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!
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.
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).
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.
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.
...and we can all dance around in one giant circle and sing Kum-ba-ya while BillG and Linus play leap-frog.
Survey says: Not this century!
More than enough BS
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."
...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.
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
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!
Yeah, that'd be great. No one would write books anymore. No one would make music anymore. No one would make movies anymore. No one would write software anymore. Oh, except for the part-time hobbyists who do these things for fun and don't really have any motivation for doing the best job they possibly can because no one is getting paid for anything.
Honestly, the lack of real-world vision on this site is mind boggling sometimes.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce
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
"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?
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
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?
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.
Yes, fill the RIAA's war chest some more!
How about showing the girl that there are plenty of great artists that allow some or all of their music to be traded freely? Educate her on how Britney Spears and her cohorts are manufactured by the same music industry that came after her, only to make money. Show her how artists like the ones she was probably downloading and sharing have come and gone, only to be replaced by some newer fad, and all to continue to fill the industry's already deep pockets.
Obviously I don't expect a 12 year old to understand all of that. Arguing over musical tastes with somebody is pointless. But the remedy to problems like this is not to buy more pop garbage, but rather to introduce people to alternatives to RIAA-backed crap.
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
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.
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).
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!
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 ----
Rather hard when the computers come with Windoze, I think. And people don't YET have a reason to switch, but they should...XP's activation means I am no longer going to use Windows after 98, my next box will be running Sourcemage GNU/Linux. (And this one dual boots Headrat)
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
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
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?
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
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.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
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.
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?
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
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
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?
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.
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 ----
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.
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.
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
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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