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..."
...is this something to worry about? Or should I be sadly shaking my head at the RIAA's ever-more-pathetic attempts to crack down on a technology they don't understand?
If there has ever been one government department that I haven't cared for (excl. IRS), it would be the ATF. I think that the ATF is probably one of the more corrupt government agencies that we have, and it absolutely frightens me that the director of the ATF is now headed on over to the RIAA.
I guess only the future will tell of what is going to happen with the RIAA, and their relentless battle against pirates.
YOU'RE WINNER !
Another lame blog
Boss Stealing Software?
Bust your boss! Report illegal software use online today.
www.bsa.org/usa
Coincidence? I think not
Translation: if the majority don't vote, dictators/extremists get into power and freedom is dead.
You may know what copyright infringement is (not hard, it's a law), but you only THINK you know economics.
Try studying the Austrian school of economics. Google for some of the Austrian economists who think intellectual property is an oxymoron (like Thomas Jefferson did).
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
You noticed that too, eh?
:)
I think that it has something to do with a less-developed set of interpersonal skills, (common amongst tech folks) for combined with a bit of intellectual arrogance (also common).
Put down those flamethrowers, I'm a card carrying geek for many years. Taking offense won't change whether I'm right or wrong.
Unless 'here' means the US, in which case I agree, but don't have an explanation
(yup, I'm an american)
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
As a schism from the Seventh Day Adventists they had no religious prohibition on armament.
I'm not sure what exactly this is supposed to mean. While clearly, the Davidians had no qualms about owning and promoting guns, that is certainly not the official viewpoint of the Seventh-Day Adventist church.
Here are a few official statements from the SDA church on related topics:
Assault Weapons
Peace
Call for peace
Ultimately however, it is an individuals choice, and gun ownership and use is not really a big issue in the church. As far as I know, nobody has ever been "disfellowshiped" (kind of the SDA version of excommunication) solely because they owned or used a gun. A majority of Adventists serving in the military do, in fact, serve in combat roles. Here is an excellent historical overview of Adventists in the military.
I'm sure you didn't intend that little parenthetical statement to be insensitive, but the 12 million member SDA church are a little sensitive about being so closely associated by the media to a radical sect of a few thousand at best.
(The Branch Davidians are technically an offshoot of the Shepherd's Rod movement which was founded by an ex-SDA in the 1930s, however it is true that Koresh himself and a majority of the members of his "congregation" were former SDA members. But in the end, Koresh was just a charasmatic wacko who convinced people to accept his twisted interpretations of biblical texts.)
------
Where are the slash-groupies? I distinctly remember being promised slash-groupies!
If you want to bring economics into the game, whose fault is it if the masses steal? If the opportunity cost (an economic idea) is so high that people don't want to pay, then it affects the supply and demand. Since RIAA sets the price high, then there is a deficit -- what people are willing to pay and the supply do not meet equilibrium, and therefore there are a lot of CD's on the shelf. The RIAA assumes that this is the result of piracy. What has happened is that there is crappy music and so people's oppertunity cost has dropped, i.e. they don't want to pay for crappy CD's for one song, and the market has not adjusted, i.e prices should have dropped, and people look to get their music cheaper. The piracy begins when people's value of the music is so low and the price so high that people implicitly associate a lower value on the CD's (go to Best Buy and watch, invetiably some person will pick up a CD and say, "I don't want to pay $22.95 for one song.") They like the one song, but have no venue to purchase it at a reasonable cost, and there is no market structure to figure out what that cost should be -- RIAA won't cooperate, it is an all or none package, you buy the entire CD or not at all. So the person goes home and downloads the CD, because free is even cheaper than the oppertunity cost.
Well, there's my two cents.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
Frankly, this is good news. Look at what happened to alcohol. They might outlaw filesharing for a while, but it the end we'll win.
Private FTP servers = the new speakeasies?
Cheers, mate!
there's no place like ~
The difference being... writing software is not form of art (I suppose that can be argued by some).
I think people are irked in general not because they don't wanna pay, but because music, an art form, has been bastardized by corporate america. When people go out and use technology to listen to music, they get punished for it.
Musicians aren't obligated to make millions.. it's the studios who choose to give it to them and expect to make it back in CD sales. Artists make nil from CD sales. It's all from touring.
Technically, they should be in it for the music, not for the money and it's this fact along that angers people.
While I completely understand your post about losing profit if someone were to download your software, it is in no way, shape, or form a crime to listen to music without paying for it.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Wasn't it that their tear gas/sleeping gas (not sure which) turned out to be rather flammable, and lit up after it had built up in a compressed space for a while?
They may not have used a flamethrower, but they definitely used the gas and likely provided the spark that set it off as well (bullet, gas grenade, etc.)
(Disclaimer: I'm basing this on Waco: The Rules of Engagement, and haven't kept up with how that's perceived a few years down the track...)
deus does not exist but if he does
Take a few minutes and think about how Billy Corgan or Jimmy Chamberlain or The Muffs or, uh, E would like the world to be.
Then take a few hours and spend them making the world more like that.
Then if you feel like it, write your hero a letter and tell them what you did. That part is optional.
Simple to say, hard to do.
I don't recognize the copy right of monopolistic publishers. Copy right was invented to give artists the ability to make a living off of their works. Then monopolies got involved by acquiring copy rights and then lobbying for them to be forever. By doing this, they established a perminant monopoly with which they could pay artists a measly pittance for their work and therefore, bypass the copy right system's original intent and cut off the access to art we had prior to copy right laws, as well as being able to censor that music for whatever goverment or group happened to be involved with the monopoly. This is why p2p systems are wonderful, they bypass copy right and publishers altogether and give people the ability to promote and distribute their work all in one fell swoop. The day the RIAA/MPAA is done away with and I can go down to the music store and find uncensored music made by local and national bands is the day I'll be a very very happy camper because I don't have to deal with these monopolies.
I like law, it makes life simpler and makes sure I can rest in my bed at night even though I don't know who's sleeping a mere 20 feet from me. I just don't like how it's used and when I don't like how it's used, it's my duty to stand up for it and to educate myself and others, hence the reason I'm posting on slashdot.
As for the RIAA hiring someone from the ATF to do their dirty work, this both puts me into roaring fits of laughter at it's rediculousness and rage/fear. If they do put together armed enforcement squads, I'm going to first of all shit my pants, and second of all wait to see if congress says "ya know, this is taking it way to far". If they don't, I'm seriously going to consider my allegance to this country. Sure, I shouldn't have anything to fear from the RIAA if I'm not doing illegal things, but on the other hand, they did prosecute a 12 year old girl and an 80 year old dude who didn't even own a computer. So why wouldn't they make a mistake, break into my house for the heck of it and slaughter my family even though I'm innocent?
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Aren't these the same guys that were so successful in Waco, TX; Ruby Ridge, and don't forget their best success in history -- prohibition!!!
So, when are we actually going to get around to boycotting all radio and music sales in America?
There is no way in hell any of this will ever change until there is a concerted effort to make a point to them. Not buying music will not work.
Sure the music industry took a dump almost to the day they shut down napster. But they blamed it on illegal music sharing, not a fact of the music buyers just lost their single best means of identifying what they want to buy. Why? Because no body told them in clear terms.
If you want to get through to RIAA/MPAA then it's going to be a matter of boycott, boycott, boycott. Make it political, make it public, make it noticable, make it known.
Personally, I do not intend on purchasing a HDTV simply because that media will no longer allow me to record television shows.
I have been so overwhelmed with commercials that it's easier for me to learn how to not watch TV and not listen to the Radio than to put up with the constant babble.
I suggest we all give it a try, but do it all at once under a concerted boycotting effort.
I think rather more the problem is this.
Normally, markets in a capitalism are producer-led or consumer-led. Producer-led markets appear when a product is popular, and tend to lead to high prices. These are good: there must be some reason why the product is popular, and the producer gets rewarded for producing it. Consumer-led markets appear when a product isn't so popular so producers want to get it out the door, and tend to lead to low prices. These are good too: the consumers can buy their stuff for a lower price.
But IP at the moment is neither of these. IP is an example of a horrible situation: the distribution-led market. The distribution-led market is actually a violation of capitalism; capitalism is based on a free market, but when distribution leading occurs, the market ceases to be free.
In a distribution-led market, producers are forced to accept bad deals from the distributors because they have no other way to get stuff marketed; and consumers are forced to pay high prices (which aren't passed back to the producers) because the distributors, having got their deals from the producers, don't really care that much if the stuff doesn't sell. Everybody loses.
At the moment, copyright - together with other market forces - is acting to maintain that distribution-led situation. And a great point of indignancy is that copyright law was quickly updated to allow for "internet realities", but was never updated to allow for the realities of a distribution-led market. (By means such as barring the transfer of copyright, thus making it impossible for distributors to force artists to give away their entire IP rights.)
Personally, I think the best way would be for the government to simply state: "We're giving you six months. If the market is still distribution-led after that time, copyright law will be abolished. Sort it out amongst yourselves or we'll pull out the rug." (That tactic could have been applied in other cases too. Like "Make it so that key workers can afford houses in all areas. If you haven't done so after six months, mortgage interest will be raised to 500%, thus razing your market to the ground.")
True, the people are not forced to steal, but the theft is comming from inflated prices for what people are unwilling to pay for. And the opportunity cost of stealing a Lexus is higher, than the opportunity cost of stealing music. The likely hood of being arrested and spending 3-5 in prision over music is so much smaller (but the penatilies for stealing on piece of music now outwiegh the penalties of stealing a car, so people, take that as a lesson. If your going to steal music and get caught, steal a car instead) Society has dictated that stealing music is not nessasarily a social crime, but stealing a car is a huge crime. Additionally, when you buy a Lexus there is a value, and most people that want a Lexus would probably agree that a Lexus is worth the value. But few would agree that Britney Spears song carries any value. The difference between a Lexus and music is that the market has generally agreed that a Lexus should sell for the $35,000, and that music is not really worth the money RIAA is charging. The argument that I was trying to make is that RIAA is encouraging theft of music by refusing to allow the market to reach equilibrium with the supply of the music and the demand. In other words, Pink's new CD should cell for more than Britney Spear's new CD, and both should sell more than Matchbox 20's CD that came out three years ago -- the price for CD's seems to be so static that whether you want the latest and greatest, you pay the same for the old and lame. RIAA could reduce the amount of piracy by having a vairable market price, which is determined by what people are willing to pay - for example, with Pink's latest, maybe people are willing to pay $12, but not $23, and then when her next CD comes out price it at the same range. How this will prevent piracy is that more people will be willing to pay the money and own the CD instead of downloading. And downloading does have an opportunity cost -- the amount of time and effort that it takes to get a quality song. If the value of the CD to person is higher than the effort to download 15 songs and try to get them in a reasonable time, then they may be willing to buy it. I had a room mate spend a week on broadband try to get a complete album, and if the CD was cheaper than $20, he would have bought them.
Another interesting aspect to look at is what you get for your $20. You get music, and that is it. But for the same $20, you can go to the movies and get popcorn and a soda, or you could buy a movie. Maybe you wanted a book, which for $20 you could buy. The problem is that the value of what you are getting for $20 is so much lower -- you get an audio experience, but with video you get more, and even with a book. With a Lexus you get more value, and you can enjoy it for years to come. With music you may listen to the song occasionally, and then never listen to it again. RIAA is trying to place the value of music on the same level as a movie, or a book. At least for $20 with a movie you get two hours of entertainment. So that is the real issue -- the value is so much lower and people would rather spend there money elsewhere. I know that I have not bought a CD in four years (and I don't download music, I prefer RADIO because it is free, except for commericals) because the value is so low and the price so high. Additionaly, music, except for concerts, is a secondary experience, where movies and books are a primary experience. You listen to music while driving, and you listen to music while studying. You don't watch a movie while driving, or drive your car while listening to music. Generally, something that aguments the primary experience is not worth as much as the primary experience.
So while I agree that you can't be forced to steal, I am arguing that RIAA encourages the theft by placing something that people want, but is generally beyond their reach because of prices. And I also agree that theft of music is morally wrong. (Although stealing music does not carry the same weight as stealing a Lexus).
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
No, but it means that rational people will yawn and say "So what?" when you argue that because X is currently illegal, you shouldn't do X. Law has long lost any moral authority as a guide to what one should or should not do; it's just a guide as to what to not get caught doing.
When a law is both unenforceable and widely broken, an intelligent society will change it. Failure to do so only breeds contempt for the law, and erosion of justice as more extreme attempts at enforcement are brought into play. (Like the "War on (some) Drugs"? Look for the "War on Copying", coming soon. Former ATF stormtroopers coming to the RIAA could be just the first step.)
In the case of copyright, the whole idea of "pay-per-copy" is dying if not dead. It's long past time to start developing alternative ways for authors and musicians to get paid.
Copying a CD is now about as easy as learning to sing a song. I suggest putting copying music under the same sort of structure as performance royalties - copy all you want, but if you sell or otherwise profit from copies (including profiting from downloads), you owe a royalty. Eliminate copyright, create a royaltyright.
As an semi-professional musician (I've actually gotten paid a few times, so I guess I've lost my amateur status) I want people to share my music. I don't have moral or legal authority to demand a nickel if someone hums a song I wrote, and the same should apply if someone makes a copy to give away. (Hell, I should pay them a nickel.) But if anyone's making a buck off it, I think I deserve a cut.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
> If you don't pay him for the right to use it but use it anyway, you are taking money from him
AAAARGH, this is a fucking stupid argument. If you don't pay him for the right to use it, you are taking JACK SHIT. You MAY be preventing the compensation from one sale, but the creator has not lost a damn thing.
Take this further: Say I am a painter. I sell my paintings for not a penny under $40,000. Joe Schtick thinks it's cool, but only works minimum wage. He takes a picture of it (which he could blow up to actual size, although it would be slightly lower quality, a la CD -> MP3). He may well be breaking the law, technically, but I have not lost anything just because he made a copy of my work. I wasn't going to get the money anyway, so I HAVE LOST NOTHING, nothing was taken from me.
If you are free to steal peoples work, for the most part, they won't make the work to begin with.
You made the mistake of using "steal" instead of "copy". Let me correct it so I can properly reply:
If you are free to copy peoples work, for the most part, they won't make the work to begin with.
True.
You still have absolutely no inherent right to prevent someone from repeating (copying) an idea you have spoken to them. Or to prevent them from themselves drawing (copying) an image that they have seen, or themselves writing (copying) a text they have seen.
If I may take a US-centric view a moment, the constitution says that congress has the power: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".
Copyright law is not based on any sort of personal right. If you look at that constitutional wording it actually says that authors and inventors do not already possess any such right. Congress MAY secure such rights for them IF THEY CHOOSE TO, and they may only do so for a specific purpose - the purpose of benefiting the public. Any profit and benefit to the creator is irrelevant side effect. It is only relevant as a means to an end.
Copyright law is a matter of public policy. It is good public policy to give people an incentive to create. Copyright protection and profit for creators can be an excellent means to an end. They can be a very good thing, but it is important to remember that it only exists for the benefit of the public and to ultimately get more creations into the public domain. The natural state of information-creations is in the public domain, copyright law exists for the purpose of maximizing the growth of the public domain. It does this by temporarily pulling it out of the public domain.
Copyright infringement is no more "theft" or "stealing" than slander is "theft" or "stealing". That is not mean infringment is a good thing any more than it means slander is a good thing.
The big problem is that out congress has lost sight of the constitutional purpose of copyright law. Congress has been passing bad law - bad public policy. Given the way things are going - perpetual duration and constantly expanding restrictions and extermination of fair use and the absurd DMCA and the Trusted Computing inititave - given a chice between that and no copyright at all, I'd go with no copyright at all.
Of course the BEST way to procede would be to return to the original constitutional purpose of copyright giving an incentive by securing the profits generated from a work for its creator. Unfortunately the Copyright Lobby has absolutely no interest in good and proper copyright law is - they are busy waging a war against the public interest.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.