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.

Comments

Umm... I think they are confused.

[Prince_Ali]

Shouldn't PR campaigns and efforts typically make your RELATIONSHIP with the PUBLIC better?

Re:Imagine if copyright were abolished.

[Nugget]

And microsoft would be free to use Linux souce code in their closed-source products (which would be protected by user contracts and hardware-based copy protection).

"d-uh, me not know it be stealing.."

[grub]

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.

Re:"d-uh, me not know it be stealing.."

[Goo.cc]

No dude, here is America you can break the law and still be a victim.

Re:"d-uh, me not know it be stealing.."

[lunenburg]

When a person buys Kazaa they are entering into a legally binding agreement

I don't think you can say with certainty that a EULA is a "legally binding agreement."

Re:"d-uh, me not know it be stealing.."

[Arslan ibn Da'ud]

(Feigning) ignorance is not a defense.

I would submit that this is true in a strictly legal sense, and that
the whole P2P contraversy is an excellent counter-argument.

The DMCA, in its final form, runs to about 20,000 pages and is only
understood by copyright lawyers, it is therefore useful only to those
who are able to afford on-staff copyright lawyers (eg the *AA and
other media cartels) It reads pretty much like a multiparty business
negotiation contract, which is basically what it is, and it (as well
as all copyright law) was never meant to be enforced on John Q
Public. One could argue that since the public has no real means of
knowing or understanding the finer points of the DMCA, is it really
fair to enforce the DMCA against them?

Sigh. And as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony.

Re:"d-uh, me not know it be stealing.."

[YrWrstNtmr]

"I spent $29.95 on Kazaa and thought I could download thousands of dollars of CDs, movies, software and pr0n."

Just like "I paid emusic.com $10/month and thought I could download thousands of dollars of CD's"
Guess what...you can.

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;

8. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
8.2 Except as expressly provided herein, you are not granted any rights or license to patents, copyrights, trade secrets or trademarks with respect to the Service or its contents, and EMusic reserves all rights not expressly granted hereunder.

To the casual user, the apparent differences might not be that obvious.

Software makers should be liable

[Realistic_Dragon]

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.

Even if...

[3.5 stripes]

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?

Bollocks.

[RMH101]

The 12 year old in question's family is stating this? Don't you think they have an understandably vested interest in appearing very contrite and sorry about this, whilst shifting the responsibility to someone else?

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.

Yeah, that would be great.

[Prince_Ali]

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.

Re:Yeah, that would be great.

[Snowspinner]

You know, I look at the number of people who write stories in their spare time, who have garage bands, and who spend their weekends painting, and somehow, I have trouble sympathizing with people who do it professionally.

To be honest, I think the music industry would be better off if people who only record albums for the money were to stop. A lot less Backstreet Boys and a lot more art.

Re:Yeah, that would be great.

[Prince_Ali]

I look at the number of people who write stories in their spare time

Have you read the stuff amateur writers put out? 99.99% of it isn't worth the time it takes to read it, and probably of the stuff worth reading most wouldn't be worth paying for. There are professionals because to do something well you have to dedicate more time than a few hours on the weekend to it, and people have to eat.

Re:Yeah, that would be great.

[Lemmy Caution]

It would be the end to art, wrting and music as manufacturing. As long as people still want art, copy, and music produced, they will get paid to produce it. It will be a matter of getting paid for the hours, not the goods.

Re:Yeah, that would be great.

[krzysztof]

Because Mozart wouldn't have written a thing without copyright protections on his music...

Real musicians and artists don't create to "strike it rich". They create their art because they don't know how not to. Being able to live off of your music is nice, but it's not necessary. Philip Glass drove a taxi for years to support his composing habit. If Metallica would throw in the towel before driving taxi to support their band, well then, maybe we'd be better off without 'em.

Re:Yeah, that would be great.

[Free_Meson]

"It would be the end to art, wrting and music as manufacturing. As long as people still want art, copy, and music produced, they will get paid to produce it. It will be a matter of getting paid for the hours, not the goods."

So what hourly wage would you suggest we give to writers? Would all writers get paid the same? who would pay them? How would their works get distributed in a form true to the vision of the artist? How would we know who to credit in the world without copyrights if anyone could just put his name on someone else's work and redistribute it? How would we know who we're reading and whether we should invest time in another story by the same author or not?

A painting is a tangible thing. A photograph is as well, though it's becoming less so. (Digital photography is making huge inroads in terms of quality while at the same time reducing the cost and time required to produce a solid "artistic" photograph.) Music is inherently a performance art, and even if the artist never makes a dime on sales he/she can support themselves while touring.

Writing is different. Over the last 200 years the means whereby a written work can be reproduced and distributed have greatly reduced the cost to the publisher while the cost to the author, in time and effort, of actually writing the work has remained constant. For example, a work of fiction of significant length would require 1000 or so man-hours of investment for the first draft alone, and if you take into account the time spent revising, hitting dead ends, generating ideas, fighting through writer's block, and just "not having it," a finished book is a huge investment that is worthless until complete. There is no great altruistic figure willing to indefinitely feed, clothe, and house a writer in exchange for a work product that could never be turned into money. That was true 200 years ago and it is still true today -- technology has not changed the fundamentals of writing literature, the practice that copyright was designed to foster.

You can whine about the inconvenience and insanity of many of the modern applications of copyright law, and I would largely agree with you, but if you get rid of copyright, then you get rid of writing (beyond newspapers and such), and that would be a shame. The abolition of copyright would leave writing to be a pursuit of the fabulously wealthy and any serf-like slaves they might choose to employ.

(btw, serf=?smurf)

Didn't we learn anything from Napster?

[soren42]

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.

Re:Didn't we learn anything from Napster?

[garcia]

The RIAA doesn't need to come up with a new business model just because Slashdot says so you know.

The RIAA has been selling albums for years. Just because people want to download (FOR FREE) music now doesn't mean that if they change to an online distribution method (ala iTunes) that they are going to make the same amounts of money.

Personally I am impressed w/iTunes' success, but I don't think that there is any possible way that it will reach the numbers that Kazaa had (FOR FREE). I know the RIAA knows this.

They look at what they do and say, hmm, distributing online is cheaper for us to do but probably will not be any more popular than the current method.

Unless this business model you speak of is giving away music FOR FREE like Kazaa, it's not going to make one bit of a difference.

Just my worthless .02

If this is coming down to a PR war...

[GreenCrackBaby]

...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.

Re:If this is coming down to a PR war...

[Dun Malg]

It's hard to argue that they lost thousands and thousands of dollars because a little 12-year old in the projects downloaded some songs

Yeah, it's cases like this that really expose the absurdity of the RIAA trying to equate "intellectual property" with real property and claim billions of dollars in "losses". They can't rationally suggest that this 12 year old kid would have plopped down anywhere near the multi-thousand dollar retail cost of all that music if she hadn't been able to get it free via P2P.

Re:I don't see what's so hard to understand

[stewwy]

definition of a bad law.... one thats ignored by a sizeable percentage of the population it applies too.... only thing that can be done about it.... repeal the law and write one that a majority will obey!

What if you're wrong?

[Thinkit3]

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.

traction with p2p=porn, also

[astrashe]

I've noticed that they've gotten a lot of traction over the past few days by linking file sharing with porn.

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 .. and I ain't out shoppin spendin dudes C-notes
I'm in the crib givin niggaz deep throat

Re:I don't see what's so hard to understand

[Anonymous Coward]

Copying is stealing? That's news to me. So if I take a picture of the Mona Lisa, I STOLE THE MONA LISA?

Theft and copyright infrigment are different terms, legally and morally. Please talk about them separately so as to avoid confusion and arguments-to-emotion.

Priorities?

[Hoi Polloi]

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.

Idiots.

[fetus]

"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?

Yes, but until P2P becomes profitable...

[ZeoRanger]

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-

Some thoughts...

[BanjoBob]

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?

Uploading copyrighted music is illegal

[Stiletto]

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.

the power of sharing

[poptones]

P2P users need to be made more aware that file sharing is distribution. These lawsuits are double plus good in that they drive that point home and they make the music industry look bad. Most people, even if they acknowledge the RIAA has a point - don't condone suing 12 year olds living in public housing.

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?

Re:the power of sharing

[markov_chain]

Good points. It's unfortunate that the subtle distinction between RIAA-owned and other music is not visible at all to most of the users; take this quote from the cnet article:

In a survey of 803 consumers ages 10 and older, 52 percent of respondents said they were "supportive and understanding of the industry's actions," the RIAA said. About 21 percent said they were "unsupportive and negative." The survey was conducted by polling firm Peter D. Hart Associates.

The poll was taken several days before news of the lawsuits broke.

The group also released data from a similar survey conducted earlier. That survey found that 58 percent of people polled in August knew that it was "against the law to make music available online for others to download for free," compared with just 37 percent of people polled in June.

(emphasis mine). Imagine that, 58% of pollees think that sharing any music is illegal! Is that scary or what?

Re:I don't see what's so hard to understand

[Anonymous Coward]

If copyright infrigement is stealing, then why do we have different laws governing the two?

Personally, I think I should be able to arrange the bits on my hard drive however I damn well want, even if they happen to match the pattern of the bits on your hard drive.

Re:Hmmmm...

[Marc Desrochers]

By the same logic, wouldn't Ford, GM, Honda, et al, be responsible for people's speeding tickets?

If it enables a crime then ...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

GET REAL! Kazza should take some of the HEAT.

[jbottero]

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).

She shouldn't have settled.

[joel8x]

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.

ex post facto?

[lone_marauder]

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."

Re:Angry with Kazaa?

[GreenCrackBaby]

I wouldn't bother responding to your naive statement, but when I see a comment such as your labelled "interesting" I can't help but respond.

Let's start with the McDonald's coffee case, shall we. Rather than propagate popular myth about the case, why don't you first check here.

Next, the "filesharing is illegal" mantra. File sharing isn't illegal, sharing copyrighted works for which you don't have the copyright-holder's permission is illegal (except in places like Canada where certain types of sharing are legal thanks to the CD levies).

So, let's assume you actually meant to say "sharing copyrighted material is illegal" -- so what? There seems to be a certain percetage of people who cannot see a difference between "killing people is illegal" and "jaywalking is illegal". Yes, both actions are probably illegal, but they can hardly be lumped into the same category.

Most "filesharers" know what they do is illegal. However most also would say that what they are doing is more like jaywalking as opposed to murder.

Re:You are so wrong.

[dosius]

If they were only going after uploaders WTF were they suing a twelve-year old girl who did nothing but download an MP3 off KaZaA?

Gah, the RIAA is a bunch of asshats.

-uso.

Re:victim? VICTIM?!

[momerath2003]

Michael, you have it backwards. People who steal (that's right steal) from other people are not the victims.

Exactly. Which is why the little girl is the victim and the RIAA is not.

Or are you saying that suing a 12-year-old and taking $2000 isn't stealing?

Filesharing cant be stopped whitout the users.

[miffo.swe]

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.

The "email math problem" foolishness

[autechre]

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.

Re:Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Unauthorized file sharing approximates Theft

[panda]

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?

OT - Re:Software makers should be liable

[gbjbaanb]

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.

RIAA PR...

[Dieppe]

The thing I noticed is the average take for the RIAA is about $3,000, but they only strong armed the 12-year old honors student out of $2,000.

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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

D'oh! Stupid RIAA!

[NixLuver]

I've been ranting for some time about the RIAA and the music industry in general, since long before P2P file trading and mp3s in general, whilst I was listening to mods on my Amiga and reading the complaints of the music artists faced with the absolute lack of integrity and institutionalized venality of the Music Industry as a whole.

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:

"I will stipulate that many persons have canceled life-insurance policies as a result thereof, but I challenge them to show that anyone so doing has suffered any loss or damage therefrom. It is true that the Amalgamated has lost business through my activities, but that is the natural result of my discovery, which has made their policies as obsolete as the bow and arrow. If an injunction is granted on that ground, I shall set up a coal-oil-lamp factory, and then ask for an injunction against the Edison and General Electric companies to forbid them to manufacture incandescent bulbs."

Robert A. Heinlein, in "Life-Line",

• Expanded Universe

--
my other computer is a Mac.