Slashdot Mirror
MPAA, RIAA Seek Permanent Antitrust Exemption
Devistater writes "Webcasters sued RIAA two months ago in an antitrust case for anti-competitive behavior. The response? An exemption from antitrust laws. Today's Register tells about RIAA/MPAA's efforts to get just such an exemption written into law. They could become permanently exempt from such a suit, if the bill passes. They snuck it into a bill sponsored by Orrin Hatch called EnFORCE Act (Enhancing Federal Obscenity Reporting and Copyright Enforcement Act of 2003). Orrin Hatch says this bill contains "First... an antitrust exemption in the Copyright Act [for] record companies and music publishers" Why? Because of 'market realities.' Which ones? The 12-year-old girl? The 15-year-old girl? Or the 66-year-old Grandma with a Mac?"
I wonder whether Mr. Hatch ever paused to consider that porn is a market reality as well...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Exactly how much the RIAA pays off chumps like Orrin Hatch.
Must be nice having a senator in your pocket....
"I am a kernel in the linux army"
the mob is exempt from murder charges due to 'market realities'.
I have faith that SOMEONE in the government will see the absurdity of this request and will stop it before it gets too far.
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
to have Orrin Hatch as my congressional representative. I have never voted for him and after several news stories like this will never vote for him in the future. When will the people of Utah wake up and see that he does our state no good and harms our nation as well. Anti-trust laws are there for a reason. To keep companies from running rampant and having ultimate power to do as they will without regard. Nice move Orrin how much money did you take to get this law written? I suggest everyone write a letter to Senator Hatch and tell him what you think of this law. Utahans especially but it helps if anyone sends a letter in.
*Ok rant's over, flame on!
Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
If I were in congress, I think I would just start voting down anything with a clever acronym for a name....
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Market realities that radio is being consolidated into a handful of companies and you now have more control? Song royalties for Internet radio are cost prohibitive in most instances? You are spending millions of dollars to develop trash movies and music and the consumers aren't buying into it anymore?
How about we stop allowing them to pay off these lawmakers with huge donations (even through other channels) and they stop being able to throw their weight around.
Although I guess they could just ignore any findings of the government like someone else we know and go about their business as usual w/o fear.
Great. This is what we need. More power to those who hold the purse strings. Give more power to big business and less to consumers.
The thing that concerns me is that the RIAA is trying to circumvent a diplomatic process. I always thought that, while not completely effective, challenging an organizations actions (even in court) kept what organizations do in check - that the could not overstep their boundries. Now, the RIAA is trying to be immune from it's actions, while suing consumers for their actions.
This could start a dangerous precident - allowing corporations immunity from their own actions. Hope SCO isn't watching.
It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
I don't care what you say, there is no reason, no reason at all for anyone to be exempt from anti-trust laws. The reality of the market? What on earth does that mean?
Clearly the music and movie industries are larg amalgams esigned to stigle anything that resembles competition, is that the reality that they're talking about? The only reason a company would want an exemption from anti-trust laws would be if they were or were planning on becoming a monopoly, or if they are or plan on just raping those laws in the name of extreme profit. Those laws are in place to protect not only consumers but the economic and creative interests of the United States of America.
What a bunch of bums, really. I don't care if no one likes you. I don't care that your companies are losing money because people found out that they didn't have to pay $20 for a CD (they could pay like $10 with I-Tunes). Why should you be immune the the laws? I'm sorry Mr. Corporate Conspiracy Group, but the laws are there to apply to everyone equally, and no one should get exempted from them, this is what we call equality, if you don't like it, then you can stick it in some place and go move your companies out to Vantua with Sharman networks.
Orrin Hatch, he went to congress, DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM
</singing>
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Perhaps if people in America actually bothered to vote you would see the politicians taking more notice of the people than the corporates.
Just a though....
So far this week our government has passed laws legalizing spam and giving huge kickbacks to insurance companies. They have a majority on a bill indemnifying oil companies for MTBE pollution. They declared intent to ban gay marriages in the US. Now there is a bill that would give all publishers the right to become monopolies? And this actually received sponsorship?
Isn't our government supposed to behave near elections?
The ______ Agenda
Last time I checked Gore got the Majority. Not that the Democrats are any better. The problem is that Corporate rule is already or soon to become reality in most of the "free" world, and with a lack of options it will be difficult to dislodge.
Hatch is trying to pull this off at the same time Congress is debating whether the BCS violates antitrust laws. The NCAA doesn't have an antitrust exemption, and neither does the NFL. To my knowledge, Major League Baseball is the only group of that sort to have an antitrust exemption, and even that's come up for debate during all those strikes.
A simple public awareness campaign should put an end to the madness. In the context of other "market realities," it simply doesn't make sense. In fact, Congress has taken an active interest in limiting those other "market realities." Seriously, what's the difference between one group controlling all access to recorded music and one group controlling all access to pro football?
----------
Something cleverfrom the law? I know that this law is obnoxious, but what difference does it make that it is enforced against young girls and grandmas. It is just as obnoxious enforced against a 30 year old white male.
This is the classic powerplay of the statists - set up a straw man scenario, get people to believe that the 'market' is 'free', then show its failures, thus proving the need for State intervention.
A classic argument for this is health care (in the US, sorry for you non-US folks). The argument goes as follows: Health care is expensive, due to those rich capitalist pigs raising the prices of drugs. This conjures the emotional response of jealousy, and subconscious imagery of sick people dying due to 'greedy' doctors. This argument neglects the reality that government monopoly money (in the form of Medicare/Medicaid) was been pouring into the medical establishment for 40 years. Given a customer with infinite cash, any business will jack up its prices to infinite levels.
Returning to the music argument, the industry has so manipulated the legislation that it is far from a free market (DVD encoding, DMCA, even region-encoded discs) that they can no longer claim the same right to protection under traditional law. It was only a matter of time, inevitable, that they would require blatant exemption and special treatment.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
While at the core their arguements against piracy are valid, unfortunately the reason it is so bad for them is because of the "market-plan" they have set for themselves, which isn't an option anymore, people know what CD's actually cost, people know that the artists see pennies on the dollar, people don't want to line **AA's pockets with their cash anymore ....so if **AA's profits are down, you're cutting into their "lifestyle" so whats another way to produce revenue? Lawsuits settlements!
They're saying ,one way or another, they will get your money from you whether you like it or not. Time for them to re-assess their plans.
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
I hate republicans as much as the next guy, but dude: democrats took more than three times as much money from the entertainment industry as republicans in the 2002 elections. Their number one recipient was some guy from Massachusetts named Kerry, who correct me if I'm wrong doesn't tend to agree too often with Bush and his cronies. In fact, every single congressman who is a Democratic presidential candidate is in the top 5--Edward #3, Lieberman (who favors censoring TV and records, that little sellout whore) #5, Gephardt #1, Kucinich #3. Hell even Dean is second only to W in total dollars received--and he's, technically speaking, no more than an unemployed migrant orator, at the moment! :) So blaming this all on republicans is, I'm sorry, bullshit. Oh and by the way, Gore took $250,000 more from the enterainment industry than Bush in 2000.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
I am ashamed to have Orrin Hatch as my congressional representative.
... I do not have any optomism whatsoever that our government will ever recover from its current despicable state without a descent into revolution and chaos, and I do not have much optomism that our society will survive such a descent. In other words, I think it likely that our culture and our political system is about to consume itself and collapse utterly, and I am of two minds as to whether or not that will, ultimately, be a good thing or not.
... they are the only ones in the industry who would support this atrocity).
And well you should be. As an American, I am ashamed of virtually everyone congress and the presidency, and a number of Supreme Court justices. It is appalling how deep the rot is
When will the people of Utah wake up and see that he does our state no good and harms our nation as well. Anti-trust laws are there for a reason. To keep companies from running rampant and having ultimate power to do as they will without regard. Nice move Orrin how much money did you take to get this law written?
To answer your question, Orrin Hatch whored himself out to the entertainment industry for $150,000 or so. Interestingly enough, he is brazen enough to take $100,000 from the computer industry at the same time (one wonders if that isn't Microsoft priming the pump for TCPA/DRM
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
So if Microsoft writes an origonal song for each relase of Windows the way Theo does for OpenBSD they become a music publihser and are therefor exempt from anti-trust laws?
Thanks Orin. I feel so much better now.
Why? Because of 'market realities.' Which ones? The 12-year-old girl? The 15-year-old girl? Or the 66-year-old Grandma with a Mac?"
I am as much against the RIAA as anyone, and have been a victim of their tactics (in 1998/99 I was threatened with a suit via my school over an ftp site, ended up being protected by my school, but got slapped w/ loss of network access and academic probation for a year). But come on now guys, these quotes are the same type of crap pulled to get these laws in place 'for the children.' (Ok this doesnt apply really to the DMCA, but it doesnt change the central point). What is worse, is that we are now throwing grandmother's in the picture. It is equally heinous to sue your customers regardless of age, or maternal status. Can we please try to keep the loaded language to the mass media and off of slashdot? If not, might as well do some digging around, im sure one of them has or had cancer, perhaps is HIV positive.
Come on guys, lets keep the standards high, and use solid arguments in place of trying to sling mud at the RIAA.
in translation the two most powerful mafia in the entertainment industry are requesting immunization from any request for breakup so that no one with sound mind won't stop their *activities*. if you have an army of lawyers standing behind, you can exploit all the "entertainers" and extort peepers, blaming them for watching free shows.
RI@@ + MP@@ should be disband, just like hollywood studios were ordered to break up their vertically integrated film distribution system in the past. both organizations gives no benefit whatsoeveer to artists and/or consumers. their only interest is their profits only. fsck them.
Anti-trust law has been entirely shirked during this administration. In the last, the DMCA was brought into law. It seems to me that the divide between Democrats and Republicans is simply a minor power-struggle in the top class.
Every new politician who might care is used as a pawn, and they will either have to sell out their people to become part of the upper class, or get ousted from the political machine.
Then there is the push by the top powers in the world for "free trade" that is starting to look to me to be anything but.
But here's the real kicker. There is not really any group or persons who controls this political machine, it is simply the manifestation of the greed of the top 1% as a whole. Each one may not see themselves as "selling out" their people, but each one doing so in minor (sometimes more than minor) ways creates this monstrosity of a machine that keeps the rich rich and the poor poor and the middle class working harder and harder.
How do you stop the machine?
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Am I the only one out there?
Politicians don't give a rats ass about their constituency. Ever notice when one is interviewed its always "I feel this bill should pass" or "I don't like this bill." Shouldn't it be "the people who put me in office want/don't want this"?
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
Next logical step is to make any music's copyright automatically go to RIAA so they can protect the artists rights against evil pirates.
And this eventually leads to you not being allowed to play your own music without paying RIAA, since they own the copyright...
Oh, and whistling is also music, so any whistler is liable for up to 5 years of prison and $25000000 fine if caught in the act without proper RIAA license...
Thanks for voting. Democrat? Republican? All the same. The Constitution limits our Congress to certain enumerated rights. Copyright and anti-trust regulation ARE within those enumerated rights, but we've given them so many other rights (health care, FBI, FDA, FCC, etc) that they can now pass any law, any time, even if the laws are obviously pork for their friends.
This is the problem with democracy. If 49 people disagree with 51, the 49 people lose. Everyone's a loser. Stop voting for authoritarian parties (Democrats, Republicans, Greens) and start voting for parties who actually want to downsize DC.
It doesn't matter which candidate or which party you choose, it's all funded from the same source, beholden to the same interests, ready and willing to scratch the same backs. THAT is the problem, and in an incredible demonstration of the chicken-and-egg problem, it is also the reason for much of voter apathy.
The "market reality" is that the RIAA and the recording companies that they "represent" have completely lost their sense of reality. They are so afraid of losing the market share they currently posses to new and emerging technologies that they want to litigate and lobby until nobody but them and their archaic means of distribution are legal.
Look at how the movie industry fought against VHS, BetaMax, and more recently DVDs because they would "destroy" the movie industry. Now VHS and DVD rentals and sales are a huge chunk of the movie industry's sales each year. Just as cassettes were once a huge chunk of the RIAA's child company sales.
The simple reality of the situation is that very, very few high quality products are being released in this day and age by large corporate media companies (both music and movie). There are no musical groups that can compete in record sales with the likes of Elvis, the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin and the like and there are no movies any more that can be compared in out-and-out quality with older movies like Scarface, Gone With the Wind, the Wizard of Oz, etc. Everything now is about image and flashy special effects and the simple reality of the market is that this stuff just doesn't sell as well as a good product.
Duris MUD - The best pkill MUD. Ever.
1) it shows how scared the industry is... that they realize they cannot continue to abuse their customers and survive... they need protection from new and disruptive technologies. This cycle has been seen many many times and signals a major overhaul is well under way whether they like it or not.
2) gives us another avenue to the Supreme Court to challenge copyright law. 'Protection by Law', whether it be an exemption to anti-trust law or perpetual copyright extensions, does not serve the interest of the people.
Well, at least he's old & will (hopefully) die soon.
That's what we'd been saying about Strom Thurmond for the last fifty years.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
Open Secrets defines "industry" as the occupation sector of the contributor. Thus, if an independent songwriter contributes $25 to a campaign, it gets tracked as "TV/Music/Movies". For example, Howard Dean received 99.9% of contributions from individuals. Don't assume all those contributors are upper-level management of the RIAA, especially considering that over half his contributions are under $200.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
Now is the time, GOP congress and President? An especially "pro-business" well pro-big-business with deep-pockets administration in an anything goes legislative spree is the *perfect* time to peel away some fair use rights. It would be foolish if they didn't try, not that I condone this.
Look at the success of Patriot Act II, just attach it to a spending bill and it passes while we were all sleeping. No debate, no nothing. The RIAA knows this is a good thing, for them.
Whatever your political persuasion, its fairly obvious that legislative reform should have happened a long time ago and the current congress and executive branch are pulling every dirty trick they can.
Greg Palast chronicles a lot of the abuses we don't hear about in his book The Best Democracy Money can Buy. Worth checking out if you want to know how stuff like this happens and why non-monied interests have little say in the affairs of government.
From the official RIAA web site:
"The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry."
The RIAA is not a governmental institution. And as such it is doomed to be interested in protecting only one group of companies/people. Proposing and accepting laws like the one that would excempt them from anti-trust laws would be like putting the RIAA one step above of what it really should be. It would be too much power for them to use it wisely.
But the truth is that both the RIAA and the government are getting so linked and interlaced one with another, that it makes me wonder how much I want the recording industries to get in control of my life.
You see, they play the role of the weak side. They are always being "robbed" by "evil people" (they would try to convince you that "evil people" stands for "everyone"). So they have a "right" to make you pay piracy taxes on the CDs you buy, make you pay by giving you less content and eventually pay more for it, make you pay by instilling fear in your everyday life.
I can only see that offensive and absurd to say the least. I've never heard anyone call thieves his own customers, and then expect them to keep buying.
Diego Rey
diegoT
Much better to use a gnu, I agree.
Isn't this simply the music industry grasping at straws to save itself?
The simple fact is that no legislation can force individuals to buy their music from any specific source, and if people start getting their music some other way, there's very little the music industry can do to stop it.
When some other music distribution system finally takes away most of the RIAA's customers, an exemption from anti-trust lawsuits will be useless to them. Noone will be suing them for anti-trust when they are no longer a monopoly!
Free your ecomony and enact the FairTax
The proposed relaxations of the media ownership rules this year, the 'stuffed turkey' Energy bill, the Medicare bill, the Boeing DOD deal, the Halliburton 'rebuilding' of Iraq, and now THIS.
This is what GWB stands for: if you're a big business that can fund my reelection campaign, you have a friend in the White House.
Happy Thanksgiving, don't choke on the turkey.
there's no place like ~
Senator Hatch is a songwriter, who stands to benefit from legislation like this. In 2002 he made $18,000 in songwriting royalties. He stands to benefit directly financially from any copyright legislation,
Imagine the outcry from Jack Valenti or Cary Sherman if Wayne Rosso or Anne Gabriel were writing the legislation. The screams of the MPAA and RIAA would be heard around the world. The mainstream press would be doing their normal reporting by press release and Wayne and Anne would be run out of town on a rail..
This is one of my biggest complaints against congress in general ( aside from their hell bent agenda to deprive us of our rights )
They 'sneak' thru radical changes on the back of seemingly unrelated or benign bills, or adding things AFTER committee hearings are complete. ( not to mention we have to many redundant and insane laws already... )
This practice should really be illegal, and *everything* should be in the open and 100% straight..
Yes I'm being idealistic, but perhaps if enough people get fed up enough on all the secrete agendas, etc that run our government, we all might be able to do something about it. Short of a total revolution..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
We buy our own Senator the old fasioned way. With voice and votes. If you don't like what Orrin is doing I suggest you contact Norm Coleman. He's been more than willing to go after these assholes before, and if we can show that enough people care, I'm sure he'll continue to do so. Do something about it rather than sitting around and squaking like a bunch of tired old men.
Well just so that people can know,
The two cosponsors of this bill are
Sen. John Cornyn from Texas
Sen. Dianne Feinstein from California
The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
The core of the conservative agenda is to transfer control of our government and our commons to big corporations; reduce taxes on the rich while squeezing the middle class; and strip labor of its power to organize while enhancing organized corporate power by supporting trade associations, Chambers of Commerce, political alliances, and monopolistic mergers.
"You don't need a weatherman/ To know which way the wind blows" -Bob Dylan: Subterranean Homesick Blues
If I put you in water, would you get wet? Or would the water get you instead?
The original judicial review of baseball's anti-competitive actions came in the Federal Baseball case, where, and this is very important, the Court decided that Major League Baseball was not covered by anti-trust laws because it was a game, not a business. In 1953, George Toolson sued MLB, and the Court followed stare decisis, upholding the previous Court's ruling without considering the merits of the case at hand, and of course, in 1972, Flood v. Kuhn, et al. hit the Court, and again, the Court upheld the prior ruling, noting (as they did in the Toolson case), that Congress was responsible for legislation to either uphold or deny baseball its exemption. In other words, the Court recognizes these days that the earlier decision was wrong, but it's Congress' job to fix the problem, not the Court's.
Obviously, baseball is a business. It is an industry with billions in revenues, and it is rapidly becoming a worldwide concern. Ironically, horse racing, boxing, and football have all been specifically deemed subject to anti-trust laws by the same Court(s) that granted baseball its "exemption." (One notable exception: Congress passed legislation specifically exemption of the 1971 NFL-AFL football merger from anti-trust legislation.) That's why Congress is always having legislation introduced to revoke baseball's exemption. It's a major hammer for Congress to wield to affect change in MLB. If they ever actually get around to using it, MLB will be under the same constraints as the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, and scores of other professional leagues, and many of their (still) abhorrent practices can be done away with.
If you've made it this far in this comment, I would highly, highly suggest you pick up a copy of A Whole Different Ball Game, by Marvin Miller, the man who basically created the Major League Baseball Player's Association and single-handedly dealt the owners blow after blow at the bargaining table. You might not like the MLBPA now, what with their $10 million a year contracts and their foot-dragging on steroids, but when you actually read how players were treated before they had a union, you'll be on their side for life.
I'm sure they did.
... well, Dean's the horse I'm putting my money on.
... well, what the hell, that's happened before. And even if that does happen, odds are he'll still be better for the country I love -- and served proudly for most of my adult life to date, and for which I am now desperately afraid -- than any of the alternatives.
But his record as governor of Vermont does indicate that, at least on occasion, he's willing to take unpopular stands when he feels it's the right thing to do. And his policy statements -- whether or not he intends to live up to them -- are more in accordance with my personal beliefs than those of any other politician, of any party, at any level, I can remember. He might be just another sellout schmuck with good PR. He might also, just possibly, be another Lincoln or Roosevelt (either one) or Truman. And given that the rest of the field that has any chance of winning is composed of people I know to be sellout schmucks with good PR
Don't assume that everyone who disagrees with you, or doesn't share your reflexive cynicism about all politicians, is ill-informed. Skepticism is valuable; so is hope. Dean gives me at least some hope, and considering the direction the country's headed right now, that's a precious thing. If he wins, and turns out to be a letdown
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
and BITCH up a fucking storm that ol' Orrin is in league with the businesses he wishes to protect....ask things like "how much was he paid by the RIAA/MPAA to support this bad bill?", and demand that your congressperson NOT support the bill.
Of course you could ask them to bitch-slap Orrin as well, but that's probably not going to endear you to your elected official.
People, we can take back America, but it requires you voters doing your job, knowing the issues, and screaming at your reps for doing stupid shit. Do you know how to contact them--let alone who your reps are? If not, you need to find out.
Send a nasty-gram to Orrin Hatch as well...tell him you're not happy with him selling his office like that. Even if you're not in his state, that sort of thing can make a difference as well. It is the right and duty of the populace to complain about stupid shit. This is one of those times.
The original judicial review of baseball's anti-competitive actions came in the Federal Baseball case, where, and this is very important, the Court decided that Major League Baseball was not covered by anti-trust laws because it was a game, not a business. In 1953, George Toolson sued MLB, and the Court followed stare decisis, upholding the previous Court's ruling without considering the merits of the case at hand, and of course, in 1972, Flood v. Kuhn, et al. hit the Court, and again, the Court upheld the prior ruling, noting (as they did in the Toolson case), that Congress was responsible for legislation to either uphold or deny baseball its exemption. In other words, the Court recognizes these days that the earlier decision was wrong, but it's Congress' job to fix the problem, not the Court's.
Obviously, baseball is a business. It is an industry with billions in revenues, and it is rapidly becoming a worldwide concern. Ironically, horse racing, boxing, and football have all been specifically deemed subject to anti-trust laws by the same Court(s) that granted baseball its "exemption." (One notable exception: Congress passed legislation specifically exemption of the 1971 NFL-AFL football merger from anti-trust legislation.) That's why Congress is always having legislation introduced to revoke baseball's exemption. It's a major hammer for Congress to wield to affect change in MLB. If they ever actually get around to using it, MLB will be under the same constraints as the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, and scores of other professional leagues, and many of their (still) abhorrent practices can be done away with.
If you've made it this far in this comment, I would highly, highly suggest you pick up a copy of A Whole Different Ball Game, by Marvin Miller, the man who basically created the Major League Baseball Player's Association and single-handedly dealt the owners blow after blow at the bargaining table. You might not like the MLBPA now, what with their $10 million a year contracts and their foot-dragging on steroids, but when you actually read how players were treated before they had a union, you'll be on their side for life.
The scale of the problem is completely lost on you. Who determines the constitutionality of a law? The courts. Who is packing the courts with corporate-friendly judges? The executive branch (with advice and consent of the Senate). Who is mounting massive campaign efforts to replace citizen-friendly Attorneys General with corporate-friendly ones? Corporations. Who is pushing so-called "tort reform" legislation through state and federal legislatures to protect corporations from responsibility for their crimes? Corporate-owned legislators, governors, and the president. It's a massive attack against the citizens of this country and the world. Get on the clue train.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
o The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
o Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.
o "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.
o A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
o Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
o The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
o Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.
o If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
o A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
o HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.
o Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
o Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
o Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
o A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
o Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
o The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
o You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.
o What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
o Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
No, it's because there are no actual feelings of guilt.
Why should I feel guilty for double-clicking on an icon, and then listening to a song? The idea that I have to pay someone to listen to music is a relatively new concept. I don't feel guilty in the least. The music industry, in addition to suing its customers is now trying to enact legislation that will exempt it from laws put in place to protect consumers.
It is manufacturing new crimes, and prosecuting 12-year-old children.
The music industry is evil, pure and simple, and I don't feel bad when I "steal" (not even the correct term) from evil. Getting my money is not some sort of god-given right. It has to be earned, and the music industry is not earning it. Humanity got along fine for thousands of years without them, and will do so again.
"Do you expect them to go through all tens of thousands of people?"
If they expect to collect money from them, and not create another PR disaster, yes. I can garauntee they will this time.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
No, they latch on to the young and old targets because:
- They're good emotional jumping off points.
- Who the fuck in their right mind expects a 12 year old to understand copyright law when most well-educated adults don't?
- TV = Free imperfect music w/ ads. Radio = free imperfect music w/ ads. Computer =
.... not free imperfect music w/ ads? Huh?
- People are being threatened with lawsuits for the whole purpose of extorting "small" cash "settlements" out of them before they get a chance to defend themselves. Not that they could afford to if they tried.
Besides - bear in mind that the issue at hand right now is the fact that effective monopolies (just like Verizon - yea, they HAVE competition, but go try and find it in any significant way) are trying to become immune to laws that govern that govern the United States. You have a piracy problem? Too fucking bad. Like it or not, black markets are 'market realities' that reflect problems in the product being "pirated". Fix your distribution chain and make the product more attractive to buyers so they don't go to the black market.Yea yea, yap yap - the law says this, the law says that. The law in Kentucky says you can't fish in the Ohio river without an Indiana fishing license. Doesn't mean it's a good law or that anyone with half a brain should pay it any mind. Laws are meant to protect CITIZENS not CORPORATIONS that have, on more than one occasion, proven that THEY have as little disregard for the law as everyone they're yelling at (can we say... "price-fixing").
I hate to be the one to provide the rude wake-up call, but the RIAA, the MPAA, the BSA - they aren't interested in protecting SHIT. There's no money to be made in protecting business interests. There IS money to be made in holding illegitimate customers upside down and shaking them and then trying to turn EVERYONE into an illegitimate customer SOMEHOW.
Frankly - the law can suck my nuts in this matter. When they stop threatening to hand out low-price laws on Capitol Hill to these nutjobs and hold them to the same standards as everyone else, I'll give the law the respect it deserves. I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, though.
And look at that, while I was typing some other mod abused their power by modding the parent a Troll solely because they don't agree with the subject matter. I love Slashdot... I think Slashdot needs to run a censorship article on some of these idiots that get mod points sometime.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
what happens to the independent record companies who want to persue a marketing model outside of the RIAA?
Or even the indie film companies who are now suing the MPAA?
I mean, they're not a government body. They only have power because they say they have power. If everyone ignored them, there is nothing they can do about it.
It's time to forget them. They are the past. The genie is out of the bottle, and they can't ever put it back in. It's time to look for a new business model I'm afraid. They want to only hold on to what they had and not pursue what is the future.
Remember, they only have power because everyone believes they have power. They were not voted on, we didn't elect them. The President didn't appoint them.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
I don't get why people think this. I haven't yet seen any Slashdot articles advocating piracy and only a small handful of comments that actual advocate it.
What you seem unable to differentiate is the advocation of piracy and the contempt people have for:
tactics used by the RIAA & MPAA to "enforce" their copyrights,
publicized lies, propaganda, and assumptions by the RIAA & MPAA claiming harm from P2P infringements WITHOUT EVIDENCE,
modification of laws by the RIAA/MPAA to remove rights or benefits from consumers/citizens (as in this article),
proposed tactics/laws for acting against P2P (such as destroying the contents of a computer they "find" in violation -- without trial or judicial oversight),
attacks on P2P to make them illegal or shut them down even though they have legitimate legal uses,
hypocrisy of arguing that P2P has no legally legitimate uses and then using P2P to (a) send messages to users and (b) purchasing the download statistics to rate songs for improved marketing,
issuing of supoenas without judicial oversight
attempts to enforce an ancient business model that has little relevence in the modern world,
copyright laws that violate the principle in which they were created (i.e.,limited exclusive right of creators followed by public domain to promote progress, not perpetual exclusive right which hinders progress).
There are possibly other complaints too, these are just off the top of my head. As you see from this list, it's not just a "I want free music" tirade. There are tons of legitimate complaints about copyrights and the RIAA & MPAA.
It's really simple if you have a well honed sense of irony.
Our difficulty stems from how we defined the problem. We tend to think of the problem as being "Money in elections." It is not. Attempts to simply limit fundraising are not going to fix the system.
By limiting the supply of money in elections, we ensure that it becomes a critical resource. The marginal value of the next dollar is higher, and the marginal cost (to the politician) of obtaining it is higher. The politician must make each donor's contribution go farther, and on the other side of the equation the donors are assured that even modest contributions will have a large impact on the candidate's behavior.
In short, the system of making it harder for candidates to raise money virtually ensures that political influence will be cheap to buy.
Of course, simply having politicians become more expensive to buy is not really any better. If anything, it would be great if I could buy an hour of my congressman's time for the price of a latte. In a sense, democracy would be restored. Unfortunately, it would be impossible to drive the price low enough that an ordinary citizen could "buy access".
What really needs to be extirpated is not money in elections, but the influence of people with money.
This can be done in two broad ways:
(1) Ban fundraising altogether.
(2) Limit the utility of raised money.
Naturally, banning fundraising would take a constitutional amendment, so its best to focus on limiting the utility of raised momey.
One way to limit the utility of raised money is to impose spending limits. This has two problems. The first is consitutional, of course. The second is that influence will be bought through soft money and "advocacy". Regulating advocacy in particular would require vigorous and unacceptable limitations on free speech.
The best way to limit the utility of money is for the public to make up the difference between the best funded candidates and the least funded ones that meet some minimal criteria of electability (e.g. signatures from a fixed percentage of the electorate stipulating they wish this candidate to receive public funding). This means as a candidate, I can gain no competitive advantage through fundraising. The costs in this scenario tend to be self limiting, since time spent by a candidate in raising funds actually puts him at a disadvantage. The candidate bears the costs of raising money in time spent away from campaigning. In the current system costs to the public are not limited, since the candidate can pay off his contributors with somebody else's money (the taxpayers).
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I think that's exactly his point: the prices in US health care are so high because it's not ruled by the iron fist of government, but the government is pouring limitless amounts of cash into it via medicare et al, which prices everyone but government out of the market. As far as "level of coverage", I'd take the US system over the Canadian any day. Sure, it costs me money to see a doctor and buy antibiotics for an infection, but if I were to need, say, an MRI to check if I have cancer, I better hope it can wait 6 months or more. Or if I needed open heart surgery after October, I might have to wait till the first of the year because my province has run out of cardiac surgery funding for the year. But hey, it's all free, right? The Canadian health care system is an underregulated monopoly with no performance requirements. Privatized and regulated performs better in this case.
Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
Ummm... yes, I do expect people to make sure they have the right person before they sue. Maybe I'm old-fashioned that way.
Here's what's cute to me: if I rip and encode a cd and give you the resulting mp3s, that's illegal. But, if I rip and encode a cd, keep the mp3s and give or sell you the CD, that's legal. Something is wrong there.
Record distributers do not have a "right" to make money by distributing music, though they have a right to try. Musicians do not have a "right" to make money recording and performing music, though they have a right to try.
I'll be perfectly honest that I support "pirating" music (though I've never done it) because *anything* that makes big record studios lose money is GOOD. They have been nothing but a negative force in music since the 1930's.
We no longer need centralized A&R, production, or distribution. EVERY SINGLE THING a record studio does can be done more efficiently with commodity hardware, software, and communications. Anything that moves us closer to cutting out unneccessary middlemen, even if it tramples on the imagined "rights" of music rentiers, is good.
All's true that is mistrusted
Freedom, Egality, Due process, Right to protect one's home, Right to own weapons, Pursuit of happiness...
Can't find "Corporate Profits" anywhere. It's about time politicians in the US realise that corporations don't have a voting right, and thus are not full citizens.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Trade with Cuba is wrong because Castro is one of THEM. Iraq needed to be cleansed because Hussein was one of THEM. Kim Jong-il and the Ayatollah Khamenei are also evil men, and therefore their countries are evil.
Vietnam and China, however, don't have such controversial leaders. Jiang Zemin has few blemishes on his record, and therefore China has few blemishes on it's record (despite having human rights violations codified into law). And who knows who Tran Du Luong is or what he has done? Obviously they can't be put onto the axis of evil, because they aren't lead by a James Bond supervillian.
I think few people in this country reacted when George Bush gave his "axis of evil" speech because it was so patently ridiculous to point at three countries with improving diplomatic relations and call them the devil. When Bush gave his "you're either with us or against us" line, people seemed to accept it as a liberally used figure of speech. Now that Bush is claiming that the people who wanted a UN resolution before declaring war in Iraq were supporting Osama Bin Laden, it has become clear that this is actually how the man thinks.
Bush believes himself to be good, therefore everything he does is good and above questioning. Clinton did bad things and therefore is bad, therefore everything he did should be overturned and turned over to the press. Ashcroft is a good man, acting in what he believes to be the public's best interest. Therefore whatever Ashcroft does is in the public's best interest. This logic is, of course, flawed. I'm sure Ashcroft believes he is acting in the public's best interests, but his viewpoint of the world is greatly skewed by the line of work he is in.
In a way it is an extension of the monarchy. Bush has actually said on occasion that he has been chosen by God to rule. Once again, this was taken to be the liberal sprinkling of praise for God that peppers oscar acceptance speeches and winning locker rooms. But in light of actions, it is becoming apparent that the man truly believes he has a divine mandate to rule... That god works through him and therefore he is above reproach. As his decisions are perfect, so too must be the decisions of those people whom he chooses, and such the divine mandate trickles to his staff and people.
This is not just a crackpot theory on how the president thinks. This is a theory based upon how the president himself claims that he thinks. Honestly, I would be surprised if he found any problem with either the accuracy of the theory or the morality behind the thought pattern.
The ______ Agenda
Campaigns take money these days. Lots of it. If you don't have name recognition, it takes even more. I live in a county with a population of 17,000 and we just had a well constested Sheriff's race. The winner (and - thank goodness - the best man for the job) spent over $8,000, and he was pretty cash strapped. I would guess he did about 1/2 the advertising as the other two top candiates, and I know he painted some of his own signs to save money. He probably talked to more than half the residents in the county face to face, door to door. There are no radio or television stations which cater to this county, and there is single weekly newspaper, so there was no big $$$ media.
Why are candidates so dependent on cash? VOTER APATHY! Yes, it's still our fault. We don't do research, we vote by name recognition and the "message" which has been tested and massaged by the political machine. Now, I'm not foolish enough to believe that I'll get a chance to talk one-on-one with the next presidential candidates, but I'll be doing a little legwork prior to the democratic primary elections.
I already know that Dubya is not a man I can trust to protect my values. IMHO, his eye's are bigger than his stomach, and his mouth is faster than his brain - I probably wouldn't vote for him if we mostly agreed on how the country should be run.
I don't know much about Dean, yet, but I will. He doesn't carry the baggage a congresman usually carries, but he's got a record to follow. I find looking at the "other" sides literature is a good starting point. Find out why they think he shouldn't be in office. Once you know how he handles his missteps, then look at his purported successes. Look at how he's handles problems, then judge his actions based on intent and available data. When you invest money in mutual funds, do you take a look at the historical data or do you look at the methods and values of the manager? Most folks who choose based on the former are sorely disappointed in their investments over time - you're constantly moving money into last year's great performer.
Now, I'm nearly as lazy as the next guy, so I won't even look at the candiates until a moth or so before the primary, when I'm stuck with four or five lousy choices from the original field of fifteen or so. But hey, at least that's manageable.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
This is the huge problem -- corporations do not have a right to a profit. They have the right to do business and attempt to make a profit. If they are unsuccessful, well, losing money != violation of rights.
So often these days, corporate profits go down, and some Congressman thinks, oh, they're losing money -- someone must be breaking the law! Uh, no. Maybe if the music industry had a product worth paying for, people would buy it. (You know, that whole "capitalism" thing...)
Sunday I'm having lunch with my Senators and the Senators from Rhode Island. I'll make sure that if they aren't aware of what Hatch is up to they will be and I'll make sure they know why this is a bad idea. Yeah I doubt this has a chance of passing but hey, the way this Administration and Congress are going soon I'll be calling Dubya Big Brother.
"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
It comes to this, without legislative exemption from anti-competitive laws, the **AA can't compete. And they know it.
The RIAA has been a bit hysterical and made some cruicial blunders. They first went to court instead of to Washington, and their scorched earth campagin isn't working out too well. The various challenges to their subpoenas may invalidate the "shoot first and ask questions later" provisions of the DMCA. I think the MPAA is not amused or appreciative. What they are is scared. This weekend one of the pre-movie commercials at my local Cineplex was an MPAA thingy showing a real working stiff in the movie business to make the point that movie trading hurts real people. Unlike their music buddies, the MPAA has used the courts sparingly and put most of their effort into Washington lobbying. But even that's not gone well. Fritz Holling's bill was a PR disaster. Orrin Hatch's remarks earlier this year that copyright holders should be able to invade people's computers was worse. Even the senate big-wigs felt compelled to issue statements disagreeing.
And now this. They need the Government's protection to survive. They need exemption from anti-trust laws, no matter what the political consequences, or they're toast. Even if you believe all politicians are dishonest bastards, its hard to see how Hatch's little trick will work. One thing politicians really don't like is political headaches. And most are quite willing to toast contributors if there is a need for expediency. Can you imagine the furor if this got passed? Every representative would be flooded with requests by other industries for a similar exemption. All would demand that if it could be done for the movie and music businesses, it could damn well be done for them. And that's a headache no senator or congressman wants to get. Look for a lot of senators suddenly being too busy to answer Hatch's phone calls.
A Monopoly is "Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: 'Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals' (Milton Friedman). "
The British East India Company used their power to inflate prices on imported tea. Then, the British Government (which owned the British East India Company) taxed that tea. Hrmm...Does anyone in the class know what the Boston Tea Party was?
Other Monopolies...Everyone knows Rockefeller Plaza, correct? And Carnegie Melon University? And J. P. Morgan? John D. Rockefeller was a monopoly owner in the late 1870s. He controlled the whole of oil refinery. He didn't care who drilled for it, or who sold it, he just refined it. 96% of it. He cut prices so low that other businesses couldn't compete. Andrew (I believe) Carnegie controlled steel production. He controlled every part from the mining of its components to the shipping. He used a new process (I believe Bessemer...it's been a few years) which made steel cheaper, stronger, and easily manufacturered. J. P. Morgan? The money guy: He controlled most of the banks in America. He actually was so rich and so powerful he brought the whole nation out of depression. He brought all of the bankers under his control, said "OK, how much can you give to the government?", "And you?", "And what about you?". He brought the whole damn nation out of a small but potentially disastrous depression.
Roosevelt passed the Sherman Anti-trust Act. From this act, "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. "
Source: USDOJ
There are other anti-trust laws (Clayton Act, also on the above page). The purpose of them is so that no one corporation or organization can come to control a large part of any market. It is a protection to the consumers. We have been without protection from the RIAA for years. We've been forced to pay their steep prices for a long time, until the idea of Napster came around.
US Lawmakers must remember the past. They must ignore the few million they got from the RIAA in their campaigns. The must not pass any sort of legislation such as what the RIAA is aiming for. The RIAA is a monopoly. To exempt them would only give a hundred new arms to the octopus that it already is. Write your local congress-critter and express your views.
(Footnote: Please excuse any historical errors. I am a history buff, but it's been three years since I studied American History. I can ensure you it's mostly accurate...)
--<Mike>--
Get over yourselves...they're within their legal right to protect their copyrighted works.
The RIAA has no right to act as enforcers of laws. That's what the police and the courts are for. Unlike the RIAA, these bodies are subject to checks and balances, not only from other branches of government, but from the citizens of the United States.
The RIAA has no right to be exempt from antitrust laws. They have no right to be exempt from any law, for that matter.
The RIAA has no right to expect twenty dollars from me every time they release a new album. I don't want it; I won't buy it, I won't steal it. They can't get people to hand over their money voluntarily anymore, so now they want to legislate it out of them.
The RIAA is within their legal right to protect their copyrighted works, but this goes far, far beyond that. How far do they have to go before people see that this isn't about piracy, or theft, or any of the terms the RIAA uses to distract us while they buy our freedom out from under us? How much of the government do they have to own before people stop calling me a hippie and a thief for standing up for my right not to give these assholes any money? What's next, a monthly bill for everyone in the country, whether or not they listened to any music?
I don't advocate music piracy. What I advocate is my government protecting *my* rights, not the rights of corporations. Look at that Constitution. It says "We the People", not "We the Shareholders". As long as we keep on saying "STFU pirate" and ignoring the real issues, they'll keep on taking our country from us, one purchased bill at a time.
I am a citizen, not a consumer.
I am a human being, not a revenue source.
I, for one, reject our new overlords.
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
The problem is that people are demonstrating that the music industry is producing music worth owning, just that the music isn't worth paying for. Certainly, I would say that is unfair to the music industry. It's two-faced to claim on one hand that the music industry isn't producing anything of value and then claiming on the other hand that you want as much of it as you can get for free. From the standpoint of economics, people aren't strictly "honest." They're out to get the most utility from their money. According to economics, even if the music industry is producing something of value, if it's available for free, people will take it for free. Obviously neither of the extrema: economics or idealism, are going to correctly describe the system. Consumers will tend to err on the side of idealism, because it benefits them more, while the industry is going to try to err on the side of economics, since it benefits them more.
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
"Laws are meant to protect CITIZENS not CORPORATIONS"
Ah! but you have to understand that, according to the law (for example: Louisville R. R. v. Letson -- 1844), a corporation IS a citizen! The railroads lobbied for and got this judgement passed back in the 1800s and corporations have run completely amok since then.
Apparently the RIAA claims to represent thousands of labels, many of whom have never joined the organization.
They need click on a link to Opt-out. Also, it takes 4-6 weeks to be removed from the list.
This is not my sig.
If enough people who cared about these issues could get organized and donate $5-$20 to an election campaign, it'd be possible to outbid the RIAA. There's a lot more little guys out there then there are people in the RIAA's pocket. Again, you'd have to find the right politicians (certainly not Hatch) but it is possible. What the anti-RIAA/MPAA movement needs is a lobbying group!!
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
There's so many ways that the RIAA could shift its business model to make a killing off of file sharing, and they have instead chosen to not move with the times. They deserve what all organizations deserve that fall behind the times: bankruptcy.
I am writing to protest a portion of the bill Enhancing Federal Obscenity Reporting and Copyright Enforcement Act of 2003 mentioned here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34191.html.
I do not believe the RIAA requires protection from antitrust suits. I request that you introduce an ammendment to remove that provision in the bill or to ammend it to allow independent government oversight.
I understand the need of the entertainment industry to protect its copyrights. They created or own the rights to the works, so if the works are being used, for a period of time they deserve to profit from them. However, it is dangerous to allow any organization or industry freedom from antitrust lawsuits unless the government is planning to regulate that industry itself. The lawsuits are checks preventing organizations from trampling the rights of others. If organizations form a trust they have a tendency to start acting if not illegally, then unfairly. If the RIAA has done nothing wrong, then the lawsuit will fail and I'd assume the losing side would have to pay for the legal costs. Realistically, no one is going to sue the RIAA unless they are sure they have a good case because the RIAA has more money and lawyers than the average person.
Another reason the RIAA does not deserve antitrust protection is that it does not provide a vital service. I can understand extending it, with caution, to vital industries such as power companies in times of crisis, but the function the RIAA performs is not vital to the national interest. Of course copyrighted material must be protected, but let the RIAA be open to court challenges. I'd be hesitant to extend such important protection to an industry that recently had to refund money to consumers because of price fixing.
Again, I urge you to amend this bill. Thank you for your time.
You have a piracy problem? Too fucking bad. Like it or not, black markets are 'market realities' that reflect problems in the product being "pirated".
Hardly. In the case of music, this "black market" as you call it, reflects, more than anything else, an undeniable disregard for the property rights of others, as well as out-and-out laziness on the part of consumers. If you want it to change, MAKE it change. There are perfectly legitimate ways to do this that are perfectly legal. Oh....but they require something that few Americans seem to have these days - DISCIPLINE.
"No new music for a few months???? Oh, but how will I EVER survive???"
In the grand scheme of things, this is the epitome of "trite". If all the people constantly whining about the RIAA, the price of CDs, and the general quality of music would engage the market and let it work for them, we'd be talking an entirely different ballgame.
Right now, legally, the RIAA has the upper hand, and will continue to seek every opportunity to protect its interests (and it has every right to do so). The only indisputable, absolute power had be every consumer is the control they have over their wallet. USE IT!
And here's something else: The RIAA/MPAA aren't BLEEDING Money out of their ass. No, they're still making MILLIONS, but their profits are DOWN. They're not "losing money", but are instead profiting less. People are still buying overpriced CD's by the metric-ton, just not in the volume that the industry is accustomed to.
One of the things that peeved me about a company I worked for was a reduction in employee benefits. The company was in a tighter position than usual, but they were still profitable. They announced the reduction of benefits and payscale freezes because they wanted to show "higher profits" on the books, to enhance share value. Now, 2 years later, the company isn't quite at what they were in the late 90s during the tech boom (who is?), but they are still making a great deal of money and.. they have not restored the employee benefits they "took away". It's not that the employee has a "right" to those benefits, mind you, but it's really shitty for a company to use a declining economy to reduce employee benefits, and then when it's recovered to fails to reinstitute those benefits. It's basically that scenario that reinforced my recently discovered cynicism regarding employment: Fuck them before they fuck me. But that's another topic..
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Yes. Absolutely. It is THEIR responsibility. Period.
Filing baseless lawsuits is very much illegal. That cases *continue* to crop up where they're suing people who have nothing to do with piracy pretty much proves A)that they are NOT fulfilling their legal obligations to investigate the cases before launching, and B)that apparently they don't really care.
There is a word for what they're doing, and it is "barratry." A barratry suit hasn't been brought in a long time, but they are quickly proving themselves to be a perfect target of one. The *first* time it was conclusively shown that they had targetted an innocent party, it became their legal responsibility to overhaul their method of detecting pirates. Which they, from all evidence, have not done.
They may be within their legal right to protect their copyrights, but they are *NOT* in their legal right to harass and\or blackmail innocent citizens with threats of legal action, because they cannot be bothered to actually investigate the lawsuits they're filing. And if they are unable to investigate their cases prior to suing, then too bad for them - the rights of the citizenry to not be blackmailed by overeager corporations outweighs the RIAA's right to a slightly higher profit margin. Period.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
> Maybe if the music industry had a product worth paying for, people would buy it.
Well, they do have a product worth paying for. Just not worth paying what they want to charge.
Even at used-CD prices ($10/CD), music is way more expensive than video.
I just bought a season of babylon 5 (brand new, shipped, from Amazon) for $55. That's over 15 hours of video, on a half-dozen DVDs. I couldn't get that much music for that price. I couldn't even get that many CDs for that price.
The extended edition LotR:TTT is about $30 shipped or local. That's almost 4 hours of video for the main movie, plus hours and hours of bonus footage, for less than the price of the movie's worth of music.
I challenge anyone to come up with a valid reason why audio CDs cost so much more than video DVDs. So either DVDs are horribly underpriced (and I don't see movie studios going out of business right and left here), or CDs are horribly overpriced. The value/price of a CD is miniscule these days - it's amazing the recording industry is doing as well as they are.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
+1 Informative
Maybe they pulled strings to get his wife a board of directors position somewhere or his nephew a cushy job in the entertainment industry.
Not to be too cynical about this, but I'm sure Hatch got his quid (maybe just more in the sense of "quid pro quo" than pound sterling). I'm sure there are lots of covert ways the RIAA can scratch Hatch's back in return.
Good idea though, as long as the spending towards the RIAA stops, no matter how much you like the artist. I've had to stop listening to a number of artists since I stopped several years ago. I don't really regret it either. I've found entire new genres that appeal to me as a result.
V
...occurs whether or not I buy the music defended by the RIAA. Even if we manage to drag the music companies into their well-deserved graves, the restrictions that the legislators they bought and paid for will still be there. The material they copyrighted will never become public domain as the law intended because the copy protection they intend to force can't be broken legally - when they die it dies. The laws that altered copyright to make this possible will still exist, ready to be used by another generation of (soon-to-be) failed businesses.
The widespread disregard for property rights you attribute to infringers is not limited to them. The music industry has "copy protected" CDs, making them harder or impossible for their legal purchasers to use while not impeding the ability of commercial infringers to copy. The DMCA manages not only to withdraw a host of Bill of Rights protections, but also effectively negates a large portion of copyright law - rights explicitly given or requiring explicit denial in law. The RIAA and its component labels have not shown respect for these rights - considering their actions (raising CD prices while denigrating content and making it harder to use) they haven't shown much respect for their customers either. It's hard to expect respect from your customers (or potential customers) for your rights when your business has shown either utter disregard or contempt for the similar rights of others.
The laws that the RIAA has bought or paid for will last long after they are dead, and we will pay for them, regardless of whether we cease buying their products. Complaining to and through the government to prevent these laws is necessary so that we can get back to the main entertainment of watch the music industry rot.
Uh huh. And soundtrack CD's cost almost as much as the DVD that contains the soundtrack AND the film...why?
DVDs are a great deal. You get a lot of entertainment for not a whole lot of money. CDs are an awful deal. Why do the record companies pretend this is not the case?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Then I vote that we hold them accountable just as you would citizens.
If you, an individual, steal from people, you are removed from society temporarily - you go to jail. Corporations that steal from their employees, customers, shareholders, or the government should be barred from the marketplace for a set number of years.
If you, an individual, steal a lot and repeatedly, or if you commit really heinous crimes, you will be removed from society permanently - either permanent incarceration or the death penalty. Corporations that prove hideously offensive should be dissolved.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is nonsensical that if you walk into a Walgreens with a gun and score $5 off the cash register, you can be imprisoned for like 15 years - but if you perpetrate white-collar fraud on a massive scale and steal $5 billion from America, the maximum penalty is like five years. If you don't just get off with a fine, that is.
- David Stein
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
Well, protest against it by leaving the company for a better paying job. The best way to punish companies like this is for them to see their best and brightest jump ship. Even if this happens on a "small" scale, it can stil have an enormous impact on productivity and profitability. The phenomenon of turnover is much more expensive than the mere cost of the lost productivity while they find a replacement.
I cant count the number of companies in this country that are mired in mediocrity because they insist on paying all their employees bottom dollar and having shitty performance metrics. All the crappy employees work just hard enough not to get fired and dont mind the mediocre pay because its about what they deserve anyway. The good employees who deserve more just hop around until they find someone smart enough to recognize their value and make use of it.