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!
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.
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!
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
"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?
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.