Slashdot Mirror
RIAA PR Efforts Examined
The Importance of writes "Yale's LawMeme has an interesting article pointing out that the RIAA is having some PR success with their anti-file sharing lawsuits. People being sued are not just angry with the RIAA, they are angry with Kazaa. The LawMeme article thinks this is bad news for innovation since Congress might be likely to pass a law making innovative software providers more liable for the copyright infringements of their customers in order to stop the public outcry over the RIAA lawsuits." And in other news, a P2P group is planning to pay off the RIAA for that 12-year-old's settlement, and the BBC has an article about another victim.
...using this logic means that congress should outlaw linux / pre drm microsoft os's as they are os's that allow people to play copyrighted mp3s ?! ...and is this the end of general purpose computers if the RIAA / microsoft can spin it right?
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
RIAA and PR in the same scentance?
WIthout the word negative in there?
Someone tell me hell froze over!
If copyright were abolished, there'd be no reason to be mad at either Kazaa or the RIAA. Kazaa couldn't charge for the software, and the RIAA couldn't sue for sharing information (which by nature is easily copied). Nobody confused and nobody sued. It will happen.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
I wasn't aware I could infringe on copy-right laws with this technology! IT'S A COPY TOOL! Down with Floppy drives!!!
Shouldn't PR campaigns and efforts typically make your RELATIONSHIP with the PUBLIC better?
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
Not a real quote from any person but the whole "I paid $29.95.." line is a crock. "I spent $29.95 on Kazaa and thought I could download thousands of dollars of CDs, movies, software and pr0n." Riiiight.. (Feigning) ignorance is not a defense. From http://www.kazaa.com/us/terms.htm
2 What You Can't Do Under This Licence
2.6 Transmit, access or communicate any data that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights of any party;
When a person buys Kazaa they are entering into a legally binding agreement, if they choose not to read the fine print that's their problem, not Kazaa's or Sharman Networks.
Trolling is a art,
Anyone who cares what goes on their machines is already angry with Kazaa. If these suits end up hurting that spyware delivery vector as much as I believe it will hurt the RIAA, I won't be shedding any tears.
You steal, you get fined or put in jail.
Just because it's intangible doesn't make that any less true.
Note for trolls and other knuckle draggers: I hate, with a passion I normally reserve for SCO, the RIAA. I think p2p is a great technology, and I feel that song sharing is the future of the music industry. However, at this time, they do not want their product taken without compensation. Given that it is THEIR product, that is their choice, not ours. A choice I feel will put them and their bussiness partners in the grave faster, but it's their choice none the less.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Up to a point a software maker should be liable.
If someone sells you something and makes overgrand claims ("Stable" - Microsoft, "Access free music" - Kazaa) they should be elligible for at least actual damages, not only very limited liability.
If companies could make claims with impunity to sell you something and not fear the consequences we would see cars sold as "safe at 200 mph even if you have never driven before". The same thing should apply to software companies.
Obiously in cases of user stupidity this should be ajusted accordingly (so users cannot complain that their machine went wrong when they gave out root passwords and their IP address on IRC), but otherwise if you want to make a claim about your product you should be legally obliged to stand by it.
Beep beep.
The LawMeme article thinks this is bad news for innovation since Congress might be likely to pass a law making innovative software providers more liable for the copyright infringements of their customers [...]
And while they're at it, why don't they make software providers more liable for the security and stability of the applications their customers use? I'm sick of Windows crashing, so why don't we add in that request to the mix, too?
[/SARCASM]
Congress might be likely to pass a law making innovative software providers more liable for the copyright infringements of their customers in order to stop the public outcry over the RIAA lawsuits...
How in the hell does that affect any intelligent innovative software provider (who makes software that can infringe on copyright), who after the napster case, realized that basing their company in america is a Bad Idea TM?
Or is it just another death knell for american software developers?
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Last time I looked, Kazaa's got notices all over the place that tells you not to pirate stuff with it.
p2p tools are just that: tools. Remember,
p2p programs don't infringe copyright.
people infringe copyright.
It would also be the end of professional artists, writers and musicians. Don't give me the whole "it works for software" line because first of all it only works for software popular enough to have strong open source support, and secondly software is typically a means to an end, while art, writing and music is typically an end in itself.
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
A lot of people used Napster, before it was shut down. There was sentiment against file swapping for a short while, but then Kazaa, Morpheus, and others stepped in, and file swapping increased.
After the RIAA sues a few thousand people, and the tide turns against swapping, it will slow again.
But the fact of the matter is that the RIAA members need to come up with a new business model. File sharing will always be around in some fashion, and the technology will just get more and more complex - making it easier to do truely anonymous swapping.
It's been said a million times on here already - the RIAA is just like SCO - they need to adopt a new business model if they're going to survive. Litigation alone won't support them forever.
"Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
They can use all the technology they want to keep the source closed--nothing to stop them from that, but someone else who keeps things open and more useful will beat them. Why even bother trying to crack the technology?
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
...then RIAA has already lost, and lost horribly. Prior to a few days ago most people I know didn't realize there was a small war going on between RIAA and P2P apps (hell, they probably never even heard of RIAA). Before you know it the fact they are suing a 12-year old girl living in the projects is all over the papers. Since then I've heard commented "why would the music industry do such an awful thing" from people who before couldn't have cared less about the issue.
Good luck to RIAA in overcoming that massive PR blunder.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
I suspect this is the same mindset at the person who was angry at McDonalds when she burnt her legs driving off with hot coffee between her knees. Bottom line, file sharing *is* illegal. I'd imagine even the most ardent defender of filesharing knows this, and given that Kazaa itself is just a mechanism for sharing files, anyone actually being angry at them is a joke. Unless of course they mean angry for all the spyware and crap Kazaa (non-lite variety) installs, but that's got nothing to do with the RIAA anyway.
There is some more information here and here.
At least the P2P United group stepped in, offering to pay the fine.
Saying "We don't condone copyright infringement, but it's time for the RIAA's winged monkeys to fly back to the castle and leave the Munchkins alone."
Seems to me they are using shock and awe. The girls mother, when confronted with the charge, instantly agreed to settle the action.
Now the poor girl has no MP3s? Someone should raise money to buy her a gift certificate to her local music store to buy legal CDs of all the music she had to delete.
Are you a Candy Addict?
You could be. Just some huge catastrophe or war automatically invalidates copyright. You're not too worried about patents and copyright when you're just trying to survive every day.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
I've noticed that they've gotten a lot of traction over the past few days by linking file sharing with porn.
.. and I ain't out shoppin spendin dudes C-notes
A lot of talk radio hosts have been railing against the porn threat, and p2p for making it worse. I heard Diane Feinstein on the radio yesterday talking about the threat to our kids.
Meanwhile, these are some lyrics from a current hit song by lil kim and 50 cent. It's a nice song about a rapper's penis, called "magic stick":
[...]
I'm a freak to the core
Get a dose once, you gon' want some more
My tongue touch ya girl, ya toes bound to curl
This exclusive shit I don't share with the world
I have you up early in the mornin, moanin
[...]
Lil' Kim not a whore
But I sex a nigga so good, he gotta tell his boys
When it, come to sex don't test my skills
Cause my head game have you HEAD over heels
Give a nigga the chills, have him pay my bills
Buy matchin Lambo's with the same color wheels
I'm in the crib givin niggaz deep throat
I think it's great the p2p community can stand with each other and donate to help those who are targeted but that's not what it's going to take in the end.
Given that most of our political leaders will not stand up to any of the privacy issues or heavy handed tactice given that most are bankrolled by entertainment and media companies it comes down to the end user being the empowered one to stop this nonsense. Is copyright infringement illegal? Yes. Does the resolutions need to be carried out this way in a 'I have more money than you so I will squash you over time in a legal system so you may as well just give me your life savings now' method ?? NO.
Unfortunately until consumers cease buying CD's completely to send a message - the RIAA will use file sharing as the cop out everytime for CD sales declining. The reality is if they updated their 10yr old business model they know full and well their usefullness would be at an end in the digital age. they are nothing more than a middle man and a bankroll sometimes and direct distribution would make them cease to exist
Fear Breeds Knowledge
we'll not purchase ANY recorded media, until the corepirate nazi softwar gangsters cease their whoreabully desperate last gasper threatening tomes. when all the hooplah fades, CDs will be 3-4$ apiece. that's a fair price. that's what we'll pay. the artists would be well advised to change their 'representation' asap, as they (riaa gangsters) are alienating their current/future customers.
we extend our deepest sympathies to the victims of cowardly greed/fear based aggression everywhere.
that old tune title (hope we don't get 'busted' for using it) "make the world go away", takes on new/varied meaning in these times.
the prevalent notion that 'everything will be taken care of' without yOUR knowledge/participation is insidiously misleading.
in our estimation, the biggest 'threat' against US (aside from continuing to fire bullinedly into the 'crowd', whilst demanding applause), would be a failure to recognize our 'role' in the problems. we're victims for sure, but whoare ALL the perpetrators (see also: corepirate nazi puppets), gets lost in the ?pr? ?firm? generated propaganda spew.
consult with/trust in yOUR creator. seek others of non-aggressive behaviours/intentions. that's the spirit.
the lights ARE coming up now. pay attention (to yOUR heart, for example). that could lead to new ways (see also: newclear power plan) of thinking about/dealing with, the needs/rights of others EVERYWHERE on the planet.
having the attention span of a gnat, & similar ambitions, might be ok if you are just planning to be a consumer/type one liners.
take care of each other, you're all we've got. we're here for you. get ready to see the light.
I could steal and get into the newspaper, too. Now I'm old and people probably want me to get fined out the poop-chute.
Raffle nets $2000
The sister site of HardOCP
Very cool of them to do this. The 12yo might come out the better for being sued.
-- taking over the world, we are.
I recognize that it is unthinkable to them that they might have anything to do with the sales declines. Unthinkable!
Isn't obvious?
"I didn't kill him, the gun did!"
Now if people didn't have such double standards of logic then the world would be a much clearer place. What are they going to do next, blame General Motors for facilliating road accidents or sue Microsoft [No karma whoring intended] for supplying the 12 year olds with the OS that they h4Xx0r phr0m?
So they might push for a law making software developers liable for copyright infringements but they won't lift a finger about making them liable for losses due to bugs and security holes? So much for having your priorities straight.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
So, was John Titor truly a time traveler, or just a Dean Kamen employee?
"Congress might be likely to pass a law making innovative software providers more liable for the copyright infringements"
And gun makers liable for murders? And car makers liable for car accidents? And Slashdot liable for trolls?
Would that make AOL liable for all Gnutella downloads?
Watch the Music Wars special on TechTV Friday. It's supposed to be an open talk between major players in this whole ordeal. Unfortunately, as of yesterday, no one from the RIAA has yet to give them a yes or no.
Until they (the RIAA) come up with a business model for distributing content over P2P networks that actually makes them money, they're going to keep fighting file sharing.
What I don't understand is why they simply don't offer a file-sharing license as an option with an ISP signup. You pay a nominal fee (say $10-$20), billed with your recurring monthly charge for internet access, and in return you get to legally access and use these files. I would assume that this would squash any arguements concerning "stolen" goods. As long as you're a registered user of the "pay-to-play" access, you can download and share media. Period.
It would seem that this type of licensing makes the most sense. The proverbial cat is out of the bag concerning file sharing - KaZaA isn't going anywhere, nor is Grokster or any of the other clients. And no one at all has brought up any mention of the tremendous file sharing and trading that happens on USENET or IRC. A flat licensing fee, IMHO, would be their best option to solve the problem, save face in the public eye, AND recieve compensation for their work.
Just my $0.02.
-z-
-z-
I'm 100% in favor of the Artists, Songwriters, and such getting paid just I expect to get paid for what I do. I am NOT in favor of the lawyers and trade groups being paid for what the Artists and Songwriters produce unless they pay them themselves. Something interesting thing to consider... The RIAA is NOT the copyright holder -- the labels are. The RIAA is a trade organization. So, under what authority does the RIAA have to subpoena the information in the first place. DMCA explicitly gives this right ONLY to the actual copyright holder. As for all the studies, surveys and such about the decline in CD sales... The arguments about the economy, bad stuff being produced, CDs being over priced and such have been rejected multiple times by the RIAA. The decline in sales is ONLY DUE TO PIRACY. Ask them. The RIAA never lies. "Definition - Terrorist: adj : characteristic of an entity that employs terror (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon. The use of random attacks to instill fear and uncertainty on a society or group. This pretty much describes the RIAA and its tactics. 12-year old girl in a housing project, NY single mother, 71 year old grandfather on fixed income, and others that aren't the core of the problem. What about this war on terrorism I keep hearing about? All that money that is supposed to go to the artists is actually going to lawyers. The RIAA has found a sure way to spend ALL of that money. Now that others are getting into the game and suing the RIAA, its a sure bet that royalty payments (what's left after administration, legal, operating and other expenses are paid) will decline faster than CD sales. The RIAA is a house of lawyers and you can bet they'll make sure they find a way to pocket most, if not all, of the money they get. The RIAA says it doesn't know the age of anybody it subpoenas but they do know the percentage of adults that are the problem. How do they know the percentage of adults if they don't know any of the ages of the "pirates"? Remember that the constitutionality of these subpoenas hasn't even gone to court for a determination yet. What happens if the courts rule the subpoenas are NOT constitutional? How much will the RIAA be sued for and who's royalty payments are going to pay for that? According to the RIAA, since their terror campaign started, downloads have fallen over 15% yet CD sales have dropped almost double that. They still claim that the additional drop in sales is due to an "Increase in illegal downloads." Maybe they should take some courses -- logic 101, business 101 and math 101. Why did the RIAA refuse to negotiate with the P2P software vendors so that they could profit from downloads rather than just whining about how bad they are and spending millions of dollars in subpoenas, litigation and press coverage?
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
This whole issue is being distorted. It's all very simple, so listen closely.
People know downloading music for free is illegal, yet people continue downloading. These people try to justify this blatant theft by calling the RIAA bad names, and while they may not be the nicest people in the world, at least they're not stealing your money. They charge what they think they can get, and you don't have to buy their product. Just go listen to a radio.
Now, the RIAA, in an attempt to protect it's interests sues the aforementioned thieves, and the anti-capitalism freaks run around like chickens with their heads cut off. Ok... I have a very simple way to put your mind at ease. Grow up, and learn to deal with the consequences of your actions. Just because a business is perceived as nasty doesn't mean you can break the law with impunity.
-Capitalist AC and downloader of music
I had a little fun with a Yahoo press release the other day, and made a version on my own site that's database-driven, so you can stuff somebody's name in an innocuous link. In this one, it's Julian Morales, but here you can put in anybody's name and email them the link to scare the pants off 'em.
What's your damage, Heather?
He added: "But uploading copyrighted music is illegal, and for a good reason, and legal action against uploaders cannot be ruled out in the future."
What if I own the copyright to the "uploaded copyrighted music"? Is it still illegal, Mr. Anonymous Spokesman For The Industry?
Hidden in his verbal sewage is the sinister and arrogant assumption that the general public is not capable of producing and copyrighting works themselves--that they are capable of only passive consumption.
This is the "industry" attitude, and it is basically accepted as truth to the reporters.
I'm exhausted by the duality: the people who (allegedly) most believe in file sharing seem to deny its power. And those who least understand it also don't see the power of file sharing. So long as this mindset is prevalent, the RIAA and its ilk will continue to own the media.
I have tens of thousands of MP3s and APEs. Many I downloaded from usenet, many I made myself. But nearly all the MP3s I have of RIAA controlled music are recordings I already bought. And while I absolutely love to share music, and freqently do, you're not going to find any Hollywood (or Nashville) label stuff on anything I distribute. Not because I value the RIAA, but because I so despise the RIAA there is simply no way I am going to take part in advertising for them.
File sharers desperately need to understand this. Every time you share Pink, or Madonna, or Linkin Park, you are advertising for them. Why would you risk being sued just to give even more hype to Millionaires? Would you rob a gas station to buy CDs?
When I read about the first round of suits, I was waiting for something like this to happen, and it didn't. When I read about the second round, and it did, I wasn't suprised. Either way, I felt I had to rant, and this came out:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11493
For the famously sarcasm impared here, this is meant as a joke, I hope you find some humor in it.
-Charlie
Some people with talent really do need a financial incentive to create music or art. That's what copyright was created for in the first place. What should be done instead is bring copyright back to a point of reasonable restrictions and limited time monopolies, just like it was meant to be in the first place.
Look at the story of the 12-year-old girl sued by the RIAA. She said "I thought it was OK to download music because my mom paid a service fee for it."
Couldn't this be the understanding of many Kazaa users? I'm paying a $29.95 fee (for Kazaa Plus), it's a legit company, how could this be illegal?
Does Kazaa warn its users in any way that they may be breaking the law? Is sharing on by default? The lawyers are salivating.
Macintosh humor! MacComedy.com
most likely not to the artists and more probably back into the legal coffers. It will be interesting to see how many more young or naive people will be extorted by their "fear and awe" campaign.
Ok, if congress ever passes a bill making Sharman, etc. responsible for their tool being used in an illegal way then I also want them to pass a bill making gun manufactures responsible for producing guns, car manufactures for making cars, knife manufactures for making knives. There are a lot of things I could use for a crime, will we legislate them all. Of course we will, it only depends on who has the most money and influence. In the case of the RIAA vs. P2P the RIAA has the money and power and will most likely have laws past in their favor. In the case of guns vs. society the NRA has the money and power and will most likely have laws past in their favor. Remember, there is no right or wrong, there is only power.
The problem is all these companies know their software is being used to pirate others works. Yes you can use it to DL legal software, but the wide vast majority of stuff transfered is all copyrighted, and everyone knows this. They are basically selling piracy software, since they know ppl are going to use it to pirate.
FTP is different, it is used a lot for completely legit reasons, it just happens to be usable to pirate too. While the concepts are similar the end effectual uses are much different. If Kazaa etc want to sell licenses for software that isn't going to be used to pirate, then they should put locks in on the directory searching service to block out obviously copyrighted material.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
as well as aircraft industry, weaponsmiths and car manufacturers. as they are responsible for every act every customer does with their tools, nobody can do business anymore. shares of styrofoam up 300% - the only harmless consumer product left :)
I was thinking to myself "where are all these anti-RIAA folks. Why are they letting this 12 year old take the fall (for what is probably Mom's doing anyway: "paying" for Kazaa $39/month???)....? Why let RIAA even win against a 12 year old?"
I mean sure RIAA is making itself look bad but it also makes P2P look weak by allowing it to get this far. I want to see more Jane Doe's, more FreedomOfSpea-MMNnnnf's!!!
~~I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank...~~
p2p programs don't infringe copyright.
... by default share every file that is downloaded. The user has to manually disable this "feature" and sometimes the controls are cryptic or well hidden.
people infringe copyright.
1) IANAL but how I understand copyright law and how the RIAA seems to be enforcing this p2p fiasco is that people who share (the uploaders) are guilty and not the downloaders. The $150,000 per violation fine is for uploading (distribution) only.
2)Kazaa, LimeWire,
So if what I say in 1) is correct then downloading is not infringing but uploading is. Then the act of simply using the p2p programs in a non infringing manner transforms a user into an infringer. The courts have found the Kazaa isn't guilty so how is it possible that their programs when used in their default and intended manner transform everyday people into criminals? It doesn't seem right.
[Emphasis mine]
Michael, you have it backwards. People who steal (that's right steal) from other people are not the victims.
Speak truth to power.
Should we worry about the RIAA revoking our Blockbuster (or other rental agency) membership cards?
After all, if I can have easy access to a movie (a few bucks), can't I just as easily copy the movie with a VCR/DVD Copier/Computer with DVD Burner/etc?
Never thought of lumping Blockbuster in with KaZaA before...
Just my dos pesetas...
First winter rain-
even the monkey
seems to want a raincoat.
-Basho
Why should they be liable???? Is nissan liable if I purposely run someone over with my car? You sound a bit too democratic for me.
Can someone tell me why the family in question should have paid $29.95 for their Kazaa?
Linux, Windows, and other OS are not designed almost spacifically to trade copyrighted material. Kazaa is, and there is the difference.
Since the primary purpose of Kazaa is to tarde pirated music, it stands to reason that perhaps Kazaa should take some of the legal heat. And please, spare everyone the lame argument that Kazaa is "just" a generic file trading app. You know, I know, the world knows that these types of applications are used for ONE thing, trafficing in pirated music and other copyrighted entertainment (as well as wherez).
This is partly Kazaa's fault, but its partly (and mostly) the RIAA's part too. Kazaa *could* have implemented filters to block content -- even simple filters to check MD5 sums of songs or metatags. That alone would not have solved their problem but it would have cleared a large chunk of pirated material off their network. On the other hand you have the f***ing RIAA who have done the equivalent of legal price-fixing for the last 15 years without so much as a 'please stop' from the federal government. I have no sympathy for that, since for any other business to do this... you would bring the BB, FTC, trade groups and numerous other bodies down on you. The RIAA is clearly abusing the system. So, if piracy is indeed hurting them so much, where did all our money go the last 15 years? Oh, thats right, exhorbitant parties amongst other things. Reality check, those have come to an end, and no amount of lawsuits against 12 year old kids will bring them back.
I'm sure there are lawyers out there that would have taken the case free of charge just for the publicity of it. I'm also sure they could have beaten this and blown the whole thing up in the RIAA's faces, which would in turn cause the rest of those being sued by the RIAA to win their cases as well.
OTOH, it nice to see people and companies rallying behind this girl to cover the settlement - it shows who the real good guys are in this.
Sound waves should be free!
They made windows. Most of these file-sharers use windows, right? Yeah!
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Has anyone noticed that these people are whining about Kazaa after a thorough working over by the RIAA?
"We are willing to wipe the slate clean... give you a fresh start, in exchange for certain... cooperation in bringing a known copyright terrorist to justice."
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
The last 2 files i got via p2p was a FBSD iso, and several *legal* ebooks i wasnt able to find via googling..
Pehraps its commonly used for pirating, but its not the ONLY use..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Kazaa realy dons't go out of it's way (or realy at all) to educate it's cutomers about what is legal to share and what's not.
Infact there web site promotes a system of gathering points for sharing. Sharing what I may ask? Some how I don't think my personal poetry or Mpeg's of my cats chasing eachother will be all that interesting to others.
Kazaa != FTP. FTP and HTTP are simply a protocol, kazaa is not, it's beyond that. It has built in search tools that are build for sharing music, movies, and programs. It basicaly is set up for piracy and they are realy doing nothing to discourage it from happening.
"Failure is not an option, it's part of the standard package"
Make software creators liable for copyright infringement but not other creators of software liable for damage done by their buggy software? Gotta love it ...
FLR
M$ won't let this happen - I doubt that lawmakers would be able to write a bill so narrow in scope, so would have to make software companies more liable for their software, period.
Besides, WMPlayer can rip CDs, therefore would fall under such a narrow law.
Mind you, watching RIAA and M$ have a go at each other might prove interesting.
I've been eating styrofoam for years! How else would i fill the long, hungry hours between lunch and dinner?
I'm just glad it's safe.
The 12 year old girl will just be angry at the RIAA and be thankful to the P2P group offering to pay the fine.
RIAA--
P2P++
There's way too much stick and no carrot.
From a legal standpoint, what if you changed the EULA of P2P program X so read something like this: (i'm not a lawyer, so forgive the holes in the wording)
"By installing this software, using this software, or using the P2P network, you agree not to share your usage information with the RIAA, MPAA, or any other entity, person, or organization who will share your information with those parties."
Sounds simple, but then you can challenge HOW the RIAA collects information on you, since they would be violating the EULA, and could be counter-sued for breaking the EULA. Hell, we could even call it "breaking the law" since they insist on calling copyright infringement "theft".
For those in the legal field, would this provide a counter-attack tool against the RIAA? Could you litegate for damages in a dollar amount roughly equal to the amount the RIAA might sue you for, effectively negating their initial lawsuit? Can you legally name an entity such as the RIAA in a EULA, and discriminate against them?
Given the current bandwidth limitations of the net, you're not going to be able to download CD quality music easily.
I define "CD quality" for sound recording formats as equivalent subjective fidelity to 44.1 kHz 16-bit stereo linear PCM. True, 128 kbps MP3 is closer to cassette than CD, but an encoding of a recording into VBR MP3 (or, better yet, Ogg Vorbis) at a nominal data rate of 224 kbps has been shown to have CD quality, even with better-than-average ears.
Will I retire or break 10K?
When they prove EULAs are enforceable I'll stop ignoring them.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Bringing in the Tobacco, Gun, and Liquor manufacturers into the fray could be a good tactic for Kazaa and other P2P providers. Each of these industries produce products that can hurt people "if used improperly" and are potentially liable for their customer's use of their products. Along with being in a similar boat to Kazaa, they have truckloads of money to throw at lawyers and often sponsor music concerts which could more directly hurt RIAA companies.
To be fair, I'm mostly advocating bringing the gun, liquor and tobacco companies into the fray simply because any fight with them will be a lot more interesting than 12 year old girls and 71 year old grandfathers.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
At 12, this girl could not consent to giving out her personal information, so how did RIAA get it?
At 12, she could not enter into legally binding agreements for internet access, could not enter into legally binding agreements in reguard to buying or using P2P software - or even legally binging agreements to click through installation of the software!
She also could not legally accept summons for the suit, or hire legal representation to defend herself.
She also could not legally enter into a settlement agreement with the RIAA.
So what is REALLY going on?
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
With the advent of wireless, fat cheap bandwidth is set to become ubiquitous. Wireless PCI and laptop cards are now often cheaper than a 56K modem, and intel's initiative to embed the "gateway" right in the motherboard will drive that nail to the head.
This means neighborhoods now can enjoy tens of megabits in a peering environment. The conneciton further out may be substantially lessened, but "close to home" file sharing networks can hav real power. This means it's even easier for my friend to hype his band, because those people who might otherwise never go to the local pub can now hear him play entirely at their convenience.
This is how the industry already works. Except now the power base can be completely decentralized. No more "gatekeepers" to beg for support. Either you have merit and grow beyond your local peers, or you don't. "The collective" becomes the gatekeeper instead of the shark skinned zoot from LA who blew into town for some local tail.
Harder for bands to get quality equipment? dude.. I just put together a machine with six channel audio and a 1.6GHz CPU and 7200RPM HD that could easily handle two dozen tracks and it cost the end user all of $320.00! Thirty years ago you could barely find a quality cassette deck for that, and today that one box can be an entire fucking studio and media distribution point and CD production facility.
The fact is we no longer need Hollywood, although Hollywood needs us. Unfortunately, too many people on both sides of the fence have yet to realize this.
They will...
I've got an Idea. We download the albums, send 5-10 bucks to the Artist, not the record company. They only got one good song send them a buck. I think it could work.
And usenet. Wait until congress finds out about all that child porn sitting on all those usenet servers.
I would fall over laughing if some major backbone provider like AT&T gets raided because they have gigs of child porn sitting on their news servers.
Fun stuff!
Don't do the CRIME if you can't pay the TIME. Keep your eye on the sparrow.
http://www.carlhose.com/baretta/Baretta%20Full%20T heme.zip
Don't go to bed, with no price on your head
No, no, don't do it.
Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time,
Yeah, don't do it.
And keep your eye on the sparrow.
When the going gets narrow.
Don't do it, don't do it.
Where can I go where the cold winds don't blow, Now.
Well, well, well.
If a user never assented to this license, it can't bind them. Someone, I SWEAR I don't know who , put Kazaa on a bunch of the PC's in the college library here, so everyone I know has moved their files there, and we all download from the library computers, and not someone else's node in the dorm. If we want something from outside, we download it at the library and put it ont he share.
Of course, they reformat the drives between semesters, but we are many... we will re-assimilate you....
Take that RIAA!
You steal, you get fined or put in jail.
Should Americans always defer to the Congress "because they say so"? Remember that during the 1920s it was a crime to make or sell alcoholic beverages, but people did so anyway.
Laws are made to be bent. Laws that take away fundamental rights, such as the right to express oneself musically, are made to be broken.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Of course they're all going to say they didn't know they were doing anything wrong! What did you expect? That is the simplest and most straight forward excuse in the books -- blame someone else. While some are truely confused I find it hard to believe that 4 million people honestly believe a one time $30 payment gets them thousands of dollars of retail music for free.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
Like getting a free ride when you already paid Edgar.
No, that is not the case.
There is little that i would want to pirate anyway, i already have the prgrams i need, be them free or purchased.
Most music today sucks, and i have 600+ cds of what i do like...
About the only other thing i would use it for now is to get rips of old tvshows that are not going to be coming out on dvd. And that is no worse then recording them myself, since that IS legal.. As long as they have been broadcast in my area.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Public housing has BROADBAND? Something just ain't right about that.
You have posted (as an Anonymous Coward) several links to books on amazon.com with you as a refferer (you make some $$ with each sale made through that link), and the mods keep modding you up.
This is a spammer, people, don't click the link, you give him money through that link.
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
In Russia, the right wing means hard line communists. In Europe, liberals can mean either the greens (which are pretty freethinking) or conservative Christian Democrats who all the suits and law-and-order types vote for.
File sharers will truely no longer be liable because a worm will be written to act as the server. After all, why risk getting sued when you can use other people's machines?
OMG! /. is a P2P concept! Down with /.!
Practice Kind Randomness and Beautiful Acts of Nonsense.
Hello,
My understanding of copyright is that I can not make a copy of the data (this is a right exclusively reserved to the copyright holder and his licencees), so, as I upload from kaza, on the source computer, a copy of the file is performed, but not on the receiving computer, therrefore, I should be able to download as many things as I want from kaza without doing anything illegal isn't it?
Fascinating. Yet so wrong...
The "traditional" model of the Internet is "peer to peer". Your mailserver talks to my mailserver. Mine talks to yours.
POP came *after* sendmail. POP would be the "client server" approach. My computer says "hey, I am only on-line a little bit, so I need a bigger computer to do my mail for me". Mail used to be transferred over UUCP, and even there it was "peer to peer".
As larger companies got into the ISP business, they tried to impose a "client server" model. More like a "push content" model. The internet was NOT compuserve. In fact, compuserve (and their ilk) JOINED the internet. So the "peer to peer" model seemingly won...
But, many ISPs (like mine, rogers.com), have user agreements that read "you won't run servers at home". They would LOVE a push content model. As supported by my bandwidth (1.5mbps TO my computer 128kbps FROM my computer). If I can't run in a peer to peer way, how am I going to run my email domain, etc.? Right, buy that service from someone else -- even though I have purchased a sufficiently fast computer and a sufficiently large pipe.
The client server approach allows for a money grab. The traditional peer to peer approach gives more power to the users. Guess I'm going to be a traditionalist.
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Then I can murder people, and testify that I paid for the gun so I thought it was OK to shoot people with it.
-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-
What would Yossarian do?
Unfortunately, in the real world, contracts and licenses are often nothing more than a legal weapon to be used against the purchaser. They promise nothing, disclaim all liability and try to prevent the purchaser from using any of the normal legal remedies for goods that are defective or that do not perform as advertised. They are "contracts of adhesion", dictated to the purchaser by the seller, and not subject to modification.
It is unreasonable to expect the purchaser to read and understand every contract and license that is slapped on every widget or service that they purchase. Should they hire a lawyer to explain what it really means, and what clauses would get laughed out of court if the seller attempted to enforce them?
To the average person, the legal system is a tool reserved for the rich, and contracts and licenses are just another club for the powerful to use against the weak. Why even bother reading a contract or license when you know that you can't change it, you don't understand it, it probably includes bits that are legal bullshit, and the chances of you enforcing it against the seller are nil.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
How about showing the girl that there are plenty of great artists that allow some or all of their music to be traded freely?
When one of those artists writes a song, how can he be sure that the song is in fact original and not accidentally plagiarized from some popular song?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Uh, then what happens when a company injects "copyright" code into your software and starts suing everyone. Ooops.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
The things that fire me up the most about the RIAA.
Record companies have used Free Speech as a defense for years. Everytime people get upset about the material they put out. Though I think the record companies should show restraint, and consider the messages they send (particularly to youth), I agree with their _legal_ right to free speech. Now they are trying to take away the free speech of software producers. Also notable, they are being stolen from by the generation that they taught not to respect laws and authority. Fine by me, the industry can lie in the bed it has made.
Finally, they keep using this "you're hurting the artist" line. Ask any musician. Better yet, ask a black musician from the motown era who does the most harm to them. The record companies have abused artists for years.
Personally, I am done buying cd's till things change.
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
I have 80GB of memory.
My computer came with the Internet.
I spent $29.95 a month for KaZaA.
The vast majority of the public has no idea why these statements are technically wrong. The fee was probably for an ISP.
[
So, under what authority does the RIAA have to subpoena the information in the first place. DMCA explicitly gives this right ONLY to the actual copyright holder
Why did the RIAA refuse to negotiate with the P2P software vendors
Beats me. When Kazaa first started out, the company behind it tried to negotiate with the major labels.
Will I retire or break 10K?
What if I own the copyright to the "uploaded copyrighted music"?
Can you prove in court that you own the copyright in both the musical work and the recording thereof? Can you do so in light of the Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs decision?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Kazaa (and any p2p service) is no more responsible for users sharing Madonna than would Sony be for the local videostore renting TV show bootlegs.
Just set up a taxation system wherein every citizen is taxed. Corporations could apply to the taxing authority for each citizen to pay $x (plus a percentage to be kept by the Government) for whatever product or service the corporation sells or provides. This would NOT mean the citizens would receive the product or service, only that the Corporations would be insured against possible theft of the product or service. Citizens would still be required to purchase the product or service for legal use. Failure to pay the tax would result in loss of liberty for the citizens. There would be no exceptions or exemptions from payment of the tax, and no limit on the number of Corporations that could add their tax to the system. This is imminently fair in that everyone pays the same, the Corporations are protected, and the Government is remunerated by skimming a percentage of the tax.
"I'm mostly advocating bringing the gun, liquor and tobacco companies into the fray simply because any fight with them will be a lot more interesting than 12 year old girls and 71 year old grandfathers."
And a much better party.
KFG
One thing RIAA and others seem to have a hard time understanding is that there will always be another way of sharing content. P2P is just a method out of hundred other. To stop filesharing you have to stop ALL traffic on the net and screen every mail delivered in the world. Since i can burn my files onto a DVD and swap it whit a friend instead stopping P2P isnt going to accomplish anything. Maybe they will succeed in stopping a promising communications protocol from being able to mature and start being used in other ways like in a distributed OS or other ways not yet used.
The only way to stop filesharing is to gain the trust and liking of the buyers so that they pay out of free will. RIAA has taken the opposite route wich already have proven itself futile. One can only watch sadly when they destroy great technology for no good.
HTTP/1.1 400
Anyway, whether my theory is right or not, I propose that we offer massive amounts of non-RIAA, legal-to-download music on PHP. I mean massive amounts - thousands and thousands of song, gigabytes and gigabytes worth - saturate P2P with it. Not just stuff you like personally but all kinds of stuff that potentially someone might like. And of course it would all be perfectly legal.
If everyone were to donate spare disk and bandwidth they're not using anyway, it might make a difference. Start a movement to swamp out RIAA songs. The independent artists will only benefit from it and thank us in the end.
If you agree with this theory, what are some good sources of freely-downloadable music you would recommend?
What'll happen is that innovation will leave the software houses and end up right where it started.
Some kids bedroom. Though instead of posting it on a WWIV board, he'll have to drive to anonymously upload it to a server somewhere.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Whoever suggested this idea seems to be unaware of or have forgotten about the many legitimate mailing lists which exist. How many are run using a spare, old machine in some corner? Not every group with a worthy cause can afford burly hardware so that large discussions are possible.
Even some large-ish groups, like Prometheus (for low-power FM), who don't have a mailing list per se, do send out mass mailings to people who have (really) signed up for them. They should not be penalized for the actions of others.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
But the remedy to problems like this is...to introduce people to alternatives to RIAA-backed crap.</snip> /. article reporting a lawsuit against the Litigation Instigation Association of Asshats for continuing to put itself forward as the "RIAA", in direct violation of several truth in advertising laws?
This is a useful tool that I discovered earlier today that purports to show whether or not buying a particular CD will support the very soul of evil, or a non-RIAA label/artist instead. I did a few quick searches and was pleasantly surprised by some, had my fears confirmed by others. Until someone proves to me that buying used will support the madness, that's the route I'll take for any RIAA-tainted stuff that I've just got to have for now.
How soon before the
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix"- Kieren O'Shaughnessy
so, were they tracking her downloading or her uploading?
Some articles I've read have been insinuating that there has been download tracking, I didn't think this was possible...
I was meaning that recording them myself is legal.
I realize there are some legal issues with downloading the same episodes i can record myself, but in a case like that, i really dont care what the law says.
I also dont think that if this exact case came up in court that it would be a problem.
( now if i was downloading DVD rips or something, then all bets are off. THAT is illegal )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This just shows Slashdot for what it is. If everyone who modded would put some thought into it, this wouldn't happen. Not only that, but if more people would meta-moderate, stuff like this could be weeded out.
By the way, what's the big deal with clicking on the link? If you don't want him to make money, turn off your cookies. But it's not like you're price goes up when you click on the link, unless you are an associate with Amazon too, in which case you would get commission on your own purchace.
It's very simple, really. Trading songs, movies, or other materials online without permission from the copyright holder of the work is a crime, both in the legal and moral sense. Folks on here love to spout that it is technically "copyright infringement," but it really amounts to stealing, not in the "theft by unlawful taking" sense, but in the sense of using another's property without their permissions.
Now, I'm going to be the first one to tell you that copyright terms are too long under current law. Life plus 75 years in no way meets any reasonable definition of limited. But, I'll also be the first to say that copyright is a good thing and a lot better than the way things were before copyright. In the days before copyright, you used to have to get permission from the gov't (usually a minister of the autocratic ruler in your country) to print your own works, and even if you secured this permission there was no guarantee that some cut-rate printer in Holland wouldn't just pirate your work anyway. In fact, many letters from authors in the Renaissance up to the 18th and 19th centuries bemoan the appearance of unauthorized editions of their works, not so much for the loss of revenue, but for the omissions, errors, and changes that often appeared in them.
Copyright can benefit the little guy against the big guy. As authors of free software, it is the only legal leg that we have to stand on against people or corporations who abuse our code.
If you think your file trading is an innocent act of civil disobedience or that you're sticking it to the man and large corporations, think again. You're helping to undermine respect for copyright, and your rationalizations make it easier for people to "steal" other copyrighted works, such as free software.
Trading music without permission is akin to some company sticking GPL'd code in their proprietary product and selling it without source code. I'm sure most of you would call that act "theft."
I'm not saying that all P2P is illegal. I see how it can have many legal uses beyond sharing the latest drivel from the RIAA, and this is the real reason that I think P2P has them running scared. They realize that if they don't paint P2P in a dirty light, if they don't clamp down on people sharing unauthorized stuff (the bulk of the use right now), people will use it to distribute their own original material. Artists will bypass the RIAA gatekeeper and go directly to their fans. The RIAA will not be able to milk that cow for any money, and they will not be the arbiter of what is fashionable in music. In essence, P2P can destroy the mass market for music and turn the music industry into a boutique industry with a market more like a bazaar. (To me, that's a good thing. To the folks at the RIAA, that's economic murder.)
Besides, it's ASCAP and BMI that usually look out for artists' royalties. Shouldn't they be the ones pursuing these "criminals" and not the RIAA?
Just some thoughts that were interrupted by the phone.--Don't you just hate it when someone calls you on your lunch break?
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
How come that a 12 year old can be sued? My point is not in legal terms, my point is how the RIAA decide who are they going to sue?
I believe more of us could probably have been downloading more stuff than this kids (If not me, I bet some of you). Why are they specifically beeing sued and not none of us?
Money is their sole motivation for doing the best job they possibly can? Without it, there is no motivation? What misguided, hopelessly lost individuals.
When I write a song, I don't say, "Well, I don't have a multi-million-dollar recording contract, so I think I'll aim to just write a pretty good song." That is moronic. REAL artists produce art because it is impossible for them to stop, just as sometimes they get a block and it is impossible for them to start. They do the best that they can because they love it, often times more than they love other people. It's part of who they are.
Why do people give money to buskers playing guitar on the side of the road, or to sand sculpters on the Boardwalk in Ocean City? They don't have to give money; they could walk by and appreciate the art for free. Many people give money because they feel that they should, because they want to do so, as payment for their lives having been made better.
There is a saying that no (visual) artists are famous until after they die, and sayings don't come into being for no reason at all. Maybe without copyright, we would not have "blockbuster" summer movies and bands with amazing lightshows. I wouldn't miss them. But are you telling me John Waters wouldn't have made movies if copyright didn't exist? I call shenanigans.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I just recalled an anecdote. My mother is a Physician's Assistant, and she has worked in emergency rooms in some pretty sketchy areas. But while wearing her medical uniform, everyone was very friendly. In areas where many "wouldn't want to walk at night", she was greeted with smiles and waves. According to her, the same can be accomplished by carrying a guitar case. Everyone knows the value of real musicians.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Let's suppose you are correct and copyright infringement is the same as stealing. Where does that assumption lead us?
Copyright infringement is unauthorized copying that is not "fair use". The fair use description in the law is a little vague, but the important point is that if copying financially harms the copyright holder, it is probably not fair use. So, according to the copyright law, I am likely to be "stealing" if I deprive the copyright holder of revenue by my actions.
So, does this mean that anytime I deprive a company of revenue, I am stealing? Suppose I am willing to pay $20 for a CD, but I buy it on sale for $10; I just deprived the company of $10 it could have made from me, and therefore I stole $10 from the company. If it is stealing to pay $0 for something I would pay $10 for, it is stealing to pay $10 for something I am willing to pay $20 for. Note that this reasoning doesn't extend to paying $0 for something when that thing cost someone else money or effort to create; that is depriving someone of real revenue, not potential revenue.
Now, I think copyright infringement is wrong, but it is breaking the law, which is not the same as stealing. If we accept the RIAA's contention that depriving them of potential revenue is stealing, we are conceding too much. If the RIAA is given the legal and technical power to guarantee that they receive all possible revenue; no one will ever pay less than they are willing for music. At some point, bargaining for a better price changes from a lawful activity into unlawful activity; but surely it shouldn't be considered stealing simply because you deprive a company of potential revenue.
-- Pot is safer than Beer
stretching the point a bit though - yes, I know how the case ended up, with coffee over a certain temperature being banned. It was still her fault she spilt it over herself though.
A Friend of mine, many years ago, was freewheeling down a hill on his pushbike, in the dark, when he hit a pothole, flew over the handlebars and hurt himself a little. His first reaction wasn't 'what a plonker I am, I should take more care where im going', but 'Im going to sue the council for not maintaining the roads properly'.
I guess you can always find a reason why it is someone else's fault (or liability...), never your own.
I just hate that self-serving attitude. Sorry for this OT post.
sounds like a scurrious misuse of the english language, much like the "newspeak" of 1984 or the political vomit from the republicant party
The LawMeme article thinks this is bad news for innovation since Congress might be likely to pass a law making innovative software providers more liable for the copyright infringements of their customers in order to stop the public outcry over the RIAA lawsuits.
Here's a historical precedent: Preston Tucker. Many of his innovations were used by the very people that drove him (no pun, ha ha) out of business.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
mod up...
---- oh no - it's the RIAA and their $100000000 fine. I'm gonna take that so seriously...
Just stop buying RIAA-backed CDs.
If you stop buying CDs altogether, the RIAA will say, "See, the number of CDs we sell has gone down! It is all due to filesharing!"
However, if you spend that money on CDs by non-RIAA labels, or on music from emusic.com, then there will be increases in those sales to counter their arguments.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
The RIAA has some definite legal grounds and concerns that I can sympathize with, and as much as many teenagers and college students feel or wished we lived in a social commune where one can share anything, we don't and music and art does need to be paid for. Also remember the old argument that sharing music is promoting the band, to go see them in concert or buy t-shirts etc... The labels don't get any of that action, which is probably one more reason why they're in a bigger uproar. I am not a big fan of huge corporations but this slices fairly equally between big and small, It may even hurt the smaller labels more.
And when it comes down to it the law says its illegal, so if you want to gripe then go change that particular law.
Yet the RIAA feels it needs to go on a witch-hunt, and as much as I feel bad for the recent 12 year old that got nailed for 2k (many thanks to the P2P United for paying their bill), last I checked the law is supposed to be blind and impartial, and not take any special cases so whether it's a 12 year old girl or a 24 year old college student the law is the law. Though the PR from this latest case has raised some interesting issues.
Much of this is still the fault for the RIAA in its lack of foresight and greed in not jumping on the bandwagon and working with organizations like Napster and KaZaa to create licensing deals, its not like radio has been doing it for years.
The fact that the blame is turning to KaZaa, is in my mind silly, and very dangerous, it sets legal precedence that could be very damaging. Which has been stated in many different ways within these posts so I am not going to go further into it.
What I see here is the real issue; common non-computer savvy people need to be educated on some basic principles. Here at slashdot we can argue about who is right and who is wrong, most of understand the implications of the technology. The people that need the education are the public at large, and not necessarily by big groups like P2P United, or the opposite group the RIAA. What needs to be taught to the public is how the system works, why it is ludicrous to blame KaZaa, because blaming KaZaa is akin to blaming the architect of a house for copyright violations because some person can go into a house and copy cd's without being seen by the public. Hence since the house can hide the identity and be a facilitator for the transaction to take place, the architect that build the house should then bare legal responsibility. Data will always be data and if we can't exchange that of which we own the right to for free in any means we feel appropriate we then have some serious constitutional issues to deal with.
I truly believe if you can tell someone how the system works and make the appropriate analogies so they understand the basic principals they will come to the same conclusion. That if you going to outlaw or put the responsibility of the law on the software developer then you are then going to have to do that across the board for all software. If someone makes a counterfeit bill in Photoshop than adobe is help partially responsible, if some one makes lewd and illegal comments on an instant message then it's the people who wrote the instant messenger responsibility that the action took place.
If we leave it to the newspapers to educate the populace it will simply be yet another political race that is poorly understood by the majority yet the majority will be called to vote on the subject.
Serenity|Chaos
If it contained any original thought (rather than just the blurb from Amazon) it would probably be less reprehensible. As it is this is no better than an ad for viagra in my mailbox, a no-effort way to make a quick buck by polluting the medium it's presented in. Mod it down!
The current RIAA legal strategy relies on publicity, witness the crazy news that the RIAA is saying that P2P is responsible for child porn.
;-)
If people want to defeat the RIAA, the best option is not talk about them. And Slashdot could help by running fewer RIAA features.
Kazaa's claims to be able to access "free" music are valid. It just doesn't mention that the majority of music on kazaa is copyrighted...
Really, what we need is a category that designates music as free/indie, and then allow users to search for legal/indie/free music.
Human nature is not the least of a litany of reasons that moral objectivism just doesn't fucking work. Groups of people are wont to do some godawful barbaric things. The fact that they all see nothing wrong with what they're doing does not make their actions any more acceptable, merely palatable to the participants.
Preaching to the choir on a message board isn't going to make laws you don't agree with (and which law do you not agree with? the DMCA? IP law? theft? you're gloriously vague...) disappear anytime soon.
Writing your congresspeople might (even if mine haven't clued up to date). Openly violating the laws you disagree with and seeing through to their demise through our legal system might.
Spare us all the sanctimonious bullshit: anonymously downloading an MP3 does not make you motherfucking Thoreau.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Does anyone know if there is a website
listing all 261 defendants?
I woulnd't mind donating some ching to
each of these people to help cover their
legal costs. If enough people do it, it could really turn into a helpful way of assisting the RIAA victims.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
There's absolutely no indication that the company is offering a service which, if purchased, could lead to civil and criminal prosecution. The California attorney general should go after them for this.
So I can see their new PR now. "We go a thousand dollars lighter on young kids who live in the projects!"
I hate to say this but their amnesty is a dove with a sock of quarters inside. :P
I can't wait until someone walks into a polititians office and hits them up with fines for illegally copyrighted news, articles, comics, etc, which they have hanging around.
So then if a majority thinks that it is ok to steal, we shouldn't have any laws making it illegal?
... a copy of the car and a cheap, comprehensive analyzer tool is sufficient? What if said tool were banned to artifically maintain a scarcity of cars (or car designs)?
... most of which have been ruthlessly destroyed by other, more self-centered cultures. So we know that, barring attack and destruction from outside, many such societies that emphesize sharing over hoarding, and cooperation above competition, do in fact succeed and flourish. Whether it is our 'selfishness' that gave us the advantage in exterminating those not of like minds, a stroke of historical luck that could just as easilly have gone the other way, or a feature of our greater cruelty, I do not know, nor do I believe anyone has been able to difinitively answer that question. Certainly there are plenty of folks, like Ayn Rand, who will claim to be able to authoritatively say that a darwinistic, capitalistic society based upon unfettered greed is the best, most free society that can be created, but to my knowledge none of them have been able to back up this claim with any degree of unbiased evidence...nor has the opposing viewpoint been so verified either, to my knowledge.
In a word, YES.
Governance must be with the consent of the governed, or it is tyranny. Tyrannies that arise or are propogated for 'moral' reasons (as defined by whome in opposition to whome?) are often the worst forms of tyranny there is. Remember the dark ages beneath the frock of the Catholic Church, or the contemporary excesses of reactionary Islam today?
In any event, it depends on a culture's definition of 'stealing.' If I have a star trek style matter replicator and can instantly manufacture an infinite number of devices, as long as I have the design available in software, am I 'stealing' that car when I borrow a friend's copy of the design and create a car for myself? How about if I don't need the design
Most of our society, with the exception of those who are a part of the publishing and media cartels, would say no, you're not stealing. However, it is entirely likely that, in such a not-so-distant future, I would be violating the copyright of whoever designed the car. Ironically the RIAA has been very successful in getting a large chunk of our culture to buy into the notion that one is "stealing" if one copies a tune in a similiar fashion. Music, something that, until a century or so ago, was free in virtually every sense of the word...certainly for the overwhelming majority of our history as a sapient, music-making species.
If, to get back to your question, a society believed it was OK to take something you need without asking whoever happened to have possession of it (which, by our definition, is "stealing"), then clearly that society views the entire concept of property differently than you and I.
There have been many such societies throughout history that have had such views
So, in essence, if a society has a different view of property rights than our current, greed-driven culture, then by all means, that society should sustain its views, however 'communistic' through a set of consistent legal structures. Any other approach will lead to tyranny and, ultimately, either the collapse of the ruling structure through popular revolt, or the destruction of the culture through extreme oppression.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I turn on my radio I get free music by magic. Ok so that's totally free.
I PAY for my monthly TV service.. what ever I watch comes across via magic.. So that sets up the premise for paying for broad content..
A lot of people have no clue the internet is different. The concept of PPV on top of monthly service fee is still in its infancy.
They pay for 'service' and are bombarded from many angles ( even by their ISP ) that they can download movies, music, newspapers 'at high speed'..
What would you expect people to believe?
I'm not condoning illegal activities, but I really do believe many non techie people don't understand, yet. Hell even I have a hard time sorting thru what is legal 'media' to distribute at times...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So the question is what would happen if there was no such thing as copyright on recorded music. The worst case scenario is it would be impossible to make money on music recordings.
So how would musicians make money? Same way they did before there was a such thing as recorded music. For example, they could have concerts and charge admission.
Of course, it would be much more difficult for large multinational music corporations to manufacture the "artists" that make the most money. However, the less money and attention that is paid to copyright lawyers, CEOs, and Britney, the more there is for independent aritsts trying to get some exposure.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
If the RIAA can be sued for false advertising for offering immunity to file swappers in their "Clean Slate" program, why can't we sue SCO?
SCO is making even stronger claims, and charging money for the "immunity". This seems to be grand consumer fraud and clear false advertising.
-braddock
but I could easily see them deathmatching in Quake on DM4.
Bring it on, says I. I look forward to the day when Congress passes a law attempting to ban or cripple P2P. We've seen so many things that should have been the final straw in revealing just how bought Congress is, but that would have to be the one that finally breaks the camel's back.
Imagine it. Academics all across the country turning themselves in because they worked on gnutella, or freenet. Trolling clueless newspapers into shrieking that evil kiddie porn has been found on the eff tee pee network!!!! Better yet, what about the dangers of running an aitch tee tee pee server that (potentially) serves kiddie porn to anyone with a browser. Ban IIS! Ban listerservers, ban usenet, ban IM servers, ban talk.
Cross that line, Congress. Bring it on.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I saw this article this morning on the Washington Post's website.
5 50 11-2003Sep10.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A
The original end of the article was...
The RIAA has a Web site, www.musicunited.org, where you can download and sign an affidavit swearing that you've erased all your shared songs from your hard drive and promise never to do it again. In exchange, the RIAA promises not to sue you.
I wrote the editor an email...
"Several organizations have pointed out major flaws with the amnesty program that the RIAA is promoting including the Electronic Frontier Foundation in this article http://www.eff.org/share/amnesty.php
A quote from the EFF article:
"1) The RIAA's Offer Only Protects You Against RIAA Lawsuits
While the RIAA claims that this is an amnesty program, it doesn't actually have the authority to grant real protections from civil lawsuits. It doesn't own any copyrights, and its member labels aren't bound by this arrangement. This means that you could still be sued by the major record labels that fund the RIAA, songwriters or any other copyright holders. Plus, the RIAA would almost certainly turn over this information in response to any valid subpoena.
2) Signing an RIAA Affidavit May Expose You to Criminal Liability
In addition to the civil suits, a signed admission of guilt could make you a target for criminal prosecution under the No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act). Any interested federal authority could use your signed admission to argue that you are a "willful infringer," and potentially pursue remedies from enormous fines to prison time.
3) Even this Affidavit May Not Save You from the RIAA
The RIAA's offer only applies to people who have not been sued or are not "under investigation." Unless you are 100% sure that you are not on the RIAA's hit list (and there is no way to be sure), it is extremely risky to send them a signed declaration when they could still sue you and use your own words against you.
Please note that this is not legal advice. We urge you to consult with a qualified attorney who can review the facts in your case before making any decisions regarding this matter."
Notice that besides pointing out the flaws that they feel exist in the RIAA amnesty program the EFF also have the disclaimer that this is not legal advice, something that was lacking in your article.
Also there has been a lawsuit filed in California challenging the amnesty program as mentioned in this article http://cnet.com.com/2100-1027_3-5073972.html
I am hoping that you will at least amend Frank Ahrens's article to say that the amnesty program may be one course of action, but there have been concerns voiced about it, perhaps include some information or links about the concerns and the suggestion to contact a lawyer. I suspect this would be a prudent course while so much of this action has not yet been tested in court.
Thank you for your time spent reading this."
Now the article ends...
The RIAA has a Web site, www.musicunited.org, where you can download and sign an affidavit swearing that you've erased all your shared songs from your hard drive and promise never to do it again. In exchange, the RIAA promises not to sue you. Some groups argue that signing an RIAA amnesty affidavit could expose file-sharers to additional legal action. For more information, go to the Web site of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, www.eff.org.
Not a glaring change, but at least it does not sound like you only have one course of action.
Try it, you'll like it! and you can do us all good!
It's always about their lawsuits... why does no one ever talk about the music the RIAA makes:t erALopez
http://noneinc.com/RIAAEM/RIAAEM.html
Pe
-part time music fan
A-ha, so it's not just mostly students with over 1,000 files. They are apparently including "stupid" in their considerations.
You know what?
A few "we hate the RIAA" articles back someone made the comment that a student was "required" to download music off the net for use with school projects. I've been using MP3.com (you know, the place that the RIAA nearly sued off the face of the internet) for all of my little demo programming projects I release for free for others to learn how to do various things. There's no reason the kid had to use Kazaa and use illegal copies of music. www.recycledrussianbrides.com uses music from MP3.com with ads to the artist's page for those interested.
If you're so against the RIAA, it's quite simple: stop listening to their music. Use Google and the keywords you're looking for are "independent music"
www.launch.com has quite a selection of radio stations to choose from as well. If you don't know where to find alternatives you're quite simply just not looking.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
The problem with your idea that people "just don't know" yet, is that the hyenas at the RAII have been beating this drum for well over a year. People just didn't think they would take it this far.
Where will it end?
-- The universe began. Life started on a billion worlds...
-- Except on one where stupidity was there first.
In a previous /. article, I proposed a project to develop an RIAA tarpit.
It's purpose is to empower anyone using Kazaa to install a tarpit. The idea is to foil the RIAA's attempt to track down people sharing songs.
It's basically a network program, which fools outside connections into looking like their computer is sharing music or files, when it is not. If enough people use it, then the costs to go after music sharing people would be prohibitive.
I wish I had the resources to develop something like this, but I don't, so this is why I put out the idea here, in the hopes that people might get this idea and exploit it.
Someone would make a killing doing this.
How come the government has allowed the record industry to act as a trust? If all the car manufacturers agreed to only sell big luxury sedans with a lot of useless extras I think that the government would have become involved, yet this industry had moved from selling less profitable singles (with a "B" side) to only offering expensive albums for most artists. This allows them to bundle a lot of junk tracks in to the sale and give you an all or nothing decision. I guess it is because the typical buyer had traditionally been south of voting age!
How much you pay for broadband is your problem. Where I live broadband would cost me well over a hundred dollars a month and that is AFTER I invested $600 or more in the crap needed to connect and then paid the satellite installer to set it up. should I bitch about how "unfair" it is that I should work and still not be able to afford what people in the cities can get for the same price I pay for shit slow dialup access?
Of course, I could just move forty miles away so I would be near MSU where I could leech off the the campus wireless network. Or get DSL and share the cost with my neighbors. But I choose to stay in a rural area, so I have to live with the down side.
Pissing about someone living in the city at or below the poverty line and having free or low cost broadband access is not only short sighted elitism, it also shows a tremendous lack of insight about the state of the industry. What if the people in the co-op support their own connections? What if the modest fee for the wireless access itself subsidizes education and training for a service industry that is guaranteed to provide stable jobs that are impossible to migrate offshore in a community that desperately needs them? If I am sick of not having broadband and I and my neighbors organize a rural co-op is that suddenly "unfair" to those who spend all their time chasing money in the cities but still can't get fat pipe access? Get a fucking clue!
About the only thing pistols are designed to do is to shoot people.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
... to claim they didn't know that these things might be illegal. After all, they're saying things like 'the RIAA should go after Kazaa' and 'I didn't know I was sharing' and so on.
... you deserve what you got.
News flash: You're complaining about something that's been done already. The RIAA did go after Kazaa, and a judge ruled that the service itself is legal. Just like VCRs are legal even though you could copy rental tapes. But oh wait, you didn't know these crazy people at the RIAA are throwing lawsuits around without investigating who they're actually suing, so you obviously didn't RTFA (like people like to say here on slashdot). I know the case is being appealed, but it seems to me that if a judge is going to strike down the existing ruling, then he'd better start declaring all VCRs illegal contraband.
News flash: If you didn't open up the preferences and look for whatever checkbox that Kazaa (or whatever client you have) might have that says "Enable file sharing" and figure that if it's checked, you might be, oh, I don't know, sharing files
I personally check preferences to see what I can tweak as one of the first things I do after installing a new application. So I assume that it's controllable. And I bet that it's defaulted to on, precisely because most people are too lazy to check their preferences, so if it defaulted to off, there would be no network.
Sorry for the rant -- it just amazes me how dumb people seem to be. I guess it's a prerequisite for getting in the news these days.
i am a soviet space shuttle
You conveniently left out, via the "...", the part where it says "for a limited time".
So did Congress and the Supreme Court. Point?
Will I retire or break 10K?
The facts remain that the Industry makes money at the *expense* of the artist; because of the way we 'do it', the number of new artists must necessarily be limited (as the number of different products increases, the cost of promoting your brand goes up), and the industry as a whole absorbs most of the cash from any given CD. I'd much rather give *my* money to the artist. In fact, I'd rather see 100 artists making $100,000 a year than one artist making $10,000,000 (and yes, I mean that, even if the $10m artist is one I like, personally)... The RIAA cannot allow that to happen.
In the end, however, the very underpinnings of our current copyright system are collapsing under their own archaic weight. The constant confusion of those who insist that we are not purchasing a "song", but a "CD" (It's illegal for me to download a song that I own on cd, according to RIAA), but we don't really buy a "CD" with IP, because M$ Windows 'LICENSE' is non-transferrable. One way or the other, people.
The ip landscape is changing, and all I know is that it's not going to look the same in ten years - not even close. The RIAA and the recording giants are fighting for their lives in this age of near-zero-cost distribution. Somebody will win, and somebody will lose, and if recent years are any guide, the losers will be you and me, and the only winners will be, not the recording artists or actors, but the CORPORATIONS, and ONLY the corporations.
I was reading on http://www.baen.com, and came across a Robert Heinlein work in the free section that gave me the words I've been looking for to describe the current situation in IP:
Robert A. Heinlein, in "Life-Line",
--
my other computer is a Mac.
Thinking outside my Head
I have had people collect knoppix, and BSD of my pc via p2p.
I wont mention which one, as we dont need the bad press.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Yeah, SUUUURRRE you did.
These folks are trying to blame Kazaa just so they can appear not so guilty.
Nobody is so stupid to think that $29.99 buys them "unlimited" access to all the music in the world as one lady tries to claim.
... or the american way of life we bomb them whether we are justified or not... right? So-- how about a full scale military shock and awe campaign against the RIAA and their members?
I am pretty sure there are many other ISP's which offer better agreements than Rogers but if you never excercise your rights you will be stuck with Rogers...and yes I know who Rogers is...
>. "I spent $29.95 on Kazaa and thought I could download thousands of dollars of CDs, movies, software and pr0n." Riiiight.
I spent 14.99 a month on emusic and thought I could download thousands of dollars of music. Riiiight.
Oh right, that's exactly what I'm doing and its legal.
What would it take to have a cenus making piracy legal/ not piracy? We could lobby them to reduce the period that a work could be held under copywrite down to something reasonable like 2-3 years. This would alow people to recoup thier money from what works they did and not hold everyone over the barel forever. Cost of distributing the media is minimal say over the internet. Why should everyone be paying to maintain a huge RIAA that to me seams to serve only as an enforcer of protection money. That isn't mandated in the constitution at all. We may as well set up a grass roots initiative to enact this change= anyone?
A friend of mine got burned from this recently. He downloaded a redhat ISO off of eDonkey, and it turns out it had a trojan hidden in it. He eventually found out about it after his ISP notified him of DOS attacks coming from his connection, and we determined it was the ISO after the attacks continued after we reinstalled from that ISO.
Write a letter to the RIAA's amnesty program. Put nothing but the following sentence on a clean sheet of paper:
"You can get anything you want at Alice's restaurant."
You STILL dont get it...
I said I can record from the air waves legally.
Because of the above statement, I don't care about legality of downloading same shows. I did say that there ARE legal issues with doing that, but that I didn't care.. ( I refuse to follow any law I don't believe in anyway, but that's a different issue )
I also said that if this was taken to court I have a feeling that it would be tossed out. For a person downloading a recorded from the air copy..
A person downloading a DVD rip of a show, not the 'off-air' recording would have ZERO ground to stand on regardless of 'market'.. Only in the case of downloading a 'off-air' recording of a show that was in their market area would one have even a chance with the judge, but that's only personal feeling, it was not a statement of legality of it. I also don't plan on taking that to the test, considering that common sense doesnt apply in the court system anylonger.
I NEVER specifically said it was legal to download anything... only how I felt about the process of downloading, and that it was legal to tape 'off-air'.
I cant make it any clearer.. Slow down a bit next time..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It's always the fault of the RIAA for not offering a similarly competitive alternate for P2P. It's always the fault of the RIAA for keeping prices too high. It's always the fault of the RIAA for sueing everyone in existance.
It's never the fault of the person that violated the copyright law in the first place, is it?
Thanks,
Leabre
It seems to me that these kinds of suits could be easily thrown out of court due to plausible deniability - unless you catch them red-handed with the files after a raid whats wrong with: "I have a wireless AP, and darn it if someone didn't sneak on my network and use it for p2p stuff. No, I've never even heard that band, Kazza is it?".
OK, so "stealing" may be a bit wrong. Let me think of another metaphor. So I trespass onto your real property. Though that's not stealing, it's still trespassing. Is copyright infringement anything like trespassing?
Will I retire or break 10K?
It seems to me that claiming that a P2P service is responsible for copyright infringement is like claiming that a photo-copier is responsible for the same crime. While a device is capable of assisting somebody in breaking the law, the device is not what broke the law.
Everwoner if you'd look the same if you saw yourself from the other side of the miror?
The difference to me:
If you download a TV rip, of a show you could have recorded yourself.. As you *can* legally record the show yourself due to 'timshifting' rules.. You have not deprived anyone of anything, and the downloading of the same show, ripped from the TV, should be legal.
If you download a DVD rip to get the 'better quality' ( or added features ) then you avoided buying something and *have* deprived somone of income, and violated copyright laws. Which should be illegal, as it is.
That may not be the legal answer, but as far as im concerned, its ok with me to think this way...
( and as a side note, shows i want that come out on DVD, i normally buy and replace my vhs or downloaded versions.. )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I will admit that I've downloaded a bit of music, as I'm lazy and some of my cd's are old. I figure I have the right to download any and all of the CD's I've purchased. But, here's the question, I bought some Imports a number of years ago for $28 each, and when my car got broken into, they stole all of my CD's. I paid for the music. Should I not have the right to it? What if I rip all of my cd's and somebody steals them, do I lose the right to the MP3's? I'm thinking that I should go out and download everything I have on CD itself over and over so that the RIAA will sue me, and I can walk into court with the CD's and say "Hey, I own this music"......
Since there so sue happy. Why don't they go after ISPs that offer broad band. Since that is what makes down loading music fun.
Yes, let's educate. Here are a few starting points.
1) Sharing copyrighted material is NOT theft. It is the principle on which the public library was founded.
2) The vast majority of the music released is created by independent artists, by an estimated ratio of about 13:1, most of which offer their music freely for download.
3) According to the U.S. Copyright Office, only the copyright owners have the ability to file claims of copyright infringement. Please note that this is not necessarily the artists, but almost always the major labels in the case of RIAA acts. Conversely, in the case of independent acts, it is almost always the artist and NOT a record label.
4) The authorized music released by the independents and the major label acts (live bootlegs, authorized by the bands for sharing -- see http://www.archive.org/audio/etree.php) far outweighs the "illegal" music released by the recording industry. The RIAA and the media both refuse to acknowledge the authorized music.
5) The RIAA is the only group suing people for listening to music, a move elegantly timed to take emphasis from the widespread copy-protected CDs currently being introduced. Compared to suing 12-year-olds, it is certainly appears to be the lesser of two evils even though copy-protection will last much longer than the legal terrorism will be allowed to continue.
6) Only the music from the RIAA carries the threat of lawsuits. The rest of us don't have the time, money or energy to sue you and drag you through the press for liking our music.
http://www.cafeshops.com/mindcontrolled
You're dead wrong. People paste blurbs from other articles all the time. Sometimes they're karma whoring. This guy just wants credit for finding relevant information. It's no different than posting the text from the NY/LA Times web sites that require a subscription. This ain't spam any more than the others.
As for modderation, yeah mod it down. That way people like you won't get all bent out of shape. I mean really. I bet a lot of people were impressed with that atomic bomb comment that they bought a whole bunch of copies. It's just interesting. And it was on topic. Nice job!
Is there no way to have his Amazon account blocked for abuse?