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!
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,
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.
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
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.
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!
Relax, just fill out this form, and RIAA will leave you alone.
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
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.
"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.
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 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.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
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