :)

What happens if RIAA wins...

[Jonny Royale]

A pretty decent piece at the Detroit Free Press with an example: here shows exactly why there's due process for these things.

Re:What happens if RIAA wins...

[Anonymous Coward]

Detroit Free Press?
It's all a plot, a complot from IBM, pitching the free movement on SCO! eh...
Oops, wrong thread.

Eh

Re:What happens if RIAA wins...

[jc42]

Possibly the most pertinent is their observation: ... every consumer's identity, home address and phone number are now available to anyone who can fill out a one-page form.

Note that "identity" includes email address. If you want to know why you're getting so much spam, you need look no further. The recent court decision about Verizon basically means that I can use copyright claims as grounds to demand from any ISP all the email/home addresses and phone numbers of all their customers. I can then use this information for any purpose, or sell it to anyone.

This decision essentially opens ISP customer records fully to all marketers, and eliminates any traces of internet privacy.

We have all been opted in to everything.

Re:What happens if RIAA wins...

[shotfeel]

The recent court decision about Verizon basically means that I can use copyright claims as grounds to demand from any ISP all the email/home addresses and phone numbers of all their customers.

Its bad, but not that bad. AFAIK you can't simply fill out a single form and force Verizon to hand over info on all their subscribers. Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't you required to fill out a separate form for each identity and describe the "infringing" work? Also, if the paperwork is completely bogus you are still subject to perjury charges.

IOW I don't think this system is going to be very good for mining large quantities of data.

BTW, does anyone know if there is a web-accessible "form" for viewing? I would like to know exactly what information has to be provided and what responsibilities the person filling out the form actually has with respect to the accuracy/veracity of the information provided.

Re:What happens if RIAA wins...

[schon]

if the paperwork is completely bogus you are still subject to perjury charges.

Define "completely bogus".

The only thing that can subject you to perjury is not legitimately being authorized to act on behalf of the rights holder.

So if you say you're acting on behalf of Aerosmith, when in fact they haven't authorized you to do so, then you can be found guilt of perjury..

If, however, you say you're acting on behalf of yourself, you're immune from perjury.. all you have to do is "suspect" them of violating your copyright. (Hmm, I wrote a file called "README.TXT", and I saw a file with the same name on someone's FTP site. I'd like to harrass them, so I'll get the government to give me their name and phone number.)

I don't think this system is going to be very good for mining large quantities of data

No, but it will be an invaluable tool for anyone who wants to stalk someone.

Good to know:

[ballpoint]

"No doubt, music piracy is ... certainly no more a societal concern than elder abuse, drunk driving, vandalism, violence, identity theft, investor fraud, and a host of other behaviors."

Relieved, the one-eyed pirates are.

Re:Al Qaeda VS Johhny Music Downloader...

[dago]

"Copyright Act prevents against unauthorized reproductions, alterations etc. etc. So dl'ing your mp3's is illegal, plain and simple"

Just remember that, if you don't had any special new limiting right, the basis of (Int'l) copyright law is the Bern Convention.

On the basis of this convention, this is NOT illegal to dwl MP3, event the local RIAA-like institutions officially agree with that and put it on their website or in the letters sent to 'uploaders' (which is always illegal, if not within a _small_ _private_ circle of friends)

And this should be the case in most european countries (at least, for sure, BE, CH, FR)

Re:Of couse...

[Anonymous Coward]

The copyright law is about a deal between the State, We The People, and the corporate scums that needs a carrot.
Yeah of course it's also about protecting the artists from having their art being hijacked by the corporate scums, but you know what? it's happening anyway, copyright or not, justa that they manage to do it legaly, but im not taking about that.

So, get back to our carrots.
It's a social contract between all of us the fine people of the third word of the western civilisation.
We we don't respect the copyright law, there's 2 possibilities.
1. intelectual feudalism, all your IP are belong to the blue-blood chosen ones
2. the music industry gets destroyed (a very good thing, by the way).
3. a big molasse of litige, legality, and bullshit, where the fantasms are the points of law, whatever, nevermind.

Fair use needs to be defined more clearly

[192939495969798999]

Rather than defining what P2P is, lawmakers should focus on what "fair use" is, especially related to "sharing" of digital "works" versus flat-out copying for distribution. We all know that a vcr can tape any TV show, but SUPPOSEDLY, you'll only really get in trouble if you turn around and sell those episodes you taped of the Simpsons. Casette tapes have been able to record for years -- and the musical world has not ended. Again, this points to the fact that good/popular albums are still going platinum, but the "single with 10 fluff songs" albums, the bad albums by good bands, etc are getting reamed, and RIGHTLY SO. if the whole album sucks, why should people have to buy it to find that out?

Re:Fair use needs to be defined more clearly

[Sampizcat]

Firstly, IANAL.

Rather than defining what P2P is, lawmakers should focus on what "fair use" is,

Generally, lawmakers set out the laws, and stuff like focussing on what "fair use" is is left up to the courts to decide based on the law (hence why case law aka common law is so important, it sets the precedent. So, if the courts decide that doing X with P2P does not constitute fair use, then chances are every other case will follow suit). So it all really depends on how these early cases turn out.

Re:Fair use needs to be defined more clearly

[BobSutan]

I completely agree with you. If you were to follow this thought to completion you'd see that this is what was probably meant to happen. Remember, copyrights are for meaningful works. If a CD sucks and only has one good song on it, why should it be protected if its not meaningful in the public's eye (who will ultimately decide the matter, and not the corporations)?

Re:Fair use needs to be defined more clearly

[tomstdenis]

If the songs suck so much though, they won't be on P2P so the discussion is moot.

This "fair-use" bs is tiresome. Yes you can tape TV shows for your own PRIVATE viewing. You can't rebroadcast them [even for free] to the public.

So yes, you can backup music and dvds [which is why I think nobody should restrain DeCSS] but you can't "share" them with people [well you can, but you're not supposed to].

Tom

Re:Fair use needs to be defined more clearly

[cayenne8]

"Apples and oranges. Copying a cassette takes a long time, even with high-speed dubbing. Each generation suffers a loss in quality. You have to actually obtain a physical copy of the cassette in the first place, and only one person can use it at a time. That's a far cry from serving perfect digital copies of the same song simultaneously to 10 different people halfway around the world. There is a slight difference in the degree to which this can potentially affect the market."

Well, not quite. Even though a cassette or vcr tape may have degraded the quality somewhat...those copies are JUST as illegal to resell to others, but, fine for home use. The question is not the quality of the copy for personal use, but, the redistribution of it...

The potential for misuse can't be the deciding factor if it has non-criminal use. If we banned everything because it potentially might be misused (ex knives...can potentially kill more efficiently and faster than bare hands or sticks)...then we would not have much available to us at all....

Re:Fair use needs to be defined more clearly

[tomstdenis]

True dat. But you do need DeCSS to view your copy [backup or not] without buying commercial applications.

Though that is a side issue.

Tom

Re:Fair use needs to be defined more clearly

[Mr. McGibby]

Generally, lawmakers set out the laws, and stuff like focussing on what "fair use" is is left up to the courts to decide based on the law (hence why case law aka common law is so important, it sets the precedent. So, if the courts decide that doing X with P2P does not constitute fair use, then chances are every other case will follow suit). So it all really depends on how these early cases turn out.

Except this is a real pain in the ass. How am I supposed to know my fair use rights? Go read 4000 pages of court cases that might have something to do with it? That's ridiculous.

When it comes to individuals, the law should be simple enough that a layman can understand what is legal and what isn't. I shouldn't have to consult a lawyer every time I want to pee.

When the fair use doctrine was written, it didn't take into account the amount of copying that would even be possible. Nobody thought that sharing some file with a million of your closest friends would be so easy. Fair use rights need to clarified and laid out in law, not in the courts.

Re:Fair use needs to be defined more clearly

[Mikeytsi]

The use of "perfect digital copy" is a bullshit statement. a 128k mp3 is NOT a perfect copy.

urge overkill

[segment]

The RIAA is demanding that ISPs and universities provide it with the names and addresses of users who distribute copyrighted music online so it can sue these users for copyright infringement.

I know I will end up getting mod'ed the hell down to hell, but it needs to be said. I for one do not support the RIAA in fact I have some fuck the riaa t's however, I don't see nothing wrong with them wanting to be paid for their material. If you were on the receiving end you would too. I could see where they would go to certain uni's being that few e-diots mess a good thing up for whorish purposes, eg drive more traffic to their site or pretend to be doing for the 'cause'. Whichever case it is still illegal, and their is no excuse for someone to be sharing 10,000 songs.

Boston College and MIT challenged the RIAA's subpoenas on narrow technical grounds, arguing that the RIAA had filed its subpoenas in Washington, DC, instead of Massachusetts.

This in itself is a shaky comeback for MIT, and Boston College considering if some law was broken cross state lines, and mind you the DA's will look at the fact downloads occurred all over the world. Law is law anywhere in the US, I don't know when it stopped being so.

However, the music industry is pursuing music piracy with strong arm tactics and subpoena powers that far exceed those available against violent criminals.

Highly doubtful. Because the RIAA is taking steps to fight for what they think is right, gives no one the right to knock them for it. It's the same as if someone started badmouthing *geek*world for spending so much time on this issue. We feel it's right so we protest, the RIAA feels they're right so they do so as well. Kind of hypocritical to make that statement. But to compare the RIAA tactics and those which pertain to violent criminals, there is not one case of a swat team surrounding any student with guns drawn or the FBI or CIA or any other agency going gung ho over this crap.

Has it ever occurred to people that while protesting can at times be used for the better, at times it can also can major negative impacts on the actual thing being protested. Think about it, if I got a little ticked off that some lawyer is comparing this with violent crime, what do you think average joe is going to think.

In today's news, the MA National Guard was called in to remove a student trading MP3's... This guys reference to hardcore crime on this topic is outrageous, and leads me to believe he is simply looking for sympathy for his cause. Pretty lame, and shows his case is weak.

Re:urge overkill

[RamenNoodleGod]

there is not one case of a swat team surrounding any student with guns drawn or the FBI or CIA or any other agency going gung ho over this crap.

Actually, I do think I remember hearing about Interpol shooting up some guys running a private P2P network... I can't remember where and who it was. Some help here?

Re:urge overkill

[DarenN]

However, the music industry is pursuing music piracy with strong arm tactics and subpoena powers that far exceed those available against violent criminals.

Highly doubtful. Because the RIAA is taking steps to fight for what they think is right, gives no one the right to knock them for it

No, it's not highly doubtful, it's a fact. The subpoena powers the RIAA have been .... errr... granted are much, much more wide-reaching than those normally used. No Judges are involved, so subpoena's are essentially de-valued (which does not make them any less powerful, it just means that "being subpoenaed" is not as indicitave as it used to be of reasonable cause). It also means that the RIAA can issue subpoena's that would have been considered whimsical not so long ago, and it undermines a citizen's right to due process.

As has been mentioned before, there is nothing wrong, intrinsically, with the RIAA representing their members and protecting their members Copyright. It's just the methods are dubious, and I don't think the end's can justify the means

Re:urge overkill

[replicant108]

"Has it ever occurred to people that while protesting can at times be used for the better, at times it can also can major negative impacts on the actual thing being protested."

Protesting is supposed to have "major negative impacts" on the "thing being protested", you eejit!

Re:urge overkill

[segment]

meant to state negative impacts for the protesters sorry too little sleep will do it

Re:urge overkill

[Sloppy]

The subpoena powers the RIAA have been .... errr... granted are much, much more wide-reaching than those normally used. No Judges are involved, so subpoena's are essentially de-valued (which does not make them any less powerful, it just means that "being subpoenaed" is not as indicitave as it used to be of reasonable cause). It also means that the RIAA can issue subpoena's that would have been considered whimsical not so long ago, and it undermines a citizen's right to due process.

I think there's a lot of ends-justifies-the-means thinking going on. Since the RIAA's goal (stopping music piracy) is respected by a lot of people, the idea that they can subpoena anonymous people to find out who they are, is perceived as reasonable, because the people they're going after tend to really be music pirates.

What is needed and might change people's minds, would be for a less sympathetic attacker to use the exact same tactics for a more dubious goal. People can talk 'til they're blue in the face about how these new powers can be abused, but it's mostly just theoretical right now. People need to see actual harm against innocents, happening as a result of these new laws.

Perhaps the Church of Scientology needs a little encouragement.

Re:urge overkill

[gte910h]

Boston College and MIT challenged the RIAA's subpoenas on narrow technical grounds, arguing that the RIAA had filed its subpoenas in Washington, DC, instead of Massachusetts.

This in itself is a shaky comeback for MIT, and Boston College considering if some law was broken cross state lines, and mind you the DA's will look at the fact downloads occurred all over the world. Law is law anywhere in the US, I don't know when it stopped being so.

Its pretty common to fight something like this at EVERY step. Then hopefully, the other guy gives up before you have to. They will come back with other, more firm arguements when needed.

Re:urge overkill

[turnstyle]

The subpoena powers the RIAA have been .... errr... granted are much, much more wide-reaching than those normally used

Don't forget that the exact same ISPs that are now biatching about the subpoenas agreed to them when they sat down and hammered out the terms of the DMCA.

That was part of the 'safe harbor' deal that protects ISPs from being held accountable for how their subscribers might violate copyright.

The tricky part is that the original terms dictated that it generally applied to HTTP/FTP sites hosted on ISP servers, whereas the P2P apps are on home-bound PCs routed through the ISP.

To put it another way, imagine that your PC running Kazaa were co-located at an ISP. Giving up that name is essentially what they agreed to do.

Personally, I don't think there's much difference between my PC here and my PC co-located at an ISP.

However, this 'fast-track' subpoena process does seem highly problematic -- just don't forget that these very ISPs agreed to it in order to shift the legal burden from themselves to their customers (ie: you).

Re:urge overkill

[Sphere1952]

Read the complaint in Pacific Bell v. RIAA http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/PacBell_v_RIAA.pdf where one of the defendents a Titan, a porno shop.

Re:urge overkill

[magores]

Boston College and MIT challenged the RIAA's subpoenas on narrow technical grounds, arguing that the RIAA had filed its subpoenas in Washington, DC, instead of Massachusetts.

This in itself is a shaky comeback for MIT, and Boston College considering if some law was broken cross state lines, and mind you the DA's will look at the fact downloads occurred all over the world. Law is law anywhere in the US, I don't know when it stopped being so.
--
Not shaky, imho.

Let's say you are from Lake Oswego, and you are visiting San Diego. I mug you in San Diego and get $15. You go home to Lake Oswego and file a report with the police. Sure... mugging is illegal in both places, but it happened in SD, not LO.

Slightly better example.... You stay in LO, and me, in SD, starts sending you threatening messages. Illegal in both places, but which cops do you need to talk to to have me stop? The ones in SD.

-------

However, the music industry is pursuing music piracy with strong arm tactics and subpoena powers that far exceed those available against violent criminals.

Highly doubtful. Because the RIAA is taking steps to fight for what they think is right, gives no one the right to knock them for it.
--
Umm.. I have to strongly disagree with you on this one.

I'm in the US, and you seem to be in the US as well. There is something written into the Consititution of the US that says I have the right to knock anything I want to for any reason. (Yes, I'm paraphrasing the Consititution here.)

In addition, when a corporation has the power to issue a subpeona against an individual, then things have gone way too far. (IMHO, of course.)

-----------

Don't get me wrong, I support the idea that artists should be paid for their work. Apparently the RIAA does too. Now, lets see the labels open their books for a full independent audit.

-----------

You know.. This whole mess makes me glad I am one of those "dirty smelly hippies". The bands I like to see live ENCOURAGE the trading of copies of their live shows. I have hundreds of hours of live music, and its all blessed by the artists themselves.

Artists: moe., Grateful Dead, Phish. Govt Mule, Particle, etc

And, I have a favorite site I like to go to for "non-hippie" music. All the techo, experimental, folk, etc you could ever want. Studio versions released LEGALLY by the artists/labels.

The site: epitonic.com

----
And No. I don't work for anything I just mentioned.

Re:urge overkill

[triclipse]

Boston College and MIT challenged the RIAA's subpoenas on narrow technical grounds, arguing that the RIAA had filed its subpoenas in Washington, DC, instead of Massachusetts.

Generally, actions brought in federal court must be brought in the state where the defendant resides or where the cause of action arose. So although technical, it is a legitimate defense.

just for info...

[jlemmerer]

... if i post here including my copyright, and somebody answers cutting out some of my text in his reply, can i sue him for obscene amounts of money (of course at a court in the state of NY).
does anybody know?

Re:just for info...

[jlemmerer]

oh, i just forgot: the parent message and this one are of course copyrighted, just in case i can make money out of it

Re:just for info...

[RamenNoodleGod]

Too late, it's already being circulated on my post-trading network! I've distributed it to dozens of users already, and the list is expanding rapidly! Bwahaha!

This is going to be bigger than the Star Wars Kid :-)

Re:just for info...

[Kneo24]

Nope. It would be a deriative work. All the person would really need to do is give credit to the author.

The deriative works thing brings up an important point. MP3's could be easily considered a deriative work. Why? Because not all of the information is in them. You don't actually get the full song, just bits and pieces of it. Perhaps someone should clue the bastards at the RIAA in on this. An MP3 is NOT a perfect copy. At best, one could consider it a deriative work.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go butcher the word 'deriative' some more (as I have no clue how it's actually spelled).

Re:just for info...

[Kjella]

... if i post here including my copyright, and somebody answers cutting out some of my text in his reply, can i sue him for obscene amounts of money (of course at a court in the state of NY).

You may sue, but you won't win. But under the DMCAs subpoena provision, you could try to get the names of all slashdot readers - because you have "reasonable" (read: reasonable enough to get a rubberstamp approval) grounds to believe they have made a copy of your copyrighted text in the cache. Of course the argument wouldn't stand up in court but for the judges' clerk it's probably enough...

Kjella

Re:just for info...

[jc42]

.. if i post here including my copyright, and somebody answers cutting out some of my text in his reply, can i sue him for obscene amounts of money ...

Even better, you can demand from his ISP information including name, email and home address, phone number, etc., of all their customers. You can then do as you like with this data. It's a real windfall for the spam (uh, I mean marketing) folks. Maybe you could use this info to start your own lucrative spam (uh, I mean marketing) operation.

Hmmm ... Maybe I should submit this as an AC. Then, rather than just demanding information about me from slashdot, you can send them a subpoena demanding full information on all their users. After all, I did quote your text, copyrighted by default under most countries' laws. This is a clear infringement, so you obviously now have the right to go after anyone who might conceivably have done the infringing.

Re:just for info...

[Sphere1952]

".. if i post here including my copyright, and somebody answers cutti"

I don't know. If you read my message can I sue you?

Re: Rationale - No AOL subpoenas yet.

[Psyborgue]

As far as i know, i read in an earlier RIAA story that no AOL users have been handed subopenas. Are they trying to scare people to switching to an "isp" in which they have an interest.
This selectivity demonstrates exactly why nobody should be given the power that they currently have.

Mod parent up (interesting) please

[Psyborgue]

now can somebody start a new thread with this... i'm itchin for an SCO story.

Wow, nice plan, Glenn

[Rogerborg]

Based on this interview, he's going to argue that people can't be identified in a civil suit until we know that what they're being sued for is actionable.

Psst, Glenn, in a civil suit there is no presumption of innocence, and quite literally no prejudice. The result of the suit is the indication of whether the case is actionable. There's no stigma attached - in the eyes of the law - if it fails, and if you believe otherwise, your response should be a counter-suit to show that, not an argument that a suit can't be brought against you.

No, IANAL, but I'm wondering how much of a lawyer Glenn really is. He mentions constitutional issues five times, but doesn't expand on what those are, or why they'd apply in a civil suit.

I wish him and Jane the best of luck, but on this basis, they're really going to need it.

Re:Wow, nice plan, Glenn

[misterpies]

>>Psst, Glenn, in a civil suit there is no presumption of innocence, and quite literally no prejudice.

RTFDMCA. Under the DMCA willful violation of copyright is a CRIMINAL offence as well as a civil one. Thus a subpoena demonstrating the existence of infringing material may well lead to a criminal prosecution. Hence the need for presumption of innocence.

>>No, IANAL, but I'm wondering how much of a lawyer Glenn really is. He mentions constitutional issues five times, but doesn't expand on what those are, or why they'd apply in a civil suit.

More of a lawyer than you. The argument is that the LAW is unconstitutional, not that the suitor is acting unconstitutionally. Every law passed by Congress, civil or criminal, can be challenged in court and overturned if it breaches the constitution. That's what the constitution is for.

Re:Wow, nice plan, Glenn

[Rogerborg]

>Under the DMCA willful violation of copyright is a CRIMINAL offence as well as a civil one. Thus a subpoena demonstrating the existence of infringing material may well lead to a criminal prosecution.

Which would be an argument in a criminal prosecution. This, however, is a civil case. That gives it a hell of a long and wandering way to go before it reaches a court which will strike the law.

> The argument is that the LAW is unconstitutional

OK, I understand that, but I still want to know what the constitutional grounds are. Where exactly in the fourth amendment (which is what I'm assuming) is the right to anonymity?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Which is why the DMCA specifies that the infringement claims are made under penalty of perjury. What he seems to be about to argue is that good faith isn't enough, and that complainants have to somehow prove their case before they bring it. I can't see how he's going to argue this in a way that doesn't make it look as though he's simply trying to keep a civil case out of court.

Re:Wow, nice plan, Glenn

[poot_rootbeer]

No, IANAL, but I'm wondering how much of a lawyer Glenn really is.

Hmm. Well, he studied Law intensively for at least three years, and I'm guessing your studies in the area amount to maybe a single-semester Civics course and whatever you picked up from reading the Slashdot IANALers argue with each other.

If I had to guess, I'd say he's right and you're wrong.

Re:Wow, nice plan, Glenn

[Rogerborg]

But he's not up against me, he's up against the best that the RIAA can afford. If he can't convince me that he's got a case, how is he going to do when they set about him?

Re:Wow, nice plan, Glenn

[pyros]

OK, I understand that, but I still want to know what the constitutional grounds are. Where exactly in the fourth amendment (which is what I'm assuming) is the right to anonymity?

They're challenging that the process the RIAA is following, (getting a subpeona from a clerk with little/no proof, rather then enough evidence to present probable cause to a judge) violates the due process defined to permit search/seizure under the 4th amendment. In case you'er wondering the search/seizure in question is the RIAA presenting a subpeona to the ISP to obtain the records. The 4th amendment specifies what needs to be established before such a search/seizure can take place.

Re:Wow, nice plan, Glenn

[Rogerborg]

Lest I go hoarse from repeating myself:

Where exactly in the fourth amendment is the right to anonymity? Where is anonymity enumerated as being part of due process? Where does the fourth amendment specify that a judge rather than a clerk has to approve subpoenas?

If the argument is going to be "What I think the Constitution meant to say was..." then - given that the opposition are the best lawyers that the RIAA can afford - this is going to be a short trial.

Given that the DMCA requires you to list the infringing works, and to support that with "Oath or affirmation", then the only arguing point is whether a clerk should issue a subpoena, or whether the complainant has to convince a judge first. Given the impact this would have on civil cases, both practically and in principle, I confidently predict that it will be laughed out of court.

Re:Wow, nice plan, Glenn

[pyros]

What I was trying to say was that they're not saying her right to anonymity has been violated. So it doesn't matter if the 4th amendment says a damn thing about privacy. They're saying that the search/seizure action to obtain her information violated the 4th amendment, not because of privacy, but because the DMCA sets more lenient rules than the Consitution. So quit talking about a right to privacy, go yell at Santorum haters about that. Talk about due process of search and seizure.

Re:Wow, nice plan, Glenn

[Rogerborg]

The subpoena was served on her ISP, not on her. How is that a search or siezure on her "person, house, papers, and effects". Because I don't see "information" in that list.

It seems to me, and I'm sure it will seem to the RIAA lawyers, that this subpoena is between them and the ISP. And, much as I loathe the RI|MPAA, on this specific issue, I find myself in agreement with them.

Re:Wow, nice plan, Glenn

[Rogerborg]

And what's your uninformed, anonymous, cowardly opinion on this matter? I take it that you disagree with me? On what grounds, exactly?

Re:Wow, nice plan, Glenn

[pyros]

As I said in my original reply, they are saying the search/seizure served on the ISP violated the due process. How difficult is that for you to understand.

RIAA to ISP: we have a subpoena that says you have to give us Jane Doe's information

ISP to RIAA: here it is

Jane Doe: eine Minute bitte! The subpoena that RIAA gave to my ISP was obtained through methods which violate the Constitutional due process provisions.

Now, feel free to post another troll that completely disregards things I've told to you directly in this thread, and in the articles related to this discussion, but don't expect to make any converts.

Re:Wow, nice plan, Glenn

[WNight]

What is the fourth-amendment connection to "right of anonymity"?

If you're walking down the street in a crowded city you're effectively anonymous. The police can't, without reason, stop you and demand identification. You have the right to be as anonymous as your actions allow. To me, this equates to you having the right to do everything without having to advertise your identity, or even provide it when requested by someone without proper legal authority (as specified in the fourth ammendment).

You may have to identify yourself to the ISP to pay for an account, but you pay with credit-cards in the physical world and identify yourself to chosen people (the shop-keeper) only. Obviously the intent of the 4th is to keep you from having to provide documents and be searched, in any way, unless there's evidence or valid suspicion of a crime.

The 4th applies to non-visible items on your person, non-visible items in your home, the non-visible contents of your car, etc. It's been ruled to apply to telephone conversations. (You need a warrant to tap a line.) Why would it not apply to text communication over a wire as well?

Re:Wow, nice plan, Glenn

[Qrlx]

If I'm not mistaken, the No Electronic Theft act of like 1998 or something moved criminalized copyright violations.

Re:Wow, nice plan, Glenn

[poot_rootbeer]

Being that I am uninformed, I refrain from having an opinion on this subject.

Re:Al Qaeda VS Johhny Music Downloader...

[3terrabyte]

I agree that except for worthless quotes from the RIAA, and misprints in articles, I have yet to see where it says downloading is illegal.

I have seen news articles about the same event say "this person is being sued for sharing X files" vs. "this person is being sued for downloading 1 file!". The media is just paraphrasing. But if you behind these articles at the source, in all the cases so far, and all the laws pertaining to the subject, all I can find is 'distribution of copyrighted material' as being illegal. Not downloading.

If anyone has any information to the contrary, please share your links!

Abuse of subpoena?

[The Revolutionary]

"Arguably the most dangerous consequence, the subpoena power can be put in the hands of anyone willing to pretend to have a copyright claim."

Peterson suggests that this can be abused by swindlers, child abductors, and terrorists to name a few.

How realistic is this? I've never had the privelege of being in court or served a subpoena myself (and as such I'm rather uninformed about the system), but doesn't existing law provide for means to sue or press charges or something of that sort against people who abuse the system?

Sure, you might have to go to court if Cmdr Taco sues you for infringing distribution of the Audioslave album, but certainly you can bring him right back there with a suit of your own once his case is dismissed, to get back your court fees and lost wages, yes?

Can someone explain to me where I am confused here or what I am missing? It seems to me that this would be a sufficient check on the system.

Re:Abuse of subpoena?

[nolife]

Peterson suggests that this can be abused by swindlers, child abductors, and terrorists to name a few.

Here's an example of an abuse.
Someones posts a negative comment as anonymous to a public trading board or somewhere like FC. The company sues for the AC's information claiming some interpetation of a copyright violation. Who can stop this AC's information from changing hands? Who reviews a case like this to determine if a copyright violation actually occured or not? No one under the current system. The RIAA wants to run by a different set of rules and regulations and under the existing political pressure (money), they are getting special treatment. If you want to look at the exact opposite power of what the RIAA gets, search Google for the horror stories that people have with identity fraud and how hard it is for them to get thier own information from a company or track down accounts opened in thier own fucking name and SSN. The difference? RIAA has lobby money, identity fraud victims do not.

Re:Abuse of subpoena?

[Xebikr]

Ok. Example: I run a website targeted toward seniors. When someone browses my website I collect their IP address. I then take that IP address down to the court and get a subpoena, alleging copyright infringement. I give that to the ISP, who then gives me their name, address, and phone number. I never press the court case, but I do hand the personal information over to my buddy who specializes in ripping off old people. Based on the areas of the website they visited, I can give him a good idea of what they are interested in.

The scarey part is that all you need is an IP address. You can make up the rest. If your goal is to get the personal information and you have no intention of actually filing a suit, then a counter suit isn't a big deterent.

Re:Abuse of subpoena?

[einTier]

Yes, that's all true. However, the DMCA is federal law, and that means you will have to appear in federal court. Have you ever tried to find a lawyer to take on a case for you in federal court? You'll be lucky to find one to take the case without an initial retainer of about $5,000, and you'll likely need something like $10,000. That's just the initial retainer. If he blows through that, you'll have to pay more.

Of course, federal court also doesn't move very fast. So, you can expect to be in there at least a year or so with your lawyer just trying to get to summary judgement. And then, God forbid, if there are appeals, or you lose. It is possible to lose a case in federal civil court even when you are in the right, as the burden of proof is much less than in a criminal case. Oh, and just because you do manage to win, that doesn't automatically mean you'll get your money back either. You'll have to go to federal court again and win it back.

Can you afford to tie up five or ten grand of your money for year or more fighting this thing out, especially when there's no promise you'll ever see the money again -- and you may have to pay additional money in fines if you lose? Or will you just take the 'settlement offer' and be done with it?

I know what the answer is, because DirecTV has been prosecuting cases under the DMCA for the past year and a half, and I've been watching it very closely. They have done almost exactly what the RIAA is doing, filing lawsuits on end users without any evidence that will hold up in a court of law. One of these persons has fought the case and won, in Michigan. He did not win back his court fees, lost wages, legal fess, or anything else. All that fight came out of his pocket. Cases have been thrown out in California and South Carolina -- but whatever those defendants paid in legal fees, they have not seen a dime of it back either, and the California cases were settled over a year ago.

No, most people chose to settle, because at $3500, it was just cheaper to pay up than to fight it out. Thousands have already settled. The ones who didn't pay attention to what they were signing have also opened themselves up to criminal prosecution because they freely admit that they have stolen and decrypted satellite signals. DirecTV claims they will not share this information with a federal prosecuter, but what they don't tell you is that they do not have a choice. If the federal prosecuter asks for the list of people who have sworn in a signed legal document that they have committed a crime, DirecTV must turn over their names. Then, it's up to the federal government, not DirecTV, if they want to pursue a case.

Oh, and the people who settled in California, before all the lawsuits were thrown out for lack of evidence? They filed a class action suit to get their 'extortion' money back from DirecTV. They lost.

Yes, content providers need to be able to protect their content, but they shouldn't be able to use the court system as a set of brass knuckles. "You're innocent? Fuck you. Pay me."

Re:Abuse of subpoena?

[nolife]

But that is more then the /. sig character limit! Did you read that whole thread? It is pretty interesting. Same arguements 10 years later. I was actually searching for AMIPRO and WYSIWYG a few months ago when I stumbled across that thread and stole the line.

Similarities

[xThinkx]

Quoth the article "There are interesting similarities between the RIAA's campaign, Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and the 'War on Terrorism.' ".

Really well put, what do all of these things have in common, they will all, in the end, be failures. I've gone in to this a thousand times before, but sometime soon governments/organizations will have to learn that no matter how hard you try you cannot manipulate everyone into thinking the way you want them to. There is an innate ability in some humans to make their own decisions, and although it is more sparce today than say 20 or 30 years ago, there are those who use this ability and formulate their own decisions. The gov't/RIAA hate this.

During prohibition there was a massive (failed) propaganda campaign. The war on drugs, I think everyone who realizes that it is easier to buy pot/coc/crack/heroin/pcp/lsd than alcohol on a sunday in most states will agree that this has been/is/will continue to be a failure. I know I'll get at least ten proud citizens that will argue with me on this one, but the War on Terrorism will fail too.

The reason the war on terrorism will fail is because we (the US) are using the wrong methods. Again we've fired up the propaganda machine, I saw an interview with the new "Big Cheese" of Fort Bragg. In it, he said the reason that terrorists attack is because they are "jealous of our way of life". This could not be a more callous, arrogant, and ethnocentric lie. These terrorists, especially the 9/11 group and friends, weren't jealous of our way of life. They were irrational because they were religious extremists and a 1,000 years ago christians returned to a land they had given up years ago, slaughtered indiscriminantly, and claimed to have "retaken the holy land", which coincidentally, is the muslim holy land too. So began the feud between the extremist muslims and the extremist christians. Fast forward a few hundred years and we see that even though the US has a supposed separation of church and state (don't even get me started on that nutcase holy roller 10 commandments uber-conservative closed minded judge in Alabama) the US gets involved in this war and picks (of course), the judeo-christian side. That series of events is (predominantly) why the 9/11 attacks happened. Back to the war on terrorism failing, so we're attacking this thing in the wrong way. The gov't is spreading falsities about the people involved, we're insulting everything from their land, to their culture, to their names, which does not bode well for diplomacy and mutual respect. To add insult to injury, we're killing anyone who gets in our way while we try and kill a few of our personal favorites as well. The apparent reasoning behind the killing is the "cut off the head and the body dies" logic, which DOES NOT WORK WITH NON-CENTRALIZED organizations. Due to this piss-poor technique, the war on terrorism will, in the end, create MORE TERRORISM.

It's a similar logic failure which is afflicting the RIAA's battle. Rather than scaring users into paying full price and not pirating, they're simply angering and frustrating them into adapting to new ways to achieve the same result, sometimes worse. I wasn't boycotting the RIAA until about 5 months ago, so from me alone they've sold around 15-20 less CDs (for some reason some indie bands end up on RIAA labels), and I've increased my downloading (and uploading) levels, yeah, good strategy here.

Re:Similarities

[Gulthek]

Now that is extremely well written. Ever read dailykos.com?

Re:Similarities

[jschrod]

I can't see that "these things [...] will all, in the end, be failures."

In the end, they have been or are used to destroy civil rights of US citizens. As such, they are a full success. (You could add old and new McCarthy'ism to this list, too.)

And p > 0.5 for the hypothesis that desctruction of civil rights is not an unwelcome side-effect of such laws, IMHO.

Re:Similarities

[caudron]

even though the US has a supposed separation of church and state

I don't mean to nitpick, heck I basically agree with your points; however, it is worth noting that we do not have a seperation of church and state anywhere in the constitution. That was a phrase taken from the writings of one of our Founding Fathers and used in a Supreme Court case to justify said seperation. The Establishment Clause, though, was only designed to keep the federal government from establishing a state religion because, and this is key, it wanted that right to fall upon the individual states.

That is why, even after that amendment was added, 8 states maintained official state religions. It was not until LONG after that when anti-catholic sentiment ran high did the Establishment Clause grow in practiced scope. They wanted to avoid a Catholic state in favor of the current default Protestant state. Hardly a noble endeavor.

Disclaimer: I'm Methodist, not Catholic, though I do have a degree in religion.

-Tom

Re:Similarities

[SpaghettiPattern]

...and picks (of course), the judeo-christian side. That series of events is (predominantly) why the 9/11 attacks happened.

Oh come on US presence in the gulf is about oil. This expensive resource makes US want to "be present in the region" and part of the oil revenue is used to pay for terrorist's arms. Once it isn't a strategic resource any more (when it's finished or when it's made redundant by new technologies), US will loose interest, retreat and the terrorism will stop because it will not be financed any longer. "War against terrorism" is just smooth talk for "we want to secure our oil supply".

The RIAA's fight is different because there always will be enough resources (musicians) out there. Their business model is still lawful and the product music isn't as morally reprehensible as drugs or alcohol.

Also, the RIAA is an intelligent body that will not be pushed aside that easily. A huge change in people's awareness is needed for this to happen. That'll take time.

Re:Similarities

[Pig Hogger]

Disclaimer: I'm Methodist, not Catholic, though I do have a degree in religion.

The mind boggles. One could go for years wondering at the usefulness of such a thing.

Re:Similarities

[rokzy]

isn't separation of church and state implied by the first ammendment?

Re:Similarities

[Qrlx]

Lots of good points by the parent. However part of the conflict comes down to exactly this assertion: governments/organizations will have to learn that no matter how hard you try you cannot manipulate everyone into thinking the way you want them to

John Ashcroft once made a comment, which I'm not going to bother do get the actual quoute for, but it went like this: "People say you can't legislate morality? Watch me."

Ashcroft is not alone in his belief that laws and morality are really inextricable. In Ashcroft's view, you need laws like $150,000 per IP violation to keep people on the path of righteousness, or they will be tempted by the sins of the MP3. Seriously, he really does think that way. This is the same sort of logic that has no problem with homosexuality per se; rather it's the performance homosexual acts that's taboo. You see, homosexuals/file traders aren't immoral so long as the fear of punishment keeps them from doing what their lustful hearts truly desire.

Another great quote came from George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones I'm focusing on."

When dealing with the Right, never for a minute assume that they're rational. Their ideology stems from a bitter and venomous religious treatise in which men and women consistently demonstrate their propesnity for evil deeds. It is only fear of horrific punishment and constant reminders of our own worthlessness and impotence that keeps the Devil at bay.

You can see why these people get into politics.

Re:Similarities

[caudron]

isn't separation of church and state implied by the first ammendment?

No. The First Amendment is where you will find the Establishment Clause that I mention in my parent post. That clause was never intended to seperate church from government, but rather to allow the states themselves to determine the nature of their own relationships to organized religion, rather than having it force fed them by the federal government.

Specifically, there were only two Founding Fathers who wanted to see real seperation through all levels of government with religion (well, only two that felt strongly enough to write about it at length). Both were Virginian, btw, and neither considered it a deal breaker. Seperation of Church and State as an implication of the First Amendment only holds water if you beleive that the only Founding Fathers who mattered were the Virginian ones, which as a Virginian I like, but as a scholar I recognize to be false. Many voices came together to write the Constitution and almost all of them saw no problem with the state governments and organized religions being in cahoots.

-Tom

Re:Similarities

[peccary]

terrorism will not stop when oil is no longer strategic.

the terrorism of the future will be about control of fresh water supplies.

Re:Similarities

[Pseudonym]

How useful is a degree in mediaeval history? Or pure mathematics?

Re:Similarities

[Pig Hogger]

Mediaeval history can be useful for an editor of an history magazine, and pure mathematics will doubtlessly qualify you for teaching.

Re:Similarities

[Pseudonym]

Fine, so a religion degree would help qualify you as an editor of a religious affairs magazine or teacher of comparative religions.

Re:Similarities

[caudron]

One could go for years wondering at the usefulness of such a thing.

It's a travesty of modern public education that people assume that education is merely a means to an end rather than an end in and of itself.

The "usefulness" of any degree is that you are ostensibly a better educated person. Why should education need more justification than that?

-Tom

Re:Similarities

[Pig Hogger]

The "usefulness" of any degree is that you are ostensibly a better educated person. Why should education need more justification than that?

Because the suits who do the hiring will only look at the paper.

Re:Similarities

[caudron]

Because the suits who do the hiring will only look at the paper.

If you think that having an education is about impressing suits and making money, then you probably don't have one. You wouldn't be alone. I know many degreed people with no reasonable education whose only point in attending college was to get a job. You are just going to have to accept, however, that not everyone approaches life from a mercenary perspective.

I quit school in the 8th grade, got my GED and entered the workforce. I was already an established professional in my field (programming consultant) long before I decided to get my degree. In fact, going back to college when I did only hurt my career. I now own my own business, make good money, haven't been seriously affected by the economic downturn, and am better educated in the end. Life is not about keeping your eye on the prize. Go through life like that and you'll end up a miserable person.

I got a degree in religion becuase when I went back to college I asked myself "what should I learn about?" Questions of ultimacy and the purpose of life seemed then and still seem today some of the most important questions to ask and to have answered. I, therefore, studied the subject that would bring me closest to that ideal. I haven't regretted a moment of it.

Stop worrying so much about impressing suits and start trying to impress yourself. The rest will work itself out.

-Tom

Re:Similarities

[red floyd]

However, the 14th Amendment clarified the issue, and the First Amendment applies to the Several States as well as to Congress.

A Lawyer That Reads Slashdot

[jareds]

From the interview:

• The scenario Jane Doe is fighting is the one where you don't know about the subpoena until the RIAA shows up at your door with a summons and a lawsuit. In any case, I strongly suggest seeking legal advice to deal with it. That's not a plug for lawyers, it's just that
• I've heard lots of people voice bad ideas about how to respond and many of those ideas would just make a bad situation worse.

Wow, it looks like he reads Slashdot.

if the riaa wants people to pay

[Comsn]

why dont they just start lawsuits, then settle out of court for the people to pay subscription fees into one of thier music websites?

that way, they keep thier customer base, the consumers dont get up in arms, legal music grows in users... etc

instead of suing them for $250,000 each song...

Re:if the riaa wants people to pay

[Kneo24]

Why is that I keep on seeing 250k per each song? I thought it was 150k. I thought the 250k figure came from the ACCOPS bill which, to my knowledge, hasn't been passed yet.

Re:if the riaa wants people to pay

[Lord_Dweomer]

That would be bad. We don't want this settled out of court in some form of bullying where many students lose their entire life savings over a couple britney spears songs. We want this to go to court so some sort of verdict may be had. We want the RIAA stopped dead in its tracks.

Opera + DFP = Headache

[#!/bin/allen]

Don't look at this article with Opera.

Or do, it refreshes itself as soon as it finishes loading. Ouch.

Re:Opera + DFP = Headache

[scubacuda]

I just loaded it in Opera and didn't have any problems.

What ver are you using?

Tired of this...

[assaultriflesforfree]

Frankly, I'm tired of reading the same recycled comments on this issue, and I've never really interjected my opinion for the simple reason that very few of you will probably agree. Many might think I'm insane. But I'll go ahead and kill my karma right here. Take this as a criticism to Slashdot for discussing this article.

Copyright law is bullshit. First off-- to make those of you that actually care understand that I have some standing on the issue-- I'm an artist, among other things. I write, act, and direct both for free and for money. The pay is little, and I honestly am only concerned with making back the money I put into a performance. I can and do find money elsewhere, doing the meaningless things that our labor-as-commodity economy provides and occasionally finding the job that really provides me with satisfaction. Would it be nice to devote more time to my creative work? Sure, except I find being an automaton provides just as much time to space out and file ideas away in my head as sitting in front of a computer thinking ever could. It certainly provides me with more inspiration.

I don't care if people tape my shows. I don't care if people show them to all of their friends. I don't care if people make as many copies as they possibly can give them away. I doubt I'd even care if people sold those tapes for $1000 a piece. There's really only one thing I really care about: a little bit of credit. If someone's taking my writing and performing it (whether or not for pay), I'd like to receive just a note of thanks for putting some effort into writing it, exactly as I appreciate it when my girlfriend thanks me for bringing her lunch at work. Common courtesy is all I ask.

I don't create for money. I create because I have to. It makes me happy. At most of my free shows, we break fire code. And when I manage to take all of those people and force them into the exact mix of emotions I'm aiming for--when a nervous, uncomfortable laughter rides over the crowd--that's a better feeling than anything. Like the MasterCard commercials, money can't buy some things.

Some of you will say, "Yes, but you have a right to be paid for what you do." I don't see it. I have a right to do what I want to do, and in a perfect world, I'd be able to work my ass off doing that and not have to worry about paying the bills and whatever. I have no right to be rich, and that's all royalties and pay-for-play is about. I perform for people because I want to connect with them, to make them laugh, to simply make them glad that they took 2 hours out of their day to sit back and enjoy something. Charging only limits my audience, and frankly, the reason I do what I do seems to me to be far more important than getting paid to do it, particularly when I consider how disgusted I am with what the pursuit of money has brought this country.

I have no reservation about "stealing" from record companies, software companies, or whatever. No, I don't want to see artists starve, but really, the revolutionary that's too careful about stepping on toes doesn't do shit. I want to keep hearing Aesop Rock, but I want, more than that, to tear down the barriers that reinforce elitism. I want to see everybody "pirate" music and software. I want to see Microsoft's profits dwindle until they disappear and force it to fold. I want the creative work of the world come to a screeching halt under capitalism so that people realize free is the only way to go-- that creation implies ownership no more than discovery. I want this because the system we have is fucking stupid. It's so fucking stupid that we get article after article posted about the latest lawsuit the RIAA's intellectual-property-rights claiming jerkoffs are waging against somebody that really just wants to share the creative wealth of human achievement.

Noam Chomsky sums it up well: "It is sometimes argued that constructive and creative work will cease unless it leads to material reward, so that all of sociey gains when the talented receive special rewards. For the ma

Re:Tired of this...

[assaultriflesforfree]

No, I don't think that would be particularly useful.

Although I guess you've already made some thinly veiled comments. And no, they weren't particularly useful, partly because I don't think I understand them perfectly. Interesting.

Re:Tired of this...

[mopslik]

I don't create for money. I create because I have to. It makes me happy.

That's all well and good, but copyright protects those who do create for profit. Given that, if you are solely creating for creativity's sake, you are free to release your songs to the public domain as an independent artist. Let copyright law apply to those who require it to make a living.

...how disgusted I am with what the pursuit of money has brought this country.

It's sad, yes, but it's the way things work. Pretending there's a better, less money-centric world doesn't make this one disappear.

Re:Tired of this...

[imadork]

I think you have a good perspective on things. There is more to life than making as much money as you can, and from what I gather, if you can make someone's life better through your art even for a few minutes, you've been paid enough.

However, I think that you're a little off the mark in saying that you wish to fight the system through "piracy". Like it or not, we live in a capitalist country, and the almighty dollar will dictate most of our big decisions. Up until now, it had dictated that art has value only when its distribution is carefully controlled, and circumventing that system is illegal.

I think massive civil disobedience on this issue won't get us anythere: nobody will say "since most people are making illegal copies of music, we should make it legal". The only thing that will work is to show that there is value in art that is distributed as widely as possible. When people realize that they can become musicians without signing away their rights, and possibly even make a living selling their own music if they distribute their music themselves, on their terms, the RIAA will become irrelevant.

The key thing is not to circumvent copyright, but show that the big copyright cartels are not where the value in art lies anymore. Thus, mass copying of other people's work will not accomplish as much as opening up the distribution of your own work. This is what the Free Software movement does: it uses copyright (which was designed to limit distribution) as a tool to distribute information as widely as possible. Perhaps it's time for a Free Music movement?

Re:Tired of this...

[kenthorvath]

It's sad, yes, but it's the way things work. Pretending there's a better, less money-centric world doesn't make this one disappear.

I have to disagree. It is the strive for idealism that results in progress. Just because a system is in a given state does not mean that it can not change. If that were the case then America's revolutionary war would never have succeeded and the world would be a vastly different place. More to the point, the parent poster is not "pretending," he is outright claiming that there is a better way and he is encouraging you to do nothing more than think about it with an open mind.

Let copyright law apply to those who require it to make a living.

The parent poster is clearly attacking the merit of such a system. His position is that people do not deserve to be financially supported by their respective creative works, at least not to the end where they are gauranteed dictatorship over who may experience and share the work and at what cost. A person who is able to sell his work to a person willing to support him has that right, but no more. He should not have absolute say in who can charge for his works or who can experience them. In his eyes, there should be nobody that requires copyright law to make a living. The system is deprecated.

Re:Tired of this...

[kenthorvath]

Nobody is going to say "Since most people are making illegal copies of music, we should make it legal."

History would disagree with you. Just look at what happened to Prohibition. (Yes this is a redundant argument, but so, too, is the parent poster's rhetoric.

Re:Tired of this...

[imadork]

Just look at what happened to Prohibition.

Prohibition was a bit of a different issue. It's a case study on the pitfalls of legislating morality. It also was a relatively recent phenomenon when they overturned it, and there was not a long history of prohibition in the country to have to counter. It was, simply put, a social experiment gone wrong, and the people who started it were alive to fix it.

That's not to say that copyright law isn't based on morality (although few people object to Copyright on religious grounds) but it also has a basis in property law. IP is not exactly like real property, but the courts have treated them similarly in the past. Copyright is also a very old concept that has been around for hundreds of years, working quite nicely for most of that time -- it won't go away simply because some people want it to today.

Lately, it seems the balance of copyright law has tilted toward the distribution oligopolies. That can change without junking all of copyright. And the Free Software movement have used Copyright to further their goals of the widest possible distribution of software: making Piracy legal or legitimate would undermine this movement because it is based on copyright.

Re:Tired of this...

[Rick.C]

That's all well and good, but copyright protects those who do create for profit. Given that, if you are solely creating for creativity's sake, you are free to release your songs to the public domain as an independent artist. Let copyright law apply to those who require it to make a living.

It seems that those who start out thinking, "I'd like some income. I think I'll write some songs" tend to suck compared to those who begin with, "Songs are cool. I think I'll write some songs."

If the latter group finds that people actually like their songs, then they can say, "These songs are worth money. They can provide me with a source of income." It is their right, both legally and morally, to copyright their creations and profit from them.

What often happens though is that after a while they start thinking, "I'd like some more income. I think I'll write some more songs" and then they start to suck. We've seen it over and over - artists start out with a bang and then fade away after several years.

The original poster has avoided falling into this trap and I, for one, admire him/her for it.

Re:Tired of this...

[KiahZero]

Actually, the parent poster was claiming that copyright has no place because (s)he believes that creativity itself outweights profit. I respectfully disagree, since without copyright law, I could spend years creating a novel only to have someone copy it near-verbatim and profit from my efforts. This may not be an issue if I were writing as a hobby, but this obviously does not apply to all writers.

Maybe I don't understand, but if you write a novel and give it away for free, why would someone pay money for an inferior knock-off?

Re:Tired of this...

[madman3m]

I would like to say that I agree with most of your comments. The Open Source Movement would not be where it is now if it were based just on monetary profit. I feel that we as a society are coming to a crossroads. Do we stay with our current system of capitalism with welfare for the rich or do we create a new capitalist model not based on monetary gain, but based on the enrichment of life itself. We must acknowledge though that the idea of copyright itself is outdated. It is merely the red headed step child of big corporation who wish to hold on to thier fiscal position with out innovation. To put this in prospective: If the current status of IP law, copyright and corporate greed where in place at the begining of the last century there would be only one brand of air plane, one brand of car, no atom bomb no advancement of medical science, no rock and roll as a matter of fact we may have never won WWII. Are current status of law stops all inovation by smothering it with law suits. Just my 2 cents

Re:Tired of this...

[bark]

People do pay for those inferior knock-offs though ...
just think of those chinese Harry Potter fan fic books. I've seen some at the local chinese market ... they're huge, and lots of ppl are gobling them up

Re:Tired of this...

[Kwil]

That's wonderful that you feel this way and give so freely of your time and effort.

I don't see why everybody else has to live by your code though - which is what you're advocating when you say "I want the creative work of the world come to a screeching halt under capitalism so that people realize free is the only way to go". Some people, perhaps not as creative as you, may actually need to make a living at their creativity in order to have the time to produce something worthwhile.

Re:Tired of this...

[Feztaa]

Do we stay with our current system of capitalism

What you have to understand is that capitalism is a great way of dealing with scarcity.

A problem arises, then, when you enter the digital world: there is no more scarcity. Making a perfect replica of a file is so easy that anybody can, and does, do it. The only costs are the electricity required to run your computer.

Think about the basic economics here: if something is in short supply and high demand, the prices on it will be high; if there is too much supply and insufficient demand, the prices will be low. On the internet, everything is in infinite supply; therefore, no matter what the demand, prices ought to always be zero. Organizations like the RIAA exist to create an artificial scarcity, so they can raise the prices.

I think, more or less, once there is no more scarcity in something, socialism is the only feasable way of managing society. This idea will be shot down so quickly, but artists should go onto some kind of "artist welfare" program where they are basically paid by the government to be creative all day, create music/paintings/movies/whatever, and then the fruits of their labor are distributed, for free, to anybody that wants it.

Re:Tired of this...

[mopslik]

Maybe I don't understand, but if you write a novel and give it away for free, why would someone pay money for an inferior knock-off?

1) I publish a book for $X.
2) Someone copies said book and sells it for $Y < $X.
3) People buy the cheaper book.

My efforts have helped pad someone else's pockets. There's no giving away for free involved.

On an off-topic note, I'm so happy my reply was marked as a troll. Nothing like seeing a rational argument modded down because it treads on someone else's pride.

Re:Tired of this...

[assaultriflesforfree]

People will think that's an absurd idea, and most of them probably won't realize that such a system already works for them (and works quite well) in the form of grants for scientific research, arts, and the like.

Foregin Bands

[darkstar949]

On a side note, how do the US copyright laws apply to foregin bands? I like to download Japanese music to hear new bands, simply because it's about 40$ to import a CD and you are out alot of money if you end up not liking the band.
However, in terms of US bands I can see why the RIAA would be annoyed, but I can also see why their tatics are wrong. In the eyes of the general public they are trying to be the school yard bully in the why the go about "copyright protection".

RIAA alternatives

[chipwich]

The battle between the RIAA and listeners appears to be very similar to the battle between software vendors (Micro$oft et al) and end-users.

Since the combination of technology (DRM) and law (DMCA, EULA's) give unreasonable amounts of leverage to the IP producers, the only real alternative for the end-user is to avoid winding up a criminal by choosing something with less restrictive licensing.

Can someone respond by explaining the alternative licensing arrangements available to artists? What sites post media created under these licenses?

If large numbers of these files started showing up on P2P networks, this could have the potential to legitimize their content, benefit non-RIAA artists, and share some good music/art with the world all without supporting the RIAA.

Of course, you've got to stop buying the RIAA's latest boy-band fad, but that shouldn't be a problem here...

Oh, and lastly, is SCO challenging any of these artistic licenses yet?

Well...

[Aldric]

Eventually someone will be abducted and murdered with the help of the US legal system after posting something online that someone else doesn't like, then the government will be up in arms to change it. Until then, they stay bought by the RIAA.

Re: Rationale - No AOL subpoenas yet.

[Kneo24]

Actually, AOL has received ONE subpeona. Big fucking deal, right?

Though, the same article shows that that AOL's 'sister company' Time Warner, who offers cable Internet access has recieved 135 subpeona's. Interesting, no?

Bringing some common sense to "damages"

[The Revolutionary]

Peterson says in response to a question on damages:
"I feel especially passionate about this with respect to the "intent" factor. The intent associated with printing 1,000 counterfeit "Harry Potter" books and that associated with kids sharing music with other kids is obviously different and I can scarcely visualize a scenario where $150,000 per download would be appropriate."

I've already written "my" senators and congress people on this (we'll see what good that does...).

I am just utterly dumbfounded when I see as potential damages for a single act of infringement: $750-$150,000. Can anyone tell me what the basis is for these numbers, or at least whose ass they were pulled out of, and for how much?

Were I to distribute a copy of a track from the latest Metallica album (*shudder*) to one Mr. John Ashcroft, my doing so constitutes a single act of infringement. The theoretical maximum loss to the copyright holder due to this single act of infringement is the price of the album the song is officially distributed on; perhaps the album sells for $14.95. I don't know, I've never purchased an album (it is true!), and as such don't really keep up on prices.

While this is an obvious upper bound, the actual loss to the copyright holder will be far less than this. There a number of factors:

The electronic copy in .mp3 or .ogg format is not a full substitute for the uncompressed CD track.

John (hey, buddy!) has been distributed only 1 of (let's say) 12 tracks.

John has not received a physical duplicate of the printed CD.

John has not been distributed a jewel case.

John has not been distributed "liner notes".

The current retail price of the album may be such that, while John has no objection to being distributed a copy of a single track at no cost to himself, given John's relatively ho-hum interest in the track (understandable), and his limited means (hey, he's Attorney General, not CEO of Haliburton), John would not have acquired a copy of the track at all if it were only available to him at the current retail price.

We see that in the case John would not have been willing to pay any money at all to acquire a copy of the track (on the album), the copyright holder incurs no loss whatsoever by my act of infringing distribution.

Even if John would have been willing to pay the current retail price of the album, his receiving an infringing copy of a single track, or even several tracks, can not be said to result in a loss to the copyright holder in the amount of the current retail price of the album. It can not, beause John may still purchase the album. Given the previously presented list, this should not be at all surprising.

In fact, perhaps one of the few cases in which, although John had previously been willing or able to pay the current retail price of the album, upon hearing the infringing tracks I distributed to him he would no longer be willing to pay the current retail price, is the case in which the album fails to meet John's expectations. So yes, in this case, in the case where the current distribution model results in an uninformed and mislead consumer, perhaps my distributing to John one infringing track will result in a loss to the copyright holder in the amount of the current retail price of the album.

But even this is hardly reasonable, for the same effect could have been acheived through perfectly legal means, either by John hearing the track on the radio and realizing "it is the suck!", through word of mouth, or by Mr. Ashcroft coming over to my place for some head-banging, only to discover the album does not meet his expectations.

And so, if we want to assign a fair damage amount for each act of infringing distribution, on average I suspect it will not be more than about $0.50 a track, for an amateur-produced .mp3 of a track from a 12 track album.

What? Oh, yes, it

Re:Bringing some common sense to "damages"

[Lord_Dweomer]

I believe their reasoning for the insane amount per infringement is that I don't believe they have a way to find out how many others downloaded the track from that sharer. So while one instance of infringement may only be 'worth' $20 or so, or even less if you take out all the other material as you did, if you don't know how many people they transferred that file to, you would go for the maximum allowed by law.

Re:Bringing some common sense to "damages"

[DoktorGonzo]

Say, I recall a website where one could click on a link that would send a small encryption program to another country. This was a violation of some U.S. law, of course, which was exactly the point. Has anyone made one to send Metallica clips to John Ashcroft yet?

Re:Al Qaeda VS Johhny Music Downloader...

[danila]

Yep. And in some countries things aren't copyrighted unless released in this country withing a certain period. After that, if still not officially available, they are public domain. And in yet some other countries the copyrights are limited (I mean limited as in non-perpetual). For example (my favourite example), in Russia most movies released before 1973 are public domain (at least according to the Russian Ministry of Culture). So if you stumble upon an avi with Steamboat Willie, Bambi or Snowwhite and the Seven Dwarfs on *.ru site, feel free to piss Disney off. Downloading it is legal as said elsewhere in this discussion, and uploading it is legal, because it is in public domain.

P.S. If anyone is interested to invest a couple thousand USD to open a classic public domain movie distribution site in Russia, you are wel come.

Me too

[sacrilicious]

I couldn't agree more. I'm glad to find evidence - like this message - that people are finding the time to think for themselves about copyright. And it takes courage to say this stuff, even in a relatively anonymous forum... but that's what we have to do, we have to create the awareness that we are not alone in our thinking. Fascism throughout the ages has relied on dividing people and making them think they're alone. But every day I'm meeting more people who do not believe in copyright. Not people who simply want to rationalize downloading, but people who understand that copyright laws have recreated the situation in old England of the lords who had property and the serfs who never would.

A week ago I was at a party where several six-year-old children were running around. They started painting things on paper. One of them came up to me and showed me a painting she liked that had been done by another child. It was of a bear. She said "I like this painting, I wish I could do a bear." When I asked her why she didn't, she said "oh no, I can't, Laura already painted a bear so only she can do it." I told her that she could go ahead and paint the same bear, a different bear, or anything she wanted. She was delighted.

$750 - $150,000??

[ryan76]

Where does this number come from? And who has ever paid that much for an album?

Re: Rationale - No AOL subpoenas yet.

[Psyborgue]

At first i thought the same thing, but AOL broadband is actually provided by AOL. You can use an other isp and use AOL through that (even another dialup isp). However, 900+ subpoenas and not a single aol user...

Re:Of couse...

[circusnews]

The copyright law is about a deal between the State, We The People, and the corporate scums that needs a carrot.

What really bothers me is that copyright law was origionaly designed to be applied to buisneses. It's use against individuals is a perversion of the intent of the copyright clause. I really wish that point had been argued at the SJC. OTOH, that and the theroy of constitutional repugnancy may one day be heard at the SJC, and stands a much better chance of winning IMHO.

Re: Rationale - No AOL subpoenas yet.

[djaburg]

However, AOL has such limited bandwidth that you'd be a fool to dial in with your AOL account and download files, much less share them! ;-)

Where is this form?

[shotfeel]

Seems like there's been a lot of talk about this one-page form, but has anyone actually seen it?

Is there a web-accessible copy of it somewhere so we can actually see what info has to be provided and asserted as "correct" by the peron filling out the form?

It'd really be helpful if I could RTFF, but I haven't been able to find it, and I don't know if I can just walk into a county courthouse and ask for it and walk out with it in a reasonable amount of time or not.

Re: Rationale - No AOL subpoenas yet.

[Psyborgue]

You have a good point there. Not to mention that many irc filesharing channels will ban you if your ip resolves to anything having to do with aol.

Re:$750 - $150,000?? And What If I'm Not the O.I.

[Nom du Keyboard]

And what if I'm not the original infringer?

What I mean is this. These high damages assume that I rip and share a track (through the magic of Congressional mathamatics) with 10 people who share to an additional 10 people each etc. until through the power of P2P my single ripped track has become $150K of lost sales/damages. So I'm sued for that $150K/each track.

But wait...

What if the track I'm sharing (assuming that I do this at all for purposes of illustration only) came from not my own rip, but instead from an original infringer only one level up from me. Since he owes the $150K, does that mean he has already paid for me too?

In short, how can they legally or morally claim that every sharer has damaged them for the entire $150K as they are now doing? Yes it is nearly impossible to trace who got which shared file from whom, however I would expect any reasonable court to throw out such ludicrous claims of attempting to charge everybody for the same entire infringment.

where's the story?

[dinodriver]

I know it is against slashdot ettiquette to actually read an article but...I'd like to. It says to read the interview, click "read more" but I don't see such a link. Anyone?

Alice's Restaurant 2003

[Nom du Keyboard]

And the biggest, the meanest, the nastiest MF of them all said, "And what are you here for?"

"Sharing MP3s on the Internet..."

And they all moved away from me there on the Group W bench."

"...and beating up helpless women and children."

And they all moved back down next to me again, and we had a fine old time...

never mind

[dinodriver]

never mind. just a glitch.

Re:Secure our oil supply

[jtev]

Um, what's wrong with us wanting to secure otur oil supply? World War 1, World War 2, the Cold War, and the first Gulf ware all show that the supply of oil can be a deciding factor in War, I'm not saying we shouldn't try to reduce our dependancy on oil, however the need for oil is clear cut, and is a reality of our current economic and military realities. Should we drill more of our own oil, YES, should we open up Anwar, YES, should we explore other means of energy, YES, however currently we do need the forign oil. I support Alchohol as a fuel, I support renewable resources, but sometimes you just have to bend to current realities. Washington should stop hamstringing the development of alternitive energy sources, We export huge amounts of grain, we should be exporting technology to grow grain, and use our surplus to cure our energy woes, especialy when you consider that around 10% of planted land is destroyed each year. Well, my rant is begining to lose coherency, so I think I'll stop now.

Re:$750 - $150,000?? And What If I'm Not the O.I.

[ryan76]

So in theory.. They can only charge for one song ONCE.. So if I am sharing Britney's Hit Me Baby and they make me pay 150K. They shouldn't be able to force you to pay 150K?

Re:IANAL

[praedor]

It didn't create itself in a downloadable form. SOMEONE had to do work to rip the the track/song into an MP3, thus it is a derivative work. It is a work by the ripper to produce a reasonable facsimilie of the original. Thus, the ripper is an artiste.

Fair use isn't about making copies

[turnstyle]

It's a common misconception, but fair use isn't about making personal copies -- it's about the right to use qouted portions from one work in another.

From Stanford:

"Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. For example, if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a portion of the novelist's work without asking permission. Absent this freedom, copyright owners could stifle any negative comments about their work."

So, for example, my inclusion of that quote makes use of 'fair use'.

Re:Fair use isn't about making copies

[Mr. McGibby]

It's a common misconception, but "Stanford University Libraries" isn't a branch of the government, and certainly isn't Congress or the Courts, so their interpretation of the law really doesn't matter.

Numerous lawyers and other groups (some even sponsored by congress) have come up with guidelines for interpreting fair use, but none of them are legally binding. Copyright holders are notorious for being restrictive, while normal people are notorious for wanting to retain their rights.

Re:Fair use isn't about making copies

[turnstyle]

No serious interpretation of fair use extends it to include unlimited anonymous unauthorized copying, and it's just this sort of "but it's fair use" thinking that is going to get more people sued.

For your reading pleasure, TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 106.:
"Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission"

...and...

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 107.:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

Arguing that unlimited anonymous copying over Kazaa is fair use isn't ever going to go anywhere.

Re:Fair use isn't about making copies

[Mr. McGibby]

No serious interpretation of fair use extends it to include unlimited anonymous unauthorized copying, and it's just this sort of "but it's fair use" thinking that is going to get more people sued.

Arguing that unlimited anonymous copying over Kazaa is fair use isn't ever going to go anywhere.

Um, where did I say that? Where did the parent poster say that? I don't think that anyone could argue that Kazaa is fair use. What's your point?

Fair use is fair use, as defined by the LAW. Interpretation is simply opinion. And when it comes to the law, the only opinion that counts is that of the judges.

Re: Rationale - No AOL subpoenas yet.

[way2trivial]

or perhaps they aren't issuing subopenas, because aol is just fulfilling requests willingly? i.e. riaa asks, and aol supplies?

Here's my solution

[geekee]

The problem people have with the RIAA's tactic is that no judge ever sees the subpoenaes, and I agree. However, I also don't believe in protecting criminals through beuracracy, i.e. make the legal costs too high for the RIAA to effectively protect their property. No one likes it when DirectTV sues smartcard writer owners and makes them settle simply because it's more cost effective than hiring a lawyer. Therefore, we shouldn't support this sort of tactic just because we don't lik the RIAA. My solution is to submit a list of IP addresses to a judge, along with the method used to collect these IP addresses. If the judge feels the method is fair and legal, he can sign off on all IP addresses at once. This minimizes beuracracy while making the plaintiff show some evidence to show that he has a case. Note that the evidence doesn't need to be perfect, since they're not asking the judge for a conviction, just that enough evidence exists to warrent further investigation.

re...welcome to the jungle

[whittrash]

This in itself is a shaky comeback for MIT, and Boston College considering if some law was broken cross state lines, and mind you the DA's will look at the fact downloads occurred all over the world. Law is law anywhere in the US, I don't know when it stopped being so.

If you get sued in California, but live in Boston, the problem of answering the lawsuit for any ordinary person or small organization can in and of itself cause a financial collapse. That is why you have to file in the district where the act was committed, the point of origin. It is true that Federal law is the same everywhere, but I would much rather face a judge in Boston than in Virginia. Virginia is where all the 'hang em all' federal judges sit.

P2P isn't suffering at all

[ScooterBill]

The P2P network has just as many online users as it did a year ago.... I think what's happening is that the old tactic of doling out content slowly and a limited way in order to force the public into paying the highest possible price is backfiring. What do they expect? For years we've been brainwashed into thinking that instant gratification is the one true goal in life. Now that the P2P networks have given it to us, the RIAA complains. Ironic and just. M

Its not about the RIAA reactionaries!

[whittrash]

Ultimately the problem comes down to quality and convenience versus cost. Half the albums you buy are crap and you only really want that one song. Really cool artists, who put out full package, nice albums, top to bottom, I buy. I just don't buy crap anymore. Ultimately I think the record industry is homogenized by Clear Channel and other such conglomerates. They aren't serving my needs. Swapping files would stop for me if they offered an affordable, convenient system that empowered my lifestyle. All they see are $$$ and so they try to rape my wallet. RIAA, NO MEANS NO!

Actually you are not a criminal by downloading, you are a criminal by uploading. I may be splitting hairs, but I think that is the way it works. That is why I suggest only uploading obscure hard to find files that people want and need and not dozens of top 40 albums. The top 40 stuff always sucks you band width, and who wants to share with those chumps anyway. Those are all the record companies care about too because they are the only songs they make cash on, that 2% of music that gets to the top of the charts. They lose cash on the rest. You are doing them a favor by saving them printing costs on all of the obscure, money losing music. If your worried about the artist losing cash, go see them live. We don't need any more Kid Rock floating around in swap land. Simply upload about 30 or 40 songs total of obscure music, that you find important, hard to find and valuable to the community. If they sue you and find you have 100 gigs on your computer just say you don't share them, you only download, and you will be telling the truth.

Another way to protect yourself is to combine music archives with friends. The problems with MP3's are keeping your songs organized and backed up. By pulling a spare drive and passing it around to friends you can have 10 backups on friendly machines and aggregate all of their collections into yours to make a super collection, which can be cleaned up and ORGANIZED, so you don't have 10 copies of the same song and throwing bad copies. By doing this you can have a 100 gig archive that will be so bloated with quality files you can play them for 6 months solid without a repeat, pick any song you want to hear or switch categories based on mood, WOW! We also ripped our entire CD collections and share them this way.

Also, since I just turned 30, I am too old to be in the scene any more, I can just get music from other people with better knowledge of whats happening and get the best stuff for the least work.

emulation

[sacrilicious]

Uh, that had nothing to do with copyright. Comeone somewhere (probably a teacher) told this girl not to do the same thing ... in a originality/creativity/thinking for yourself sense.

There's a difference between thinking for one's self to arrive at a rational conclusion vs disallowing the indulgence of imitating something that is fun or beautiful. There's no reason someone shouldn't be able to deliver a line from The Simpsons in the right social atmosphere, get a healthy laugh, and move on without giving attribution if they don't feel like it. If someone wants to adopt wholesale the persona of Homer and act in accordance with that fulltime, they should be allowed to... and people should be allowed to decide whether they feel it's fun to witness such a spectacle without niggling over whether the person doing it happened to "think of Homer's personality first" or not. There's too much territorialism when it comes to emulating neat things, and it holds back the healthy transmission of culture. And this burdensome stigma prevents many people from being independent thinkers about copyright... because they have been conditioned so long to believe that someone who discovers an idea should be granted an authority to control it.

Copyright law is broken.

[Sphere1952]

If I go to a P2P network and download, for example, descramble.mp3 how am I supposed to know whether the copyright holder wishes to freely distribute the work or not? If you require that the copyright holder explicitly tell you it is alright to copy the work then this is an infrigement of that person's right to speak. (Especially so when that speech is a direct political attack upon the notion of Intellectual Property.)

The real questions is

[geekoid]

if nobody cares, is copyright enforcable?

Let say 100 million people see some ad on during the superbowl saying "Download music is a crime, don't do it", and everybody says, "screw you" what happens?
Copyright is given to the creator of those works because representitives of the people say they get it, but if the people don't act on it it is essentially, and de facto, a dead law.

That is what scares the RIAA.

Rationale

[Mark_MF-WN]

Why does everyone assume that copyright infringement is illegal? More Americans download MP3s than vote in federal elections; the basic principles of democracy would imply that copyright infringement is legal (and that the Bush government, which is ignoring the will of the people, is therefore illegitimate).

Shouldn't the penalty match the "crime"

[sfm]

What gets me is the value they are placing on each item downloaded. How can a "song" with a retail value of $0.99 (as found on Apple's music site) be valued at $150,000 for the purpose of copyright infringement? I understand there is some punitive value placed on the fines they are requesting, but couldn't anything above ~3X the retail value considered excessive?

-- Just my $.02