Slashdot Mirror
Head Of ATF To Direct RIAA Anti-Piracy
plasmastate writes "Via Fox News: Bradley A. Buckles, the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, is moving over to the RIAA to hunt down music pirates. And visions of David Koresh danced in their heads..."
Think about this... you have to nab the head of a religious cult who is known to leave his compound on occasion. Remember that this megalomaniac (like many others) has preached that the government will try to bring your beloved, heavily armed, community to an apocolyptic end. So you make the decision to attack on the Sabbath, at the heavily armed compound when you know there are children there sending several of your agents to their death because you thought it was going to be a cakewalk.
Exactly the kind of incompetance that you can now expect from the RIAA. Not that they were competant before.
That is exactly the reaction that they want.
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
Will we laugh at ourselves 50 years from now as we Americans do when we had the communist witch trials? Is it possible we shouldn't say that it is downloaders that is killing CD sales as it might be people have finished replacing their collections, artists are getting in general worse and more shrink-wrapped, and finally true piracy done by organized crime(ie Mafia style business)?
Instead of notice letters given to the wrong people, you now could get a SWAT team knocking down the door of the wrong house. That will go down well with the public!
Let's add another reason to the list of why I'm glad that US laws have no effect in Canada...
These guys are going to make Bill Gates look good. At least he tries to play the good cop and convince you he is selling a service. The RIAA is just a bully.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
It's funny that you compare the RIAA with Government departments. I think the RIAA has been a fully qualified Governmental insititution for a long time now. Think about it: they can lobby laws into existance, they have political and juridical influence, and above all they have had growing enforcement powers.
But of course, being an association of sane, properly-american capitalist corporations, it ain't restricted the same way as official Government depts. *Cough* What do you call a government-endorsed monopoly already ?
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Considering that the RIAA is not a law enforcement agency or even a government entity, wouldn't they be doing a little bit better finding someone with some experience in civil suits. What can a former ATF director offer to this private organization?
Woopdeedoo. Another goon jumps ship from their "respective" positions onto the SS RIAA (You can decide for yourself is that is to signify a boat or "Schutzstaffel"). The end result?
No significance whatsoever.
The reality is Jesus Christ himself could be reborn, float above the skyscrapers of NYC and proclaim to the world "Oh, my children, those who doth pirate thine audio workings of thy peers shall suffer eternal damnation" and people would STILL download music.
The solution? Stop being so goddamn complacent and try something new, because obviously the old isn't working too well.
But it's not theft.
See, your problem is that you aren't willing to accept reality, instead focusing on keeping your grasp on falsehood. Come back when you know what "copyright infrigement" means AS WELL AS what "theft" means.
Or just don't come back, really.
There's no 'theft' going on, no matter which way you're looking at it.
;)
example:
Alice rips a CD (she bought) and sends it to Bob.
Who got robbed of something now?
Actually, in my case (and in the case of most people I know) filesharing (and getting music from friends) has greatly increased the number of CD's I buy by allowing me to easily discover more music.
Of course, most of the music I buy is from non-RIAA labels so they have a reason to sue me anyway.
The path I walk alone is endlessly long.
30 minutes by bike, 15 by bus.
Why should it scare the piss out of you?
The man isn't quite ready to retire, but he's probably tired of being at the ATF. So these people hire him.
I'm pretty sure he's not going to be able to form squads of gun-toting "enforcers" to go around and search for pirated music.
While I don't necessarily agree with their tactics (%99 of their lawsuits have been pretty bunk), they do make a valid point: copying this stuff willy-nilly without regard to the copyright is illegal. Just because you bought one CD doesn't mean that you can give copies away to everyone you know, nor does it automagically grant you the right to copy all the CDs of your friends.
Now, if you're only downloading music by indie bands or that has been specifically put up for legal download (itunes comes to mind), what do you have to worry about?
If you're going to turn around and tell me that it's your right to download all the music you want and that the copyrights placed on the music is null and void, then I'd have to respectfully disagree with you.
I'm really not trying to troll here. I'm just failing to see why this should be a cause for alarm.
As unpalatable the actions of the RIAA seem to be (suing low-income families etc), is this not what technologically-savvy people (read: slashdot posters) have asked for? The RIAA seems to be going after file sharers...and at this point, I don't think that the whole "I did not know it was illegal" argument flies anymore thanks to the large publicity.
While the RIAA is making pirates into veritable Robin Hoods who look pitiful when the lawsuit comes in the mail, one is hard pressed to critisize them for protecting their copyrights.
1) The argument 'just think like me and it will all make sense' if worthless, yet most people use it often. Also, they tend to try to add insults.
:) Cheers.
2) I _know_ what copyright infringement is. See, I WORK for a living (writing software) and I understand economics. The fact that what I create isn't a physical artifact doesn't change my lost business when it is stolen. I feel (and this isn't any kind of personal attack) that a LOT of the slashdot folks have this whole 'money is bad' philosophy, whilst in school or living with mom and dad. Well, the real (competitive) world is different, and I refuse to listen to the economic advice of a 15 year old who's never worked a day.
Now, that said... I think the whole OSS movement is an excellent one, and produces superior code. It also hinges on the right of the developers to give away their code IF THEY WANT TO. Anyone who really believes in the OSS model needs to respect an author's right to NOT have his/her work stolen, if they choose not to share.
Off to see if I've been marked a troll for not following the 'theft is easy and therefore good' line
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Where exactly did it say they were going to take our rights away? And which rights? The right to trade copyrighted material?
Come on. So a new suit is going to run the axis of evil that is the RIAA, remind me how that makes PHB's turn away from open source products?
Since you're one of the few folks who responds intelligently to this issue (and used your nick... what a coincidence), I'll respond...
The artist was deprived of the money Bob would have otherwise spent. It does matter how you look at it.
Now, if you think the whole concept of licensing is wrong, well... I can see your point (I disagree with it, but such is the world). If you are just taking it because it is free, all other arguments are kinda weak.
My problem has always been this: In the heyday of file sharing (2000 or so), I worked in a lab and saw the students downloading thousands of mp3s a day, and the whole "well, if I like it I'll buy it" argument was never voiced. A friend is a DJ (mp3J?) that uses all stolen songs on his laptop instead of CDs. He certainly didn't buy any.
When I see that pattern repeated enough times, I have no sympathy for what I (as a 'non-tangible' content creator) see as thieves.
I can handle that folks have differing ways of looking at things. It just gets REALLY old when people (not you) get all self righteous when they are violating strong social mores.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Perhaps off topic, but of interest none the less.
I suspect we should be more concerned with who the fellows replacement will be. Although the RIAA might like to conduct personal raids they don't yet have the legal right to do so.
The ATF on the other hand not only does but has a nice long history of being a bit heavy handed.
Regardless of which side of the various debates you weigh in on most reasonable people will admit that those we entrust with enforcing the laws SHOULD be held to a higher standard of conduct and a higher level of public oversight.
O.K. Calling the attendants to turn up my thorazine drip now...
Ward
. Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
But let's not forget that there are people out there who would never have bought the CDs. Sure, they downloaded the CDs for free, but this doesn't mean that they'd be willing to pay money for the CD even if shelling out money was the only way to obtain the music on the CD--especially when a person downloads a CD and discovers that the CD sucks because most of the songs are completely different from the few by that artist that are played on the radio.
Yes, your point is valid, but only to a certain extent. I would guess that only a small percentage of people who download CDs would actually buy them if their p2p/Usenet/IRC sources were taken away. No, I don't have comprehensive statistics on this percentage, but of the four people near me at the moment, 0% of them would purchase CDs if they couldn't get them for free.
Additionally, I would venture a guess that artists gain much more mindshare through free music distribution than through CD sales. This may directly turn into money if people who discover an artist's music decide to go see a live show. Free music seems to work with mixtapes rather well...
True story.
what do these three items have in common?
All 3 are taxable/controlled items
All 3 are routinely smuggled items
Illegal trade in all 3 is by the same cartels/organized crime groups/Mafiosi
It's cheaper and safer than having an agency for each.
Apparently you don't, since you keep confusing it with theft. It's not.
First, copying is not stealing, it's copyright violation. Second, technology is changing the way business models need to work - a pay-per-copy scheme simply isn't viable any more. When conditions change, you can't depend on the government to prop up outdated business models - that's basic economics.
And BTW, I also work for a living creating software. I also create music, poetry, and stories, though I've yet to be paid a significant amount - and like most musicians and authors, probably never will - for those things.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Can you explain why you should be paid over and over again - for up to 50 years after your death - for once piece of work ?
Can you also explain how someone can "steal" something from you, yet you still have it ?
I don't think money is bad. I do, however, think the entire copyright system is fundamentally flawed.
I'm not the tinfoil hat type but this hiring raises some serious questions about the RIAA's strategy. If they had hired from the Justice Department, it would be a continuation of their current strategy of suing people.
But hiring from an agency involved in policing and undercover operations may signal a significant strategy change. Perhaps they will be lobbying for the government to take policing actions. That is, the kick down the "criminal's" door and seize their computer type. Alright that last sentence was a little tinfoil hat like. But my point is that the RIAA may be looking for the government to undertake the task of tracking down file sharers and filing criminal cases instead of civil ones.
Frylock: That's not a toy!
Master Shake: You say that about everything you own. You should own toys. They're fun.
Yeah, the same peaceful ones that were stockpiling ILLEGAL WEAPONS.
The parent post about illegal software may be satire, but all satire has a point. This stuff happens, employees often do run unlicensed software with the KNOWLEDGE of the employer. That situation will be prosecuted by the copyright owners. Microsoft and others large software mfgs have been known to come in and pull inspections based on "tips", and often with the help of local law agencies. Several firms have been fined large amounts. So if an employee wants the firm they work for to not get hammered with a fine (which could be the difference between staying solvent and going under)then they should report unlicensed software. At firms that have a strong corporate Code of Ethics/Code of Conduct you may be the one in trouble if you know it and don't say something. So, it can be your ass either way if you let it slide. I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA starts looking at companies too, if the employees are downloading or sharing and the firm does not block it they become a nice target. Doing "illegal" things on your Home PC is one thing but letting it go on at a firm is quite another more serious situation.
But seemingly, a lot of people here have an entitlement complex, where they think they can take whatever the fuck they want for no other reason than that they want it.
The same could be said for both sides . . .
RIAA: Believes it's entitled to racking in all the money it wants solely because it can.
Swappers: Believe they're entitled to racking in all the music they want solely because they can.
Blaming only the side that's obviously breaking the law is not incorrect, but is not likely to lead to a working solution (defined as a solution that both sides agree is reasonable) either.
The solution was not to allow the old industry of broadcast television to sue the cable TV companies out of existence under an old copyright law which was written without the participation of cable TV interests. Complete control over all uses of works is not a right that has ever or should ever be granted to owners of copyrights. Such a right would end the development of new technologies and tremendously reduce innovation in any country foolish enough to grant it. However, compensation can be given without control, and that's what's been done in the past as in the case of cable TV. The cable TV had to pay a license fee, but the old broadcasters could not restrict the cable TV companies from licensing any TV program they wanted. That's the solution that should've been applied to Napster. It grants both parties a reasonable settlement and allows people to continue to innovate.
Is it just me, or does it seem like the RIAA's legal attacks have been pretty successful? Thre's nothing like Napster used to be.
with a splintery broomstick handle. Asshole.
There are plenty of us who work and live in "the real world" as you put it. How can you say that someone who copies a thing is stealing it from you? No matter how much you want to will it to be theft the simple fact is that it isn't theft. There is no natural right to "intellectual property". Just because you choose to make your living based upon a flawed way of thinking is not my or anybody else's problem.
Again, you can go fuck yourself sideways.
Once you put something out in the public eye, it becomes de facto public domain (which is completely different from de jure, in case you're thinking I'm making that argument). The only way to control it is to not publish it in the first place.
You are just as bad as those whom you criticize, since you seem to feel just as much as sense of entitlement as they do (according to you).
And just because I speed and get away with it does it mean I never committed the crime at all?
/. a fair amount of anti-copyright posts get modded up and posts like mine often dwell in the land of the trolls.
Yes, copyright laws aren't perfect for this day and age but changing them so that you can legally download the latest 'music' from Metallica may not fulfill the goal of promoting "the progress of science and useful arts" either.
The ease of violating musical copyrights is still not a valid reason to change copyright laws. This is an argument that people continue to push. If the major argument was that copyright laws are simply making rich people filthy rich years after their initial contribution to the arts then yes, I would agree with that.
And I admit I should use a smaller brush, but you do have to admit that at least here on
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
One day you just knew how to program? The full knowledge of programming fundamentals and the particular language syntax just sprang into your brain? You did this entirely without years of support from a society that, in addition to simply providing a safe environment, produced decades of practical and theoretical computer knowledge that teaches us how both how to solve particular known problems and approach unknown ones?
I love money, I love business, and I love free enterprise - which is why I hate copyrights. Copyrights are not about money and business, they are about controll.
In fact it is an insult to suggest otherwise. It would be like saying that I don't believe in free enterprise and business because I don't want to own slaves on the plantation. What a crock!!!
Besides I seem to renember that when IBM couldn't hold intellectual property rights over the PC interface, then a economic explosion happened in the PC industry.
And when the internet went commercial, and no business could own the TCP/IP protocool, another economic explosion happened.
Now you see growth rates across the board with linux of 20% plus, and some of the most successfull IPO's in history. What the Hell - I still get grief about being anti free market!
Sheesh!
So?
If you show it to someone, how does it follow that it would be intrinsically morally wrong if they made a copy of it? It's funny, after the centuries of philosophical debate over right and wrong through history, that this particular concept of having rights over distributing copies didn't pop up until the 17th century. It just must not have been as obvious to the great thinkers of history as it seems to be to you.
It is wrong only because it's wrong to break the law. The law in question was put in place for economic, not moral, reasons. It is not wrong to copy it just because you created it. You seem to have a false sense of entitlement. If you want to keep total control of it, don't show it to anyone.
I am not asking about elements of law, I am asking for a reason why my work should be any more stealable (?) than someone else's.
But elements of law are the only thing you've got. IP protection is not a "natural" right that transcends the law. If it were, it wouldn't have an expiration date.
I would argue that waaaaay too many people are eager to give away other people's rights.
And I'm questioning whether it was wise to expand your rights to the extent they've been expanded over the last few years. They didn't come from nowhere, your expanded rights came at the expense of the rights of others.
"The artist was deprived of the money Bob would have otherwise spent. It does matter how you look at it."
This assumes that the artist was entitled to Bob's money in the first place. Using this logic, it could well be said that if Bob was going to purchase a CD, but saw a really nice chess set and used the CD money to purchase that instead of the CD, the chess set manufacturer has 'robbed' the artist of a sale. The artist was going to get Bob's money, but someone else's actions (the creation and marketing of the chess set) cancelled an otherwise-guaranteed sale.
If you really want to see how the artist is deprived of money, you should check into how much the record industry takes (as a matter of general practice) out of the artist's cut of album sales to cover the cost of broken records using a model which was created when vinyl records were sold. Nevermind the fact that the percentage of CDs broken during shipping is a mere fraction of the number of vinyl records that were broken; they're taking the same cut. Or perhaps you could look at how the industry manipulates artists' contracts using high-powered lawyers to ensure that artists are locked into a single company for eternity without even the option of going out on their own. When an artist is contracted to produce 5 albums, the recording company will often ignore albums that don't sell well, keeping the artist locked into a perpetual contract that actually hinders their ability to create new content. The record company makes a bunch of money from the first album, but gives the artist next to nothing from it, citing "recording, studio, manufacturing, shipping, marketing, promotional costs, etc", then shelves the next 5 or 6 albums when it becomes clear they're not selling as well as the first, but then tells the artist that they've only created one album. And don't go thinking that this only happens rarely, or to small artists. The Dixie Chicks just recently had to sue their label to get more than $4million that was owed to them. If memory serves, they recorded an album that went platinum, for which their label refused to pay them. Talk about real theft.
"My problem has always been this: In the heyday of file sharing (2000 or so), I worked in a lab and saw the students downloading thousands of mp3s a day, and the whole "well, if I like it I'll buy it" argument was never voiced. A friend is a DJ (mp3J?) that uses all stolen songs on his laptop instead of CDs. He certainly didn't buy any."
The "I'm just demoing it" argument has always been a bit weak, though not entirely inaccurate. While there are some folks who really do buy more music when they download, I'm certain that, at least a majority, do not. That being said, I think the real problem is that when people look at a CD, they're thinking less about an artist making it, and more about a multi-national conglomerate mega-corp that produced it and is trying to sell it to them at extremely inflated prices. My personal argument in this whole thing is that I will not put my money into the hands of corrupt organizations that should have been broken up decades ago, with their top brass jailed on RICO violations. They've now grown so bold as to demand to be exempt from all anti-trust lawsuits. This is like the mafia demanding to be exempt from murder prosecutions. I suppose the logic is, "we've been breaking these laws for so long, why don't you just stop bugging us about it?". I do buy CDs, T-shirts, concert tickets, etc from non-RIAA affiliated bands that I like. That is how I show my support. If Metallica wants another dollar from me (I've bought their stuff in the past), they'd best get away from their RIAA whore of a label and stop treating their fans like garbage. I absolutely support the rights of artists and others to make a profit from their intellectual property. What I do not support in any way are corrupt organizations (as defined under US Federal RICO statutes). I will not pay them money, and I will not support t
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
128K MP3s as uploaded to P2P networks are substantially identical to the 128K MP3s which provide the content you hear on analog FM radio. In fact, using a tuner card, you can even record them back to 128K MP3s and store them on your hard drive, just as you can record them to analog cassette tape and trade them to your friends.
The difference between listening via download or FM radio?
There is no proof that 128K MP3s are more effective or less effective in promoting the sale of CDs whether broadcast over the radio or downloaded from the Internet. The same set of ears decides based on them whether or not to buy the CD or not. The latest Eminem album was "pre-released" unofficially over P2P a month before official release at record stores. Because of this, customers who wanted to hear it at better than 128K MP3 quality were ready to buy as soon as the CDs hit retail and it immediately hit #1.
What did Eminem lose from the "theft" of his music? Nobody associated with the RIAA or any record label has explained this to us, and I've heard no complaints from Eminem about this.
In fairness, Madonna's latest got pre-released and it tanked. However, Madonna has yet to explain why she thinks it wouldn't have gone into the dumper in the absence of pre-release via the Net.
One difference? FM radio stations are paid by RIAA labels to carry music promotional content, while via P2P, listeners host the music on servers at their own expense and transfer the music at their own bandwidth expense.
Another difference? Getting digital content via FM radio is legal. Getting the identical content via the Internet isn't.
Why?
The *AA companies bought off a shitload of politicians openly through campaign contributions to make the law that way.
Why would the *AA companies want to cut one promo distribution channel that the listeners pay for instead of them?
Effectively, only the RIAA companies have access to FM as a music promotional channel. The indie musicians and labels are priced out of the market. The indie musicians and labels can afford to distribute promotional tracks via P2P. That's why the RIAA has done its best to destroy P2P and Internet Radio in the hands of individuals and small organizations.
I don't mind protecting the legitimate rights of artists to profit from their work in the least. However, I have no interest in interfering with the ability of indie artists to promote their work via the Internet, and less than no interest in wasting taxpayer money to prop up the obsolete and dying business model of the RIAA and soon, the MPAA member companies.
What about PIRACY!!!?
128K MP3s are promotional giveaways of no intrinsic value. The product is the physical CD, and that's what people pay for.. Counterfeit CDs of anything you can find in a record stores are available in Asia, pressed at Asian CD manufacturing facilities and sold openly all over Asia and in some cases, even in the USA. If the *AA really wanted to stop PIRACY!!!, they'd be pressuring US politicians to stop the manufacture of counterfeit CDs in Asia. There are many kinds of pressure the US government could be putting on Asian governments to stop this. Why isn't this happening? Ask Hilary Rosen yourself.
If you want to call P2P and Internet Radio theft, be my guest, but please smash your FM radio over your head first.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Because it's his work and you don't have his permission to copy it. His time and effort went into creating it and if he chooses to charge for it and you don't pay but copy and use it anyway.... You are stealing from him. No if ands or buts about it.
It is not wrong to copy it just because you created it. You seem to have a false sense of entitlement.
Why do you say that? He created it. He chooses to charge for it. If you don't pay him for the right to use it but use it anyway, you are taking money from him. If you don't want to pay, create your own code. Once you've done that, once you've taken the time and energy to create something and someone takes it without your permission (just because they (you) have a false sense of entitlement) you might change your tune, especially if your livelyhood depends on getting paid for what you create.
It's funny, after the centuries of philosophical debate over right and wrong through history, that this particular concept of having rights over distributing copies didn't pop up until the 17th century.
Probably because before that there wasn't much to copy or any good way to copy it. Really now, how can you compare something as fast and simple as copying software in this day and age, to something as difficult and time consuming as copying books or paintings in the 17th century?
Well... steal is such a harsh word, I prefer something different. But I'll get to that later on.
Why P2P music and more?
When I was in my upper teen and college years I had a great interest in music. I had a very wide range of music interests that covered several types of classical music, rock, jazz, country (a little), and a whole variety of music forms that didn't even have a name yet. I think now they're lumped into the New-Age acid jazz something or other...
But I would learn about this music by cruising halls in the dorms listening to what other people where playing and checking out music collections of friends of mine.
And stuff I liked I could buy at the local store for anywhere from $2 to $10 in circa 1985.
Fast forward 18 years.
I don't live in a dorm anymore so it's hard to hear other peoples stereos. But I do listen to the radio. Have you? Do you know what's on the radio? Considering it's all owned by one company, ClearChannel the selection is limited to approximately four groups: Classic Rock, Rock - which is really just Pop, Country - which is a bastardization of Rock, and Rap. Flame on if you want, but make sure you've been listening to music for >30 years first.
Now for every station that is in one of these catagories, there are a list of songs (heard of Top 40?) that are played on a regular basis. This frequency is such that by the time I get home on Tuesday I know the lyrics of all the songs that came out on Monday.
Kind of limited on my selections of music that are available through public means of acquisitiion. Meaning, in order to seek music legally, I am limited to very narrow vectors of music.
So, I go to the music stores to seek my wide range of music. Guess what I find there? The same shit that I heard on the way over and now it's running better than $20 a pop. I actually tried to just buy a CD based on a precious small sample I heard once. It lasted about 3 hours before I threw it out. CD music is too expensive to purchase on the basis of, "Maybe this will be good to listen to". Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a better way of doing it.
So, where does that leave us?
Conclusion: If you want to explore the world of music, publicly available radio stations and music stores will not provide you with anything better than cattle food. If you want to find more variety, the only place you might find it is in P2P music community. To date, there is no better medium through which to experience a variety of music and find what you really like.
For my tastes, P2P is a great place to borrow music to learn what I like. Then I can make a more targeted attempt to get the music via the internet rather than getting it through the likes of Best Buy (which won't ever happen because they have no selection).
Unfortunately, all this RIAA activity is simply causing me to try new things like:
This is the basis of your argument; just like a philosopher starts with "I think, therefore I am". The whole point of my post was to question the validity of that assumption in the first place. You still don't understand what I'm trying to say.
Undoubtedly, the next response in this thread will start with "How can you question my axiom? I worked on it! I should control it!"