Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Countersued Under Racketeering Laws
Negadin writes "According to CNET News, a New Jersey woman, one of the hundreds of people accused of copyright infringement by the Recording Industry Association of America, has countersued the big record labels, charging them with extortion and violations of the federal antiracketeering act." The woman's attornies are arguing that "...by suing file-swappers for copyright infringement, and then offering to settle instead of pursuing a case where liability could reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the RIAA is violating the same laws that are more typically applied to gangsters and organized crime."
Good for her! Its about time someone took on the illegal monopoly that is the RIAA. Take 'em down! I'll join!
... and in the DRM, bind them.
Just in case Slashdot gets Slashdotted, here's a copy of the front page:
503 Service Unavailable
The service is not available. Please try again later.
It probably won't stick, but Bravo! I'm tired of watching the RIAA offer to settle with people regardless of guilt. By agreeing to settle many people look guilty and add fuel to the RIAA's fires.
Stick it to the Man!
Should be suing SCO for extortion and racketeering. On second thought, sue them both.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
...but fine.
That is if you have a clever attorney.
Have you hugged your penguin today?
I think they've got a longshot, but it's worth pursing. RICO statutes are powerful weapons.
Now if everyone who got sued by the RIAA counter-sued with similar charges, you'd see these lawsuits go away entirely, for two reasons:
1) The RIAA can't stand up to intense public scrutiny, without shooting themselves (and their industry) in the foot.
2) Being sued by over 1,000 people becomes cost prohibitive very quickly, particularly considering it will be in 100's of different courtrooms spread across America.
I'm not a big fan of lawsuits, but I say good for her.
This is awesome! Ive been waiting for them to get stung by their tactics. This is thebest news I've heard in over a month. B
The RIAA does make a bit of a racket, finally some one telling them to quiet up.
Was I the only person who was unable to access the Slashdot site at the exact moment that this was posted?
Coincidence? I think not!
Three Squirrels
I think it's worthy to note that, in the headline, CNET News called the lawsuit a "long-shot."
Someone's suing the RIAA! Good things are going to happen, good things are going to happen.
(Of course, this will end when the RIAA then settles with the woman herself, paying her to shut up.)
In fact, whether the woman wins or loses, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Say hello to my LITTLE FRIEND!
*mows down RIAA*
God I love you Pacino....
Does anyone else feel this took way too long? I seriously can't believe any of the others haven't had the balls (or money) to stand up to them yet.
Now they'll start suing everyone for hundreds of thousands of dollars instead of offering to settle. And they've got the perfect excuse--the US government made them do it.
The Mafia doesn't offer you your day in court if you would rather not pay your protection money.
The RIAA is suing those whom they think are guilty of file sharing. If you are not guilty, you have the absolute right to demand your day in court.
I'm not trying to absolve the RIAA for their heinous practices, but there is nothing illegal about what they are doing.
I have been pwned because my
In a way this is a good sign as this will deter companies which like to send out legal threats to "poorer" folks, who can't afford to prepare the case and surrender before the war begins.
On the other hand, this might actually push companies which like to send out legal threats to "poorer" folks to actually go to the court, in defence of being countersued.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
She'll never win, she won't have the cashflow. Even if she were, by some miricle to 'win', she'd probably be bankrupt. Its about as useless as me suing IBM or Microsoft 'just for fun'
So if convicted, the RIAA can either:
a) Do nothing, and seem ineffective at stopping P2P (which they already are, but it's a different thing to give up the PR battle) or
b) Drive every court case home. The evidence is quite clear, the possible damages huge. The courts might award them considerably higher fines than any settlement.
Somehow I think this will push them to b), and I sure wouldn't want to be on the recieving end of the next $97 billion lawsuit... $97 million, billion, trillion, kazillion is kinda irrelevant at that point anyway.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
you wanted FP didn't you?
How dare they compare the Scum of the RIAA to such upstanding citizens. Such as: Al Capone, Tony Montana, and Don Corleone
"It's probably not the first time that record company executives have been likened to Al Capone, but this time a judge might have to agree or disagree."
I sincerely hope that we get a good judge on this one. A precedence ruling in favor of the alleged file swappers would be a nice help.
Every RIAA executive weenie's nightmare:
headline "RIAA COMPARED TO MOB, TACTICS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL"
Her lawyers should do this pro-bono for all the attention they will get from this case.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
if it is cheaper on a monthly basis, I might just pay the protection money to RIAA, instead of signing up for itunes/audible ;) :)
It is a joke. Laff!!
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
anyone want to get in on a class action?
In reference to SCO including GPL software in products, Blake Stowell said:
"Our issue is with the enforceability of the GPL"
-
When software is released with a GPL license, the author(s) still retains the copyright, but is granting specific terms under which the copyrighted work may be used without consulting the author.
If Mr. Stowell and SCO do not believe that the terms of license are valid, then the aggreement of the license is nullified, and use of the work without other permission from the author is breaking copyright law.
Under these special circumstances, I believe that the authors of the GPL software in question should get clarification, and ask SCO for a written agreement to the terms of the GPL, or else demand a halt to the software use, and possibly payment for any infringment.
How's that work.....??
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Happy Trails
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
YES! I've been waiting for this.
Someone should get her in touch with the EFF.
Is there somewhere to donate money for her legal expenses?
Does she need it? The article mentions attorneys, as in plural. Perhaps they smell blood and are going pro bono.
Like others have suggested, she'll get squashed like a bug (swapping songs is still very much illegal, yah know) but it would be great if she got lots of support from folks who don't approve of the RIAA's tactics, who don't like the DMCA takedown provisions, and who think copyright should be a compromise, not an absolute.
.. that's what really gets me. As if all these songs would actually be *sold* somewhere. As if something that can be duplicated with the click of the button has any intrinsic value.
It would be great for the news to show that some people actually don't like what the RIAA does (then again, all the major news outlets have an interest in the case, so I'm not expecting a fair presentation any time soon).
It may also shed some light on what kind of high-quality crack rock the RIAA smokes when they assign huge dollar figures to these "losses"
Thank God, I hope it sticks...
MacOSX, because making *NIX better is a lot better than waiting for Micro$loth to fix Windows
Section 1964 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act not only provides for civil remedies in cases like this, but also automatically triples the damages and covers court costs and lawyers' fees. Personally, I'd like to see a massive class-action lawsuit against these dirtbags. If it can be won, surely the damages would be enough to curb their malicious behavior.
Is that for serious? I don't know what it has to do with the RIAA - but it's pretty interesting...
-dewhite
Why is it that the police will arrest individuals, but corporations seem to need to be sued? If someone sent in a tip to the police that the RIAA were racketeering, nothing would happen, but if the same tip were applied to an individual or gang, there would be an investigation. These days, big businesses seem much more powerful because they can hide behind lawyers and deep pockets.
They had been involved in a car accident with a well-known author, and offered not to give evidence (ie assist a criminal investigation) if he paid them hush money.
It's exactly the same thing here with the RIAA.
Also known as taking unfair advantage of being an officer of the court. From the Scots term for being a corrupt judge, extended to include persistantly filing false suits.
davecb@spamcop.net
Who will set up a legal defense fund for this woman?
(erm, this is slashdot. Let me restate:)
Who will setup a trustworthy legal defense fund for this woman?
We need a site so we can donate money to her cause.
Sigs are dangerous coy things
Many people have received letters from RIAA and alike. Is it possible legally to make such people join this case? I mean let's say 100 people who received a letter from RIAA and don't want to pay join under one banner to countersue? I am sure weight of the group would be greater than an individual and damages sought can be greater.
-- shortcut - the longest distance between two points.
The RIAA companies probably make a small profit when someone settles with them for a few grand. Lawyers take their cut, but a settlement contract isn't all that expensive or time consuming for the RIAA.
But unless they win HUGE punitive damages (and the loser actually has the money to pay and doesn't declare bankruptcy) they probably lose money when it comes down to a lawsuit. And that takes a long time and involves a lot of up-front legal expenses, for questionable return.
If enough people start counter-suing the RIAA, or at least going to court instead of settling, then the lawsuits will soon become a huge financial burden on the RIAA, even when they win.
But if the RIAA is making a racket, they might be infringing on the copyright belonging to these guys.
*rimshot*
webpage
I for one welcome our new RIAA overlords!
It's about time. I concur with your attorneys. I've known people that have undergone the RIAA lawsuit and later settled only to be recruited by the RIAA in order to pay off ridiculus loans. This is diffinetly organized crime to me.
This seems like the racketeering suit filed against DirecTV, which was tossed out of court. Still, I'm glad that someone is taking a stand. Even if this suits and others like it are not successful, the RIAA may change tactics as they begin to meet resistance.
In fact, even in today's legal climate I doubt it will survive the priliminary hearing. If the RIAA had any legitimate cause they the right to bring action. They also had the right to settle, as did anyone they brought action against.
If you lend someone ten bucks, they say they can't pay, you sue them, and you both agree to settle the matter for a fiver there is no extortion.
In fact the courts do everything they can to encourage such a resolution and avoid a trial.
If she felt the RIAA did not have grounds she had the opportunity to have her day in court.
Settling and then demanding your day in court, plus damages, well, that's a wee bit of a stretch, even against the RIAA.
The people who have been hustled by the RIAA "cops" would stand a much better chance with this sort of action.
KFG
I liked this part of the article:
"Maalouf's attorneys noted that downloading through Kazaa was openly discussed at Maalouf's daughter's school by teachers, and they downloaded songs used in classes. That should be a protected fair use of the music, the attorneys said."
First, I really wonder if the teacher said "now, put thousands of songs in your Kazaa share directory." They got nailed for apparently sharing lots and lots of copyrighted material with Internet users at large without authorization, not for downloading a song or two at the behest of a teacher.
At any rate, helping yourself to a copy of Photoshop because you need it for a class project isn't "protected fair use" (although, sensibly, Adobe and many other software companies do often take steps for students to legally get software at less than retail cost), and neither is downloading a song. Did the teacher mislead them into thinking that massive music piracy was legal? Fine; sue the teacher. But it's no excuse to break the law.
There are plenty of legitimate ways to fight back against the recording industry (as the main subject of the article is doing), but this defense is just plain silly.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Gangster 'Johnny' (On T.V.): Hey, I tell you what I'm gonna give you, Snakes. I'm gonna give you to the count of 10 to get your ugly, yellow, no-good keister off my property, before I pump your guts full of lead.
Gangster Snakes (On TV): Alright, Johnny, I'm sorry. I'm going.
Gangster 'Johnny' (On T.V.): One, two, ten. Shoots Snakes with his tommy gun while laughing maniacally
Gangster 'Johnny' (On T.V.): Keep the change, you filthy animal.
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
Why ? because the RIAA has the legal system paid off
It sux but in a country where the "big" business has more to say than the people living there odds are way against such action.
Don't get me wrong I would love to see this suite go forward and have her on the winning side, but on the other side of the spectrum I am a pessimist and all i can see is the dark clouds of RIAA
And what's worse they are coming to my country - Canadians - don't let them win
Where they'll get the RIAA is with their setlement terms. Paying them off does not protect you from being sued. Plus you have to admit guilt. That runs counter to the definition of setlement.
Maybe you could get SCO to sue the RIAA if they use Linux on their machines, and vice versa? Oh if it were only possible to get them both suing each other, and maybe take themselves out in the process. Or maybe just nuke em both.
Now we're getting close.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Would she be happier if they withdraw the settlement offers, and sue her and each and every other defendent into bankruptcy?
Classic comment: "It is the first I've heard of anyone attempting that," said EFF legal director Cindy Cohn. "I guess that is a silver lining of the fact that the RIAA is suing so many people, that there are a lot of lawyers trying to figure out ways to protect folks."
So lawyers are trying to protect folks, wow, these people are already at the bottom of the cliff! I wonder how many of these cliff-dwellers thought about the legality of their "free" download rather than buying a ligitimate copy. Most probably consider it fair use, like recording off Television or Radio broadcasts. Is there a legal difference because the mdeium is not radio waves?
-- Sig meltdown immine...
Doubltless under what you propose some people may get financially mowed down, but you are leaving out a few factors wich could be very good for the masses:
1) Children age 12, Grandmothers, and People without actual computers being sued in court. Wonderfully bad publicity RIAA
2) Sympathetic Jury Nullification. More wonderfully bad publicity for RIAA
3) A Hung Jury or a simple Not Guilty Verdict. Not only bad for RIAA but it sets a track record. This is one of the things they absolutely DO NOT want.
4) A wealthy defendent who hires an Attorney who can go the distance. This would also be very bad for the RIAA.
So yes, if convicted the RIAA may just take cases to court en masse, but they could also become a classic David vs. Goliath story as well.
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
because it's corporations paying for the laws, not individuals.
This lady has my respect. For everybody else click on the following link for a great resource for defending your freedom in the digital world: Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.com/
Today, Police raided the Microsoft compound on a tip from the FBI that were illegally selling WidgetX, a software product written by Jon Smitty and protected under the provisions of the GNU software license.
Microsoft denied any wrong-doing and requested that the computers be returned. They were informed by the FBI, that the machines are being examined and they may not be returned.
You would not be nearly so smug if they sued you, even by accident. Not only can anything happen in a court room, but you'll spend hundreds to throusands of your own dollars to prove your innocence -- of which you won't get a penny back if you do win.
Next time think of the real situation before you post.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
One has to ask two questions. First, if they are willing to settle for such a small amount, why are the fines so high to begin with. Wouldn't it be more efficient to set fines at a appropriate level in the first place? It is very arguable that such high fines were created to allow extortion.
Second, why do they want to settle so badly? It seems like they would want some percentage of the cases to go to court to establish that these people actually violated copyright. As it stands, it would be very reasonable to assert that they are randomly choosing people, and then extorting money from them.
So, with the current tactics, extortion and fear seems to be their game. It is like those old shows where a gang would go into a business and demand protection money. There are legal ways to extort this kind of money, the MPAA and BSA does it. The RIAA does not seem to care about the law.
I really don't understand why the RIAA does not get an independent arbitrator to look at each case, assign a dollar value to the damages, and then send a letter to the alleged violators. Further legal proceedings might occur if the money is not paid, but at least then we would have some confidence that the RIAA is not just harassing innocent people.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
IANL obviously.
this sig deleted by another sig
I read a yahoo article where Kazaa was countersuing for the RIAA misusing their network, and invading the privacy of their useres. The RIAA tried to get it tossed out of court, but failed. It would be extrmely funny if the RIAA ended up loosing money with this witch hunt.
If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
Occasionally drinking brings about lucidity... more ofthen then not, a drunken rant...
While I've been following these events for a while, I've had a thought...
I recall the days of yore when I would record a radio program on a crapy tape recorder. I highly doubt the recording industry suffered any loses due to that.
So assuming I download digital quality music off the internet- and lets also assume a round number of 100 songs- and assume an average cd has 10 songs and is priced at $15, that adds up to $150 dollars worth of songs I've downloaded.
If the RIAA were to come after me for that, what gives them the right to violate my 8th Amendment rights?
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
The law, as it is written, forbids the type of filesharing that many people admit to be involved in.
I just read that a fedral judge told the RIAA to stop calling file sharing 'piracy'.
He said, it is something new and not yet defined, but it is not 'piracy'
I do not think I should have to pay some organazation every time i hear a tune.
I think making counterfit CD's or CHARGING for some one elses work IS piracy, but I really am not sure file sharing for free is...
And neither is the fedral judiciary
cheers
* Carthago Delenda Est *
anyone want to get in on a class action? Uh, that would mean having to be SUED first. So, no.
There are two kinds of fool. One says, This is old, and therefore good. And one says, This is new, and therefore better.
The almighty /. effect! Article text can be found here.
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
She won't end up stuffed in a 55 gallon in one of those hazardous waste disposal sites run by the "Friends of the RIAA" in Her home state...
Coulda fooled me.....
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
Hutz: All right gentleman. I will take your case. But I will require a thousand dollar retainer.
Bart: A thousand dollars. But your ad says "no money down".
Hutz: Oh, they got this all screwed up. [adds punctuation]
Bart: So you don't work on a contingency basis?
Hutz: No, money down. Oops, I shouldn't have the Bar Association logo here either. [Hutz eats ad]
WORKS ON CONTINGENCY?
NO, MONEY DOWN!
If they all counter-sued and dried up RIAA's resources, it would be like the legal equivalent of a Slashdotting!
EvilCON - Made Famous by
The bogus subpoenas, the big dollar threats and the low dollar settlements. It has more than a faint tinge of corruption. I hope she has a good lawyer.
this sig deleted by another sig
HERO
So, where is the EFF's team of lawyers? Wouldn't they want to jump all over this and help this brave lady?
Does anyone know of a law where if the suing party loses the case they have to pay all court costs and such? Seems to me that would be a pretty appropriate law for such silly cases as the RIAA and SCO.
I'm mean, good for her standing up the the RIAA, but wouldn't big organizations think a little bit before lauching the all-out lawyer blitz on someone else?
Just a thought.
"We can never see past the choices we don't understand." -The Matrix Reloaded - The Oracle
PAYBACK'S A BI*** ISN'T IT MOTHER FU****!!!!! Bout time people called the bastards on this. This could be good or screw us all... I guess they could try to soak me for 10 million.... but Kevin Mitnick told me how to get a new identity anyway. Right Here.
seems to be getting more frequent. i get a few hours of that a week now... and i dont even browse slashdot religiously
why doesnt slashdot post and article on it, are they being ddos'd? someone tripping over cables? drunken editors? if 911 lines went down i bet they would sure as hell explain it eventually!
Ah...BUT
If by chance you are sued and you stand up to them, you could be part of a watershed court case that results in the laws being changed. Hell, I can see it going up to the Supreme Court. After that, win or lose, you can make some bucks writing about your experience.
Same goes for the jurors on that trial.
I belong to the ______ generation.
IANAL, and am just thinking out loud, but couldn't those that have been singled out by the RIAA claim some sort of discrimination? More specifically, there are hundreds of thousands of people the RIAA could pursue for sharing music. What is the chance of convincing a court to force the RIAA to attempt to identify and prosecute every single user of Kazaa that distribute RIAA music?
Not only would it cost the RIAA a fortune (as well as create logistical impossibilities), but as soon as the children of a few politicians, celebrities, executives, etc, are fingered by the RIAA we would see some fireworks fly.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
Best. Lawsuit. Ever.
Can't wait to see these guys paraded in handcuffs on their very own "walk of shame"...
*sniff sniff* Smells like...justice.
But I'm sure this'll all blow over for a case of Pepsi and a snazzy new iBook...
Kingstrum
everyone UPLOADING is breaking the law.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Hopefully this won't get modded down as a troll, but we'll see.
I am sick of people who think the RIAA is doing something illegal by suing individuals who download music from the internet. This isn't very complicated but I will enumerate my thinking:
1. The corporations that make up the RIAA pay money produce a product (music).
2. These corporations sell their product for money. You have a choice as to whether you want to buy it or not.
3. Some people do not want to buy the product, however they still want to use it, so they download it from the Internet.
4. The product that these corporations created is being used without their permission; obviously they want to stop this. They have a few options I suppose:
a. Wait for law enforcement officials (Dept. of Justice?) to crack down on this.
b. Sue the individuals who are using their product without permission.
They chose option b. They are operating fully within the laws of the United States (or at least they should, and it is not impossible in principle for them to do so--I am referring to the way they obtained IP addresses). Additionally, the laws of the US allow them to sue for large amounts of money. And now for some reason people get angry when they sue for less money?
I am not saying that from a PR standpoint this was the best way to deal with the problem, and there are many better ways that the RIAA could have taken advantage of online music instead of resisting it. But they are still taking justified and legal action.
it's not a bad post, i guess... but in world kind of world is that worthy of a 4 Insightful?
RIAA = bad
PS2 and iTunes = good
Vote with your wallet.
CRIA named the IPs and nicknames of the Kazaa users it intends to sue.
B B2&file =viewtopic&t=24
details here:
http://www.canfli.org/index.php?name=PNphp
well thats just the conservative media - of course they woudl say that.
President Bush could earn some quick-and-easy votes if he would pardon everyone being sued by the RIAA. I'm not a huge fan of the man, but I'd vote for him if he did this for music-likers.
I suggest you read Slashdot
Well, this has been tried before against directv (they were suing people who had purchased smart card readers). The judge (in Texas IIRC) ruled that speech related to litigation was protected, and not racketeering.
I doubt this suit will fare much better.
Artists have known for years that they were racketeers.
Proving that in court? That's somewhat more difficult.
Yep
How dare they compare the Scum of the RIAA to such upstanding citizens. Such as: Al Capone, Tony Montana, and Don Corleone
Why not? The "content" industry has had major mob ties since it arose from the jukebox protection rackets.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Obvious Troll & Co.
Moderation Abusers In Excellence;
Karma whoring then trolling with pride.
doesn't work for me at all. Yet I do what it says. I have a line with a DTD but it says it doesn't. The URL is : http://xutopia.dyndns.org/binks/
Since when do judges in the U.S. define the meaning of words in a language?
Somehow, Kyle's dad will be the only one that wins in this case.
The RIAA really should have used Jimmy the "Don't use p2p networks" panda instead of suing.
so when is someone going to get the insurance companies for this same thing? making everyone in the US pay to drive an automobile. (sometimes more than your automobile payment) and no way around it? extortion if i ever herd it! TAKE DOWN THE MAN!
I've been waiting for this day... and here's what Agent Smith has to say:
"Do you hear that Mister Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability."
Learn something new.
Well, someday someone will do a study and find that corporations could screw over 1000 Americans before running into one with the wherewithal to sue.
Now, at what point over 1000 do the poor civilians start shooting back?
Civil liberties are dead.
ent
I don't think the courts see their high cost as a bad thing. If courts were cheap, we'd see every school-yard dispute landing in front of a judge.
>> Since when do judges in the U.S. define the
>> meaning of words in a language?
Judges anywhere can tell lawyers to stop using one term to describe another. If I call a person who was shoplifting a murderer, that can influence the audience, media, and jury, any anyone else involved in a case. I imagine most people see a huge difference between shoplifting and killing, but I'm not alone in seeing a huge difference between piracy and file sharing.
Ok, fine. So they'll win. Let's do some fun math, and look at the practical results of such a suit...
You get sued, and refuse to settle. The RIAA takes their $100/hour lawyers (probably quite low) to court, and make an example out of you. You were sharing, oh... say, 500 songs. Now, the maximum statutory penalty for willful copyright infringement would be 250,000 USD TIMES 500 songs. 125 MILLION dollars. Lets say that the really nice RIAA lawyers, in making an example out of you, decide to recommend to the judge that you only be fined... 10,000 USD per infringement. <sarcasm>After all, that's much better than 250,000 USD.</sarcasm> Willful infringement would likely be really hard to prove, but infringement is easy if you were really infringing and they have proof.
Moving on, at 10,000 USD/song, we now have a much more reasonable number of only 5 million USD. RIAA presents proof, IP addresses, whatever. BAM goes the gavel, and a judgement against you is entered for 5M USD. Ignoring court costs.
You have a really good job, where you make 50,000/year. Their chances of ever seeing anything out of you? Nominal. The chance that they've just fscked your life (if you had much of a filesystem left in the first place after they raid you)? Pretty good.
And thus we again have a semi-sane, though probably twisted, example of why copyright is messed up.
Disclaimer, as usual: IANAL. This is not intended to constitute legal advice, if it could be taken in such manner under any interpretation. If you're in the process of being 0wn3d by the Racketeering In America Association, please contact a REAL lawyer.
I think making counterfit CD's or CHARGING for some one elses work IS piracy, but I really am not sure file sharing for free is...
I won't disagree with you but Congress already has. The DMCA, of all laws, changed the definition of "commercial gain" to include "the receipt, or expectation of receipt" of copyrighted material. In other words, Congress specifically made mere trading illegal. People running P2P clients are making infringing material available because they expect to download other infringing material.
burris
That's definitely what we want. We don't want rational justice if it doesn't serve our purposes.
In my limited understanding of the case, I would side with the woman. However, I believe this can be solved with the facts.
Bid on this and it might be a little easier...
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
This sounds similar to the approach taken by Mitsubishi regarding the Lemelson machine vision patents. I believe Mitsubishi argued that the Lemelson foundation had deliberately embarked on a practice of bringing weak patent claims nationwide because it knew that most defendants could not afford protracted litigation, and then would "settle" by requiring each defendant to purchase a license that cost less than the cost of defense. So virtually every defendant was forced to settle even though they believed the patents had no merit (and, ultimately, those patents were invalidated). My recollection is that the RICO claim did not work, but I am sure that counsel in the RIAA case has review the arguments pretty carefully.
You might consider this flaimbait but here i go
You need to think of this logically not legally.
I dont agree with the tactics of the riaa. Imagine however that they did prosecute everyone to the full extent of the law. How many people would win the lawsuit?
The simple fact is that what you do when you downlaod music you do not own or redistribute it for other than personal use you are violating the copyright and violating the copyright is illegal
like john lennon said, "Music is everyone's posession. It's only the publishers who think they own it." The RIAA makes money from peoples records . The only reason they care about artists is so they will sell records so the riaa makes money. The simple truth is that artists benefit by good promotion from large labels. If they cant sell any cd's or get promoted how are they going to get anyone to experience their music in hope that they will pay for tickets to a show. Lots of artists make money from shows and special deals like pepsi commercials. Thats where the real money is. The Riaa does its job and just wants its end of the bargain even if they do take too much sometimes
Yes the riaa owns the music. That gives them the right to prosecute people who steal "their" music which is legal to do because you havent bought it from the riaa. So instead of countersuing for rackateering, just be glad they didnt sue you for 144,000 dollars for each of your 17 songs from kazaa cause that would be a little expensive would it not? I dont see why the RIAA woulnt win if they sued you for 144 grand either cause how do you defend something so blatently illegal? i dont think anyone can argue that what the RIAA is doing isnt legal. 2000 dollars isnt anything compared to the amount you could have to pay. If people werent so legalistic it would make things a hell of a lot less complicated.
ATTORNIES?!
Spell-check? Anyone? Spell Check? Bueller?
Your search for "Do you know what Racketeering means you ambulance chasers?" returned 0 pages. Search time 4.688 seconds.
Looks like it's contagious, RIAA.com's search engine is broken too!
Leave it to someone here in Jersey to strike back at them using laws made with the intent of reducing organized crime.
shit like that happened on both sides, bro.
war sucks.
They'd give orphans the chair!
Texas is fucked up. How will this fare in the real world?
before you ignore the above, its worth mentioning one major difference. Unlike most extortion/blackmail situations, the RIAA is going through the courts to get your identity. This is important because it suggests they've done something bad enough to warrant such attention. When you contrast the $3000 settlements with the potential multi-million dollar lawsuits, you have to admit it does seem like a shakedown.
the act or practice of wresting anything from a person by force, by threats, or by any undue exercise of power;
or
1: an exorbitant charge 2: unjust exaction (as by the misuse of authority): "the extortion by dishonest officials of fees for performing their sworn duty" 3: the felonious act of extorting money
don't forget, by using the DMCA and now John Doe subpoenas, the RIAA has become (in a sense) an officer of the court.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Wouldn't it be nice if the RIAA was running Linux without licenses?
Happiness is relative, Based upon the way we live.
And if someone questions you, act deadpan.
Is there a defense fund that we can contribute to? This is a worry cause in my humble eyes.
Now I don't know anything about these kinds of suits or anything, like what or how you're required to pay, but if you're stuck with a 97 billion dollar debt, can't you just declare bankruptcy and have the entire debt wiped away. Granted bankruptcy is a pretty drastic measure but given the alternative... well, just a thought.
I think making counterfit CD's or CHARGING for some one elses work IS piracy, but I really am not sure file sharing for free is...
It's theft. It's acquiring and enjoying the value inherent in the song that you listen to, produced through the creative effort of someone else, without permission or due compensation. There IS an imbalance here that leaves one party with an unwarranted and unfair advantage over the other. Whether it's called theft, piracy, or whatever, there needs to be some means of protection in place, and very clear recognition (from a legal standpoint) that it is wrong, and that there are remedies (including consequences).
A person that is targeted by the RIAA simply decides not to hire a lawyer, and simply represents his self in court. Not in the expectation he'll win, but rather with the expectation that the RIAA will win. What happens when the dog in fact catches the car? What is the dog going to do with the car? If the person sued here is not in any way wealthy will the RIAA demand blood? I don't think so.
Let the RIAA run into this situation, and they'll end up cutting off their collective nose in spite of their face.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
Probably not
there seems to be a common sentiment here that this lawsuit will provide justifaction for the RIAA to sue people for 100's of thousands of dollars.
Chances are this won't happen, the RIAA has so far only been successful because the people they are suing cant afford defense and choose to settle for small amounts. The RIAA has to pay legal fees too. A long drawn out case may provide a win for them (along with a LOT of bad publicity) but it will also cost them a lot of money.
The RIAA has a couple hurdles to overcome. First their ultimate goal is to stop the sharing of music. This is going to require more than a win against one individual. Second, the only way they dont stand to lose money is if they go up against a wealthy individual (they cant collect money someone doesnt have). In any drawn out case (and especially against someone with resources) the RIAA runs the risk of a precedent being established against them.
Right now the RIAA's tactics are working because A) they're attacking people who cant reasonably fight back and B) the legalities of music swapping are still very much a grey area. "Going all the way" risks both these advantages (as popular opinion solidifies against them lawyers may offer free service and fundraisers could provide money/the legalities would be defined).
in most cases, it's trivial to run file-sharing apps without sharing and/or share files with recieving.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
The following posts by StarManta is proof that he is a troll:
3 486 3 306 3 241 2 994
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=93042&cid=799
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=93042&cid=799
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=93042&cid=799
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=93042&cid=799
The vernacular language is one thing. You or I could call it "aiustfasing" for all the judge cares. However, legal terminology is not so arbitrary -- specific words have specific meanings, and "piracy" does *not* legally apply here.
Sorry to be nitpicky, but I must point out that you put an extra 'g' in the word "sue".
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
It's also a particularly difficult one to get through.
--> Further, the Criminal Division will not approve "imaginative" prosecutions under RICO which are far afield from the congressional purpose of the RICO statute. A RICO count which merely duplicates the elements of proof of traditional Hobbs Act, Travel Act, mail fraud, wire fraud, gambling or controlled substances cases, will not be approved unless it serves some special RICO purpose. Only in exceptional circumstances will approval be granted when RICO is sought merely to serve some evidentiary purpose.
However, it seems as though this is basically the purpose of RICO, if worded carefully enough: "The decision to institute a federal criminal prosecution involves balancing society's interest in effective law enforcement against the consequences for the accused." In other words, the implication seems to be that RICO serves to protect citizens from litigation which they cannot pursue due to legal fees and great personal damages (i.e., grossly misproportioned punishments) by groups or individuals who can offer "settlements" which deprive the courts of their function.
In other OTHER words, the point seems to be: if something is truly illegal, a full case in the courts should be seen as a neccessary requirement by BOTH parties in order to gain proper compensation for the illegal act. OTHERWISE, individuals who have power over the state or a market can abuse the system by creating lawsuits that others can't win but offer bribes out of them for personal gain.
But of course, IANAL. I just read some random legislation and made an interpretation out of it.
If this case is successful, the changes it brings about could be simply monumental. Look at the state of file-sharing right now. So many kids out there growing up on p2p but also instilled with a fear of sharing that puts a damper on the growth of p2p.
If this case is won, and the RIAA lawsuits are stopped in their tracks, I predict an overnight explosion in filesharing. Seriously, people in the U.S. right now are downright scared of sharing on p2p. I know I am, especially after getting a DMCA notice. I'm not saying that essentially unlimited p2p would necessarily spell the death of the RIAA and insane prices for music CDs but I think it would be a pretty clear mandate to the RIAA that they need to change their business plan fast.
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
You mean Kerry who was in Vietnam for four whole months? 3 purple hearts earned, yet no time off for a trip to the hospital? What'd he do, put in for a medal every time he bumped his head on the hatch? Awfully fishy. You'll learn more later.
Meanwhile, I'd recommend that you go up to a National Guardsman and tell him or her that they're not really serving their country. Maybe you can get a purple heart, too.
By the way, which branch did you serve in?
- I have a wireless network and share bandwidth with my neighbors, it wasn't I who was sharing,
it must have been someone else. I'm not responsible because I haven't downloaded or shared anything. (Even
though they went through your router, you are an ISP and if ISPs were liable the RIAA would have sued them all, long ago.)
- My IP address was spoofed. Cross examine their tech people and get them to acknowledge spoofing is
possible (plant the seed of doubt, you're innocent until proven guilty).
- The files I downloaded are slightly different versions of what you thought was copyrighted. If you listen
carefully they are not the same but are probably bootlegged or perhaps out-takes or live recordings which have not been copyrighted
(sure, these are illegal recordings but I didn't record them and that's not why I'm on trial here).
Lobby your government representatives to abolish the copyright laws for digital media. If the artists don't want to record, they don't have to. There are still plenty of people who will.The best music was not made for profit but out of shear love of the medium (Mozart, Charlie Parker, The Beatles). It's always about the music, not the money. Society will always find a way to finance great art. We don't need copyright laws.
If this is correct then why would RIAA subject themselves to a trial by jury?
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
I do not see the case against the RIAA going very far. Extortion is typically a criminal offense and I know not of any civil rights where one can sue. I simply cannot sue someone that I witness throwing trash on the highway, the government has not given me that right. There are several laws though that do provide a private right of action, like the TCPA, where one can become a personal attorney general.
Cave, wreck, and deep diver.
I think the fate of the music industry doesn't lie within how quick the RIAA can sue and pad their pockets, but for which bands truly love music enough to just let it go. I'm sure I'll get a lot of negative comments for this, but if the music industry did go down... do you think we would still see as much rap as we do now? Of course not -- it's all about the benjamins, remember?
Still; the rock genre has been here longer than any other music genre.. and I believe that in the end, it will outlast everyone else. Not because there are more "sub genres" within it, but because the majority of the artists in this group care more about music than getting paid. Sure, making money is the key to their success... but really.. don't they make enough as it is? They can cut down on a few condos and expensive cars for awhile...
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
Isn't there a huge risk of creating 'bad' law if she loses?
In cases where many, many people are in a very similar situation, it's my understanding that legal defense groups are careful to focus on cases they think they can win, even if it means going through many more trials and years just to finally build up enough small victories to support a big win. Every lost case creates a precedence that is not in your favor - 'bad' law.
But I suppose that's what legal defense groups believe in. When it comes down to an individual person, it's hard to blame them for just wanting to get their own self out of the frying pan.
Something I haven't seen anyone else touch on is the fact that even if every man woman and child in the US wins a billion dollar lawsuit aginst the RIAA, it's just an association.
The reason associations are started on behalf of member companies is even if there is a huge backlash, the member companies are completely protected. Much in the way a business you started can be sued into oblivion without having any real affect on you or your family.
If this lady does actualy win, everything the RIAA has in the bank will go for legal fees, she won't get a dime, and the record industry will form some other orginization to take the RIAAs place.
What we need to be doing is suing the labels themselfs for racketeering!
symetrix. We are building a religion, a limited edition.
"but I really am not sure file sharing for free is..."
Blatant copyright violation?
Who doesn't like free music?
Under the same concept, couldn't SCO be considered to be violating these gang laws? Their demands of people licensing Linux to them before the lawsuit is complete ammounts to extortion.
Actually, this is a pretty close metaphor. Real pirates killed people. They tortured them to get that treasure. They kidnaped people for ransom and often they defaulted on the promise to return them and killed them anyway. They raped. In many cases, they bore arms against the militarys of their former nations in time of war, which fits the general definition of Treason. Calling copyright violators pirates IN COURT is simply an attempt to emotionally influence the jury. Further, a lawyer has taken oaths and claims to abide by ethical standards, some of which require them to attempt to speak accurately in using legal terms in court, and, as anybody should know, Piracy is first a legal term in a court, and only secondarily at best a metaphor.
Who is John Cabal?
So what is it when someone listens to a song on the radio? Does having a copy of the song so you can listen to it when you want make it theft? What if you record it off the radio?
I'm not saying I think file sharing is not theft, I'm just playing "what if".
I was thinking about "piracy" the other day. If I break into your house and take your TV, it is obviously theft because I have obtained the TV without paying for it and you have suffer the loss of your TV. If, however I make a copy of your copyrighted song, I have still gotten something without paying, but you are not out anything except the money you theoretically would have received for my copy.
When I was a kid, I used to make "unauthorized copies" of lots of programs for my Commodore 64 (I don't do that anymore... I mostly use Free Software or buy the few things I can't get as Open Source). Anyway, the software industry was not really deprived of the money they would have gotten from me purchasing all those games because I never could have afforded them anyway.
To put it another way, if you work minimum wage at Burger King and you download $200,000 worth of music, have you really deprived the music industry of $200,000? No. That's why I find the numbers they spread around about the cost of "piracy" to be misleading.
Sure, but the RIAA will fight dirty. Moral right and legal right are two different things. The RIAA could be killing puppies with hammers just for the pleasure of it. If there is no law against it...there's not much we can do.
We just have to pray that it make's it to a Jury (that the RIAA is unable to pay off). I don't think there are very many Jury's in the world that would side with the RIAA... regardless of the fact's.
This edit has been brought to you by the Apostrophe's are Everywhere's Association's.
Thank's.
No, its not. Altogether now kiddies - its "copyright infringement"
You's wants to be a wise guy about our "business" model.
Wadduya tink we goin do bout dat.
We had notin to do about da 12 year old's family, getting the squeeze put on em.
It is official & Netcraft confirms: Slashdot is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered /. community when Netcraft confirmed that ./ uptime has dropped yet again, now down to less than 99.9% reliability. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that /. has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Slashdot.org is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent.. umm.. duplicate post tests : ]
I want to send this lady money via paypal, to help cover lawyer's fees. Does anyone know her paypal account?
My blog
I wonder what would happen if someone counterattacked saying the RIAA is inappropriately using copyright law as a business model instead of using current the current available technology to attempt to make a profit?
This scare tactic has caused a vast amount of settlements from individuals who feared fighting such a large institution and feel victim to these actions and felt forced to provide funds to settle these actions instead of fighting," Scimeca's attorney, Bart Lombardo, wrote
and later
Scimeca is one of a growing number of people fighting the record industry's copyright infringement campaign against file-swappers, although few have used such creative legal strategies.
So if Scimeca is going to have a shot at winning this fight they're going to have to prove that most people are too scared to fight? Sounds like they have an anti-fight on their hands.
It is not theft. Theft is a criminal act. What is described is a civil act, a violation of copyright. Any recent law to the contrary will eventually be overthrown by the court.
It is NOT theft.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
It's not theft you dufus.
Theft 1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
Theft implies denying you access and removing it from your possession. Obviously not the case when dealing with copyright violations.
Learn something new every day, eh? Dumbass.
Hmmm. "...receipt, or expectation of receipt", eh?
Sounds good to me... just write an article on the issue of the DMCA and copyright law. Duly register it with the Library of Congress, or whoever it is that you need to go to in order to formally register a copyright.
Then mail a copy to each and every member of congress, and each and every high-level executive of the RIAA and MPAA.
Finally, haul them all into court for violating the DMCA, as they are in receipt of your copyrighted work.
If there's a problem here because it's your copyrighted work (i.e., you have permission to distribute copies of it), then perhaps you could make use of some other copyrighted work. It should be a short bit of work to find something that has a registered copyright, but where the actual owner of the copyright can't be located.
If that won't work (say, becuase only the copyright holder can press charges under the DMCA), then perhaps you could use a copyrighted work that was created by someone morally opposed to the DMCA - RMS, for example. Let him know that you're violating his copyright, and point out that under the DMCA, not only you but everyone you sent a copy to can be taken to court and fined up to $150,000 each.
Someone smarter than I will point out exactly why this wouldn't work, I'm sure. But I like the idea of turning the legal system back upon itself, like the worm Ouroboros...
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Yeah yeah yeah, technology makes it so easy to break the law so the law must be wrong. It's a tired old argument.
The fact of the matter is that the copyright holder has a monopoly on the distribution of the media. If the government provided a monopoly to your pizza parlor, you bet your ass that you could sue that kid out in the parking lot giving away pizzas for free.
The laws don't change because you suddenly find your illegal actions so much easier to perform.
Disclaimer: 1)I am not trolling, I think this is fully valid. Think before you judge please. 2) I AM fully aware that laws are abused by large companies, small companies, other individuals. 3) I hate the RIAA/MPAA, their gouging, their tactics, and their apparent lack of common decency as much as anyone 4) I Am Not A Lawyer
I don't know that this kind of a lawsuit is all that great a thing. For one thing, as stated in the subject, this law is largely a holdover from anti-gangster legislation. It's intent is not what it is being used for in this case. This is one of those cases when the letter of the law is being twisted and misinterpreted from the spirit of the law. Personally I find it equally morally apprehensive that the law is being twisted against a large company as I would that a large company would abuse the legal system to get their way. People do not cheer, nor get rated +5 for such simplistic statements as "Go her!" when DMCA is abused do they? Thats sort of getting away from my real point here. The RIAA is using these lawsuits to scare people, not to make money and not to collect million dollar fines. They settle for a few thousand dollars because they can't just let people go. It would be totally ineffective then wouldn't it? They could sue for millions and probably win. Destroying peoples lives. They probably aren't, largely for publicity purposes, but probably also they understand that's not what THOSE laws are for EITHER. So what would you have them do? Should they go ahead and go for the millions the law apparently could entitle them to? Because that is one of only two options I can think of. The other being not starting suits to begin with. (I don't think that would be the outcome however)
Face facts people.. This is not a moral or social right.. This is not a championing lawyer fighting for truth justice and so on.. This person would probably kill to work for the RIAA right now.. This person stands to make quite a bit of cash and in all truth probably approached the woman plaintiff.. This is just another example of why our legal system is screwed up and just because it has potential to cause MINOR inconvenience to an organization we really don't like is no real reason to think it's a good thing.. Since the RIAA probably wont stop the suits until they WANT to the only probable outcome is stiffer penalties for those who get sued later, a few measly bucks for each person in the class action, and ONE MORE FILTHY STINKING RICH LAWER. Not something to cheer about I think.
but here goes
You go girl!
(B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)
And the airwaves are public property, any song that has ever been played on the radio has been transmited on a publicly owned media by a a person licenced to transmit that song by both the government (representing you) and the RIAA (representing the copyright holder). That song is now thanks to time and space shifting able to be recorded (albiet not retransmitted) The exact leagality I don't know, but I do find it funny that the RIAA takes advantage of a public trust/commons so they can advertise their product and in the end to make a profit. Since they are licencing Mine and your air waves, I personally feel they should be paying more then they currently are.
Did anyone else notice that Righteous Babe is an RIAA member - if Ani gave up, we should abandon all hope. Your dollars are your voice - don't pay more than $10 a disk.
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
Listening to the above mp3 is great to (1) listen to what a real appellate argument sounds like, and (2) hear real lawyers debate stuff that's important to many /. readers, including file sharing and the meaning of the Sony Betamax decision.
Related links are here and here.
The RIAA has been threatening prosecution under a law (the DMCA), that gives them a 30,00 dollar penalty at base, or 5 times that (150,000 per incident) if they can prove willfullness. They are being taken to court under RICO, a law aimed at organized crime, yet that law only allows 3x damages, and requires proving criminal intent, which seems to be a lot higher standard than willfulness. It's a good thing for the RIAA that the "cruel and unusual" clause doesn't automaticly apply to civil suits, or that very fact would shoot down the DMCA.
Why do they have a special law that lets them come down harder on file sharers than victims of the mob can fight back against mobsters? Do we really need a law that is tougher on copyright violators than the law is allowed to get on Drug Kingpins, Murder for Hire rings, or general Racketeers?
Who is John Cabal?
Unfortunately, the RIAA is running Windows.
He said, it is something new and not yet defined, but it is not 'piracy'
It's hardly new. It's massive, anonymous, wholesale copyright infringement.
The only real question is if it is Fair Use or not--AKA "Justifiable Infringement."
The law itself is not valid. The US has a principle of supercedence of law. The higher a levels of law override the lower ones. So A city can't make something legal that is illegal on a federal level, for example. Works the other way too, the right to freedom of speech can't be nulled in a given state, it's at a higher level. Specifically, it's at the HIGHEST level. The constitution overrides all other levels of law. Hence why the supreme court is so concerned with the constutionality of a given law or legal action. Their job is to intrepret teh supreme law of the land, that being the constituion.
Well, one of the ammendments states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The key here being the cruel and unusal punishments. The intent and interpretation of this law is that the punishment must fit the crime. You cannot execut someone for anything less than a murder (and a premeditated one at that) because it wouldn't fit the crime.
Well, as you noted, the statutory punishment for copyright infringment is TOTALLY out of line with the crime. If 20 people download a song worth $1 the makimum you can posibly claim it cost you is $20. Theoretically, if those 20 people intended to spend the money on your song, but elected not to because they got it for free, you would have not gotten $20 in sales. Of course, this is all theoretical. Some of those that downloaded may decide to but the song anyhow, and some may not have been willing to pay regardless of if they could not get it for free.
Regardless, it is quite clear that the statutority damages are totally out of line with the crime. Thus the law is invalid, it is a cruel and unusal punishment and in violation of the constituion.
I see this BS copyright "damages" the same as if they decided to charge people $10,000 for each mile per hour over the speed limit they went for tickets. The crime is just as (if not more) harmeless and thus should be in the same class of punsihment (small fine, not billions of dollars).
Your argument is garbage. If someone gives me a mixed CD of music that they own, I am "...acquiring and enjoying the value inherent in a song...without permission or due compensation." to the artist. So, who is the thief? The gift giver or the gift receiver? Or are we both in violation of federal statutes and liable for felony class penalties, millions of dollars of fines (150k per song) and 3 years in jail?
The "party with unwarranted and unfair advantages over the other" in this case is the music industry and their puppet government, not Joe Blow downloading the latest piece of crap from Kid Rock.
Goddamn, where do people like you get off?!
Ok kids, let's hear all your best Soviet Russia jokes...
*sigh* It's not "theft". Theft involves someone taking something from you.
Consider these two scenarios:
1) Person A hears music produces by Person B, decides they don't want to buy it because they have a copy downloaded from the 'Net.
2) Person A never hears the music, and thus doesn't buy the song.
In both cases, the outcome is the same for Person B; they don't get paid by Person A for the music. But scenario 2 is definitely not theft.
The first scenario is a violation of the Person's B rights, and they are not getting due compensation, but nothing has been stolen because Person B is no worse off than if nothing had happened at all.
Just because it's a crime doesn't make it theft; different crimes have different names. For example, maintaining an monopoly and engaging in fixing of prices massively above production costs for popular albums in order to subsidise unpopular ones (and the lifestyles of the record company executives) is price gouging, not theft.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
The prinicple is called "jury nullification." Judges are so scared of the idea of juries deciding for themselves what the law should be that lawyers are forbidden to mention the possibility in their arguments to the jury.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
i need this site to be up 24/7/365. I absolutely demand it. Slashdot is my life. Without a place to post zealous linux comments, my life is meaningless. I might have to go outside or something, and then everyone would see my tiny penis, as I refuse to wear pants because pants are Microsofts way of keeping us Linux users down.
Life is offtopic.
"It is the first I've heard of anyone attempting that," said EFF legal director Cindy Cohn. "I guess that is a silver lining of the fact that the RIAA is suing so many people, that there are a lot of lawyers trying to figure out ways to protect folks."
Translation: This is a lot of of lawyers trying to figure out how to get money from the RIAA.
Prior to the invention of the printing press, the player piano, the phonograph, and the radio, the only way to experience music was live.
The above inventions allow the consumer to enjoy music independent of time and space. A performance can be fixed on media and distributed across borders and time zones. Additionally, the recording process can allow an artist to create a work that would not be possible to perform in a live venue (e.g., Les Paul and Mary Ford, Prince, the Beatles, Eno, Skinny Puppy, etc.). The recording studio (an instrument in its own right) allows artists to create works independent of the constraints of live performance. It allows artists to distrubute their work without having to ride a tour bus across five continents.
That's progress. Your insistence on the primacy of live performance would roll this back to the 1800s.
I presume that this includes software, too? Isn't software a pure product of the "information industry" (information designed to manipulate information)? How would the elimination of compensation for software affect programmers?
Now you're just trolling, pal. Visit a recording studio some time. Then tell me that recording isn't labor.
Yes, the recording industry needs to find a new business model for the Digital Age (um...iTunes?). No, playing hockey arenas in the 70 top media markets in the US is not the solution.
Band X spends six weeks in a studio recording a record that goes platinum (1 million sales). To reach a million people live would take four months of playing 10,000 seat venues.
If you were in Band X, which would you rather do?
k.
Theft is as much a misnomer as piracy is. This is neither swashbuckling on the high seas, or stealing. The correct term is copyright infringement. Theft (and being a pirate on the high seas, as far as I know) is a criminal offense punishible by jailtime. Copyright infringement is a civil offense. It is NOT theft.
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/search.asp?searchtyp e=ManufacturerSearch&keyword=Righteous+Babe
When everything is all said and done, the courts are going to rule that it is NOT illegal to share music over the internet. The laws in the US are set up in such a way that it is illegal to commit the first crime, the downloading, but once you put that data over the PUBLIC airwaves, it has become public data.
Disclaimer: IANAL...at least not for a couple more years, though my specialty will be copyright and patent. Also, this is not legal advice.
they should also be sued under antiterrorism statutes for invading and denying privacy, denying americans their legal rights under federal and international statutes permitting fair-use movement of licensed material to more convenient formats for personal use, and all-around weaselness.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
We need our three strikes laws, so that harsh crimes like... stealing videotapes... send a message to.... aw fuck it.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
You clearly have no concept how much money it takes to bring a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. It's like having your wallet Slashdotted for years!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"It's theft."
..."
Not it's not.
"It's acquiring and enjoying the value inherent in the song that you listen to
Oh, I see, it's theft because I'm stealing the value inherent in the song. Give me a break. Well, isn't it really murder because I'm surely killing RIAA profits. Are you sure you're not a lawyer (or spin doctor)?
It's not about the stealing the value of the song, it's about the copy. I don't so much listen to "the song" as much as I listen to a copy of it. Sometimes an imperfect, unauthorised copy. That's the issue and it's called copyright infringment, not theft.
"there needs to be some means of protection in place, and very clear recognition (from a legal standpoint) that it is wrong, and that there are remedies (including consequences)."
The "means of protection" (particularly for the wealthy) is already in place. It's called the legal system. The "very clear recognition (from a legal standpoint) that it is wrong" is called copyright law and all laws have consequences for breaking them.
I guess what you're really lobbying for is more draconian laws, more of them, and harsher penalties. No thanks bub. The problem here is that most people percieve many existing laws, such as copyright law, to be already too biased towards the wealthy and not exactly fair for the majority. People want to share.
I wouldn't have thought you'd get much support here but I guess if you sound like you know what you're talking about, and you're careful about how you say it, you're bound to get modded up sometimes.
Didn't it used to be that musicians would literally beg for money on the street-corners or wander around the countryside in troupes playing their music for all to hear and if someone wanted to give them money they were damn thankful?
It should go back to that.
No, it IS NOT THEFT. It is what it is and it is NOT THEFT. It is copy right infringement. It is not the same thing as stealing and cannot be given the same penalty.
There is a reason it has its own phrase to describe it. The legal system does not invent phrases to be more descriptive of a particular crime. It tries to be as straight forward as possible.
But if you looked carefully, I bet you would find XPProKeyChanger.exe on one of their drives. ;-)
Oh, please!! This woman should get a jail sentence! She admittedly has broken the law, and should pay whatever the judge says she should and STFU. What, you don't like that? Well, tough shit. Your worthless asses are at fault, for every time you've not voted, not protested in the streets, not written your congresscritters, not gone into the streets and burned down the *IAA's HQ building, or lynched their asses, if that's what it takes. When you act like sheep, why the hell are you surprised when you get treated like cattle? You won't win in court, the deck has already, by *design*, been stacked against you.
Freedom is *NOT* "free", it requires blood from time to time to keep those freedoms, despite all the sunshine that's been blown up all our asses about how "civilised" people let the courts handle and determine what freedoms we are "entitled" to..we are "entitled" to precisely as much freedom and justice as we, *personally*, are prepared to kill and die for..no more, no less. I'd be willing to bet that if the *IAA execs and their lawyers started showing up floating face-down in the river, this shit would come to an abrupt halt.
Dumb RIAA. If you call file sharing piracy, then what about the recent MyDoom virus spreading through kazaa? was that piracy too? ;)
asides from the whole damn zeolots rant (whether it be proprietary developers or FSS nuts), one thing that the "freedom" approach misses is that though the open source/FSS apprach misses when it comes to music is what is for the better good - yeah, open source rocks for software development, and yes, the RIAA is completly out of line & the current price of CD's is no where near justified, but people like music and if the only times bands got paid was at concerts there would be substantially less music for the masses. It is unfortunate that there are so many other parties to be paid before the musicians, but very few artists are capable of producing every thing else required to distribute quality, mastered music to the public in on a media that grandmas can use. Maybe, just maybe, the they will learn to stop gauging people for cd's from all this - that would be cool. Of course, theres also a chance people would realize open source works because it is a better development model - not because it is a sin to develope closed source apps.
The RIAA accuses users of copywrite infringement, is it possible for ALL P2P users to pre-emptively sue the RIAA under some privacy law under the accusation that they are monitoring me without my consent? Would it then be up to the RIAA to prove that they are not monitoring my downloads? If that is the case, I like to see how they would go about proving this for all the P2P users out there. :)
I hate to mention SCO since many /. readers are tired of hearing about it, but...
To quote a web source, a "racket is an act based on the blackmail, the intimidation and the fear, to get the money or the goods of others".
Sounds like SCO to me. Maybe someone will countersue SCO for racketeering?
Just a thought. I'm no expert on these sorts of things, but it seems (on the surface) to be applicable.
Can't people who have wireless networks claim that they were 'victims' of war drivers running p2p?
Jeeeeez.... Is this one liner getting old "It's theft" and whatnot. Can't we just whip up a bot that instantly replies with "No it's not" and is automatically modded up to +5 insightful, and cut the Karma whoring (No offense to kwandar)?
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
There is a reason it has its own phrase to describe it. The legal system does not invent phrases to be more descriptive of a particular crime. It tries to be as straight forward as possible.
First degree murder
Second degree murder
Manslaughter
Involuntary Manslaughter
Vehicular Manslaughter
Involuntary Vehicular Manslaughter
And, my personal favorite:
Intoxicated Manslaughter
I always thought dead was dead, you know? In any case, copyright infringement isn't theft, which I agree with, but our legal system isn't as clear with language as you say it is. They do invent phrases to be more descriptive of a particular crime, usually because it means something specific, such as Capital Murder. You get a harsher sentence if you kill for money than you do if you kill for fun.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Well, you could win the lottery, too, but that still doesn't make it a good bet.
Would it be possible for ALL internet users to file suit against the RIAA, since everyone in that group may have already been sued by the RIAA?
A Class Action lawsuit with more than a hundred million plaintiffs woudl probably get the attention of quite a few lawfirms.....
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
Just a thought...
(Now the question: offtopic, troll or flamebait. These things are so unpredictable)
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
Britney Spears may be a millionaire, but thats not from music alone.
And whatever she has, I'm sure the recording company has much much much more $$$$$.
I go to a customers site as a computer consultant. As I am fixing whatever is wrong, the IT people are there taking notes of everything that I do. Now, I am no longer called when that problem arises. Have they "stolen" something from me or made my services any less valuable? Short answer, no.
This often happens to me. I am called to troubleshoot specific issues. I do the work, and IT people follow me and take note of every change. If the problem recurs, they know how to fix it without calling me.
This is offset because the training is included in my price. (I cost about 3 times the going rate for a normal consultant in my field.) I know before I arrive that they are going to do this. Sometimes the contract even specifies that there will be "knowledge transfer". This usually means there will be a period of Q&A so the IT people can ask about issues unrelated to the problem I was hired to fix. Sometimes it means I have to give a lecture. Either way, I am paid for my time.
The fun part is that the fulltime IT people may gain "knowledge", but they do not gain my experience. They now know how to fix specific issues. When something goes wrong, they try to do what I did last time, even if it is not appropriate to the current solution. They have the recipe for cooking a cake, but are applying it to cooking a steak. The results may be edible, but usually not what was expected.
The good part is that these attempts make me look good. When their attempts cause enough damage, I will be called again to fix the new problem. I often make more money because I have to fix the problems they caused by attempting an inappropriate solution.
---
This also applies for development. Last week, I was sent some code that a client wanted to put into production. The code itself was awful. Several variables were defined without being used. Another variable was used to recreate one of the parameters. The function would corrupt data. The code would not run under many circumstances because it did not respect the security system (which could not be bypassed.)
- I have dealt with this functionality before and have a standard algorithm that solves it and avoids the security issues. It would have cost less if they had paid me to implement it than it cost for me to review this code.
(This client usually calls me before attempting something in-house so I tell them about any dangers, and if I feel the in-house developers can handle it. This particular case had political issues that meant we had to let their developer try before I was given the assignment.)
---
The point is that many companies see consultants as costly specialists to be avoided if possible. Make certain your price is high enough to include the costs the "knowledge transfer". There are several companies that use me for 2 weeks each year specifically so their fulltimers can benefit from my experience; the fulltimers greet me with lists of difficult issues. I benefit from the "consistent" work; the companies benefit from the incredible productivity during and after each of my visits.
=== Back to the main topic
If I write a song, I expect to be compensated when that song generates any profit. If I record my performance of a song, I expect to be compensated when use of that recording generates a profit. It is a profit-generating performance for which I expect compensation if:
- you expect money for the performance.
(Cover bands, DJs, street players with a hat in front of them.)
- you play it for people who have paid to be there.
(Any place with a charge at the door: dance clubs, sporting events)
- people are expected to spend money there.
(clubs without cover charges, any store.)
- people are expected to spend money on other things, but my song added to the experience.
(Radio or websites with advertisements.)
If you are playing my song for friends (who did not pay for the priviledge), or are distributing it through file-sharing (with a program that does not ha
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
So I fail to see the problem. It sounds to me like you want a free lunch.
I don't think thats what he means, and let me explain here. As with all facets of society there is going to be a group of people who want your so called "free lunch", no matter whos back they step on to get it. There's no doubt there. HOWEVER! I think the tables have turned here on the RIAA, because it was them years back that was enjoying the "free lunch" by putting out records full of stuff people DIDN'T WANT - but due to brilliant marketing - people ended up buying it. Now come on, don't tell me you didn't get the Chipmunks Christmas Album - I think everyone did.
Point of the matter here is people are now used to getting choices - from websites that tell you personalized information about what you'd like, and choices in where to eat. Businesses have adapted to the changing marketplace - some have gone out of business and a result and some have profited handsomely. Bottom line really comes down to - People are sick and tired of buying crap they don't want, and they want ONLY what they want --- no "bonus" this or "plus" that --- and they want to test drive it before they buy it. Now with the online music services starting up, it is a step in the right direction but a little too late -- mostly due to the RIAA holding dear to their old business models -- the public got involved in this peer to peer thing and its going to be kicking the RIAA in the ass forevermore...
Knowledge is power...
I can't belive it has come to this... Peoples greed amazes me. If you have a problem with the current record companies and their policy, why not start your own up. Do it by the policies you prefess to be reasonable now. Set them a good example rather than bitching and moaning.
And if you fail then we will know for certain that you were wrong, otherwise you could change this market forever.
Surely we have all had enough of this anarchy, them vs us crap by now.
VENI, VIDI, VICI, DIXI
If I ever get sued, just give me a jury with some college students on it. That's all I ask. And maybe a few baby-boomers who have bouht the same albums over and over again in vinyl, cassette and CD.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
but that is just fucking beautiful. Gave me a great laugh, and honestly I can see how one could interpret the law that way, they are simply a legal mafia.
Three words: 'Bout damn time!
I never thought of the RICO laws, but I'm sure glad their getting their own.
"It is the first I've heard of anyone attempting that," said EFF legal director Cindy Cohn. "I guess that is a silver lining of the fact that the RIAA is suing so many people, that there are a lot of lawyers trying to figure out ways to protect folks." ... the above quote is from the article--right at the end. Unfortunately this racketeering counter-suit doesn't work when the people being sued are doing the illegal/infringing activities.
How do I know? DirecTV has been doing the same thing for far, far longer, someone counter-sued them for racketeering, and the suit was dismissed. If I'm not mistaken, it was even discussed here on Slashdot.
Anyway, the alleged activities these people are engaged in are illegal in the U.S. (but not in Canada!) so if it's proven they did them, then it's proven.
Think of the consequences of a racketeering conviction! A company would no longer be able to sue large masses of people who were infringing their intellectual property! Ack, the chaos that would ensue there!
I already posted in this thread with some ideas relevant here.
I do not want to "give away my copyrights." I want to profit when someone uses my work for profit. If the Eagles record a performance of my song, then they pay me as the songwriter. Why would I want to stop them from using my work? I will probably sell more copies of my own performance because people are interested in hearing the "original".
- If someone uses a sample of my performance, then I get money for my performance. Due to our weird laws, if they did not negotiate with me before using it, then they may owe me more than they made from using the sample. Usually it would be in my interest to encourage them to use my music since then I make some money. Forcing the album to be pulled, or charging so much that they will stop selling it does not generate income for me.
Music equipment is expensive. (My new Schecter guitar was $700, but I also want an all-rosewood PRS guitar that costs ~$2400.) The ability to make music that people want to hear is rare. Both deserve to be compensated when music is played for profit. But music file-sharing is free advertising, and does not directly generate profits. Claiming "lost" sales for an action where no money is involved seems ridiculous. The hardest part of the music industry is getting people to know your music exists. More advertising = more money. Period. Discouraging people from hearing your music is self-destructive.
---
there goes my chance to mod any posts in this thread
I just received my 4th set of mod points since Friday, and have completely forgotten which threads I have modded. I wish Slashdot had a mark letting me know I modded a thread so I wouldn't post later. And no, I have not been able to use all the points before I get another set.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
We need a judge to stand up and say that the term cyber-terrorist hereafter only applies to robots with bombs.
..or, in other words, to the governor of California.
Aw, come on
Free as in mason.
Ohhh, a fiesty New Jersey woman!
:)
I can only imagine her as a black, 'working class' individual. With a last name such as Scimeca, it seems likely to me.
All I can say is: the RIAA is in trouble. With the bent that the US has in favor nowadays for the rights and freedoms of non-whites and women, it looks like they're in for a time of it.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Why do you think so many people spend hours and hours each day on the internet nowadays? The internet is not as corrupted as "the real world" is yet, corrupted by government, laws, media, people who shouldn't have the power to screw things up so badly.
Stealing is wrong, sure. If you steal music you deserve to be reprimanded for it just like if you stole a pack of cigarettes out of a convenience store, but not like this. The way it's happening right now.. is ludicrous. The RIAA is acting like a bunch of terrorists going around shooting offenders in the head, before asking questions.
All your base are belong to Google.
IANAL, but since you are using legal terminology (e.g. "copyright"), "theft" must be the unauthorized misappropriation of another's property with a view to permanently deprive them of it.
Is that why lawyers say, "She shoplifted so much
she made a killing. Her actions terrorized local
merchants."
So there you have it: Wynonna Ryder is a killer and
a terrorist just by the rewording of the prosecution.
I suggest a new logical language for the courts like LISP ;)
It is not a form of theft. Theft has been universally illegal for thousands of years. Copyright infringement wasn't illegal a few hundred years ago. And even now, it isn't in all countries.
DON'T HATE ME....i need some Spam bob@techbase.ch bob@techbase.ch
Huh? 'Ethical lawyer' that's a bit of an oxymoron isn't it?
That's not entirely correct. You have something you didn't pay for. The logic here, as is the logic behind all capitalistic intentions, is "I made it, you pay for it or you don't get to enjoy it."
The problem here is the gray area caused by the non-physical nature of digital file sharing. If I could find a way to make a perfect replica of a Sony television without ever removing the original from the store, I'd still be sued because they designed the technology. Well, an artist composed the lyrics and music to the songs so many of us have on our hard drives.
The RIAA discussing this issue as theft, piracy, et al. is causing problems in that it's got even us confused. We can't justify ourselves except to point at the dictionary and say "We didn't do that!"
We are, however, illigitimately enjoying the non-free works of artists (and Britney Spears). So what, rock superstars don't get their third Porsche while we drive beaters that are in the shop more than out. Boo-hoo, right?
It was put better in the movie "Rock Star" than I could put it, so I'll try to approximate;
[You] aren't selling music, you're selling an image. Young girls want to have sex with you and young boys want to be you.
In reality, a lot of the drive that makes popular music is the rock star image and life style. Overdoses are still news. DUI, drunk and disorderly conduct, loud parties, fast cars and hot women (or vice-versa) are all part of the image we buy into and part of the phenom that allows the newest BigBand tune to play on the radio for weeks on end. Scamming agents are also a well-known part of the music industry. Going back to the first days of marketted music we can find examples of agents who screw artists out of as much money as (in)humanly possible. The RIAA is just the modern, mega-conglomerate version of the slick, greasy back-room dwelling agent.
So by not giving money to these celiebrities and citing freedom you're attempting to change the face of not only the basis of our economy (capitalism), but the basis of the music industry as we know it.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
I frequently read that spammers are guilty of theft; they steal my bandwidth, my cpu cycles, my hd. But, when it comes to music sharing, I hear the record label isn't out anything 'cause I wasn't going to buy it anyway, so it's not theft. Well, heck, you weren't using that bandwidth etc at the time, so... Oh, whatever, it's late, I'm going to bed.
p.s. I hate all spam AND file sharing of, shall we say, questionable ethics BUT that's just because I'm a grumpy old man
Think of your basic Supply & Demand curve. It just doesn't work that way. If you want to sell more, you charge less.
(________________i__________________)
(big but[t])
That was just the 'Why you already knew for sure they were full of it, empirically.'
Adding the a skosh more complexity, the model gets a lot closer to what intuition says it is:
I recently came across a few papers, etc., dealing with what is being called 'Willingness to Pay.' What has been found is very much in line with what we all know: most people 'stealing' music/software don't get enough utility from the 'product' to buy it.
Gee, you mean that maybe the fundamental paradigm of market economics is whats happening? It doesn't require a whole new paradigm based on everyone wanting to rob poor rich oligopolists?
But wait! There's More!
The 'age old' examples are things like the Bandwagon and Snob effects. [You want more the more other people have something, or the reverse]. But think about what you already know.
If people who wouldn't have paid for your product have it and use it, well you didn't loose any potential revenue [no matter what you think honey].
Oohh Oooohh! What do you call it when more people know about your work? Oh yeah marketing .
The stuff I've read was dealing specifically with software, so I'll limit the scope to just that. When the unwilling end up willing [need app at work, change in income, etc.] the effectiveness of this form of marketing can be profound.
Oh, and what about the community effect? What about the 'buzz' effect?
Nah they don't exist, RedHat was really worth that much...
Turns out that the addition of unwilling 'pirates' in fact boosts the damned demand curve. The only people who are in danger, are those who have crap product.
[Unless there is something I've not thought of that experiences a strong Snob effect...]
So am I saying it's not 'stealing.'? Well, IANAL, and I'm not even going there.
Ok, I lied.
It is in fact possible[probable] that there is a negligible or negative loss in such activities.
Intelligent firms would actually manage and caughnotcaughoverlycaughdiscouragecaugh such behavior
But no, I don't know if I but that for the recording industry. Two reasons:
- They have behaved so stupidly that the potential positive marketing opportunity has been mung'd into a massively negative one
andAnd ya know, $1/song when the marginal cost of production is near 0, is STILL agregious.
Still don't believe me? If you charge $0.10/song, how many people wouldn't purchase damn-near-every-song-they-even-might-know-someone who-likes; but would instead deal with free P2P shares to download them 'illegally'?
Gee make alcohol illegal, nobody will drink...
PS There is a utility crew right across the street doing some highly important something involving a backhoe and jackhammer... So have pity if this entire comment falls into the 'infinite monkeys with typewriters' category...
PPS And FWIW I'm in GMT-5land...
PPPS In Soviet Russia.... ahh screw it
Technically, no.
Rapists rape. Murderers murder.
Pirates unlawfully take control of a vessel on the high seas from its rightful captain.
People who pirate may do the first two as well, but that makes them rapists and murderers as well as pirates.
It is NOT theft.
True, but I must warn you that you'll never convince the cockbites who insist on conflating the two. I know of one usenet newsgroup where one intransigent bastard pissed away two months of postings insisting the two were identical.
In addition to this, piracy is not just a historical footnote. There are some places in the world where piracy is a real, everyday threat. Swashbuckling antics is generally eschewed in favour of violant attacks on merchant shipping, often involving murder, torture and rape.
While a US citizen may think of Johnny Depp as a typical pirate, for many places in the world the word 'pirate' would be considered as seriously as 'terrorist'.
For more information, see the Wikipedia article on Piracy.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
But in the east piracy still happens exactly as it happened in the time of sailing ships. Sure the movies may have shown pirate ships with three decks of cannons taking on the british navy but that is fiction. Most pirates used small fast ships wich could out manouver their prey (don't forget that canons of those days were more or less fixed and you needed to move the entire ship to aim) and then board and overwhelm the largely civilian crew.
This is still the way it goes. Pirate ships have gotten smaller but then most civilian ships these days are totally unarmed anyway and their crews have gotten smaller.
Piracy of a different sorts exists in areas where drug running takes place where pleasure yachts(?) are captured and the owners forced to smuggle drugs or simply killed.
For the facts on piracy today search google with "piracy lloyds" (lloyds is a famous insurance company) you will find countless links talking about the costs, the risks and people offering protection. The lloyds bits helps keeping the filesharing "piracy" links down.
So I agree with the judge who might have said that calling filesharing piracy is wrong. Piracy is a current and far different crime.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Go New Jersey woman! Woof woof woof!
You cant fight in here, its a war room!
I'm sure their method of finding the violators isn't as simple as finding getting the ip of the violator. I'm sure they port scan as well, and more than likely do a little searching to see just how much 'copyright' material that user has on his or her machine to make it worth their while.
Anybody have information on this?
Also, do these so called 'ip' blockers work?
http://www.fija.org/
I want to promote my own music by distributing free mp3 files. However, the RIAA's scare-tactics are making people increasingly afraid to risk dealing with online music in any form.
As time passes, more and more parents will simply disconnect the speakers from the PC and pitch them. Maybe even pull the soundcard, or write a script to purge the machine of all .mp3 files every night.
What the RIAA wants the public to remember is this: the only way to be sure you won't lose your home and everything else in your life is to Be Safe rather than Sorry.
If you want music, do it the safe way: go to WalMart and buy a Britney Spears CD, and on the way, listen to Clearchannel play the same songs over and over and over.
It's just another case of Big Business versus Small Business.
When Clinton lied, no one died.
"Support our Oops."
I know this is a useless comment, but:
BRAVO!!!
It made my morning.
Copyright infringement is not a FORM of theft.
Calling it theft "therefore" is not even vaguely valid.
Since your premise is faulty your house of cards falls down. Repeating your statement in capital letters does not make your point any more valid than talking slowly does.
Copyright infringement is closer to an "infringement of a prohibition" [against copying and distribution] than it is to theft, stealing, larceny, pilfering or light-fingered-ness.
It's closer to the breaking of an exclusivity contract [and one in which you have no right to negotiate].
Using politically motivated, inflamatory language ["theft"; "piracy"] does not make it any worse an act in reality.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
If she does get far enough, the RIAA may just say 'fine, no more out of court settlements, and we sue everyone that we can find'...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
RIAA Soldier "How do we know that they will settle instead of going to court?"
RIAA "We'll give them an offer they can't refuse.."
She will ask the court to subpeona all kazaa users
You said it yourself, "I always thought dead was dead." Just because you don't call it "murder" doesn't mean someone isn't still dead. The same goes for theft. If you infringe on someone's copyright you have stolen something. That something is their right, granted to them under The Constitution, to control how their work is "copied".
I might take a different tack and sue everybody for violating my civil rights if I was the RIAA.
Before I get flamed, I don't agree with the way that the RIAA is handling this and it very well might be extortion. But they do have the right to control the distribution of there copyrighted work.
"A Rose is A Rose is A Rose" -GERTRUDE STEIN
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
"There can be no justice as long as laws are absolute" it's from the episode called Haven i think.
Actually, racketeering is against the law for everyone, not just gangsters. Racketeering laws are usually used against gangsters only because racketeering is usually perpetrated by gangs. But pretty much if anyone's doing it, it's a bad thing.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I think SCO should be the next to face some charge.
Of course you don't. You're a consumer, and presumably you're not the one putting in the effort to produce that material. You have an entirely one-sided perspective. Fortunately, what you think does not define the laws you are required to observe.
As usual, the problem here is that most people are aiming for the wrong target. The behaviour of the **AA groups is pretty despicable, but what's despicable is that they have effectively formed complex monopolies guilty of price fixing, and thus keeping the costs of music unreasonably high for legitimate, law-abiding users.
The correct answer to this situation is not to go out and break other laws en masse, or to try to undermine very useful general legal principles (copyright, for a start) based on one particular situation. The correct answer is not to buy CDs and DVDs at rip-off prices, to write to the manufacturers of copy-protected CDs you can't use in your car and tell them why you won't be buying any more, to write to your representatives with a view to legally enforcing anti-competition laws against the big media groups abusing their dominant position, etc.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
. . . for any of the accused file-sharers, and I doubt it'll happen, either. The RIAA takes a huge gamble when they take that step. If they lose, it sets a precedent, and then all bets are off.
I still want to know how they will combat the "wide-open wireless access point in an apartment complex" defense.
Sure....let's let the pirates sue because they are being offered a way out...riiiight...This is no different than a prosecutor filing second-degree murder charges and then pleaing out the defendant to aggravated manslaughter or whatever....
Personally, if I were the RIAA, and I caught you idiots who are pirating music (and there's no denying that you are if you have copyrighted music that you download without license to do so), I'd get the book thrown at you instead of saying "pay $500 and never do it again"...I'm sure mom and dad would love that a lot more for their idiot kids who think it's all cool.
The record companies ARE charging too much for their products and the artists aren't getting anything from it...but stealing doesn't fix it...Otherwise, it'd be A-OK for me to steal a BMW because I can't afford it.
Duh
It was in last night's episode, in fact.
Every song that you hear on the radio is paid for. The price that a radio station must pay for broadcasting a song depends on the estimated listenership. There is an organization that tracks this and collects royalties on behalf of the *artist* (NOT the record company). This is called a useage fee.
Here in South Africa the organization is SAMRO, but there is a similar organization in every country. Radio stations make the money back (and more) by selling advertising.
Come to think of it, this raises an interesting point for me. The artist royalties collected for useage fees go to the artists (and some to their publishers, if they have a publisher). The record company does see that money, because there's no product being sold. Given this, shouldn't the whole filesharing thing be treated as a valid broadcast medium, and regulated as such?
Why are we treating filesharing as a mechanical rights issue when there is no physical product involved. Mp3 sharing is a broadcast royalty issue. Someone should mention this to someone powerful.
"By Grabthar's Hammer, what a savings."
You can't buy what you can't pay for.
Normally that is a problem because if you can't pay for it, you have to deprive someone else of an object in order to 'have' it.
But with copyrighted works, if you can't afford it, you can still copy it. You are not depriving anyone, because you couldn't have paid them in the first place.
The record companies can't come up with the talent to produce whole albums that are worth the money they charge. (Yet in their view, I am responsible for this by only wanting the one or two songs that are good.) The current crop of musicians couldn't hold a candle to Prince, let alone the Beatles or Elvis.
Whether or not file sharing is really theft of intellectual property is not something that I can comment on conclusively, but the RIAA smells bad.
These lawsuits are simply a way for this industry to keep the bucks flowing for the garbage "product" that they are trying to foist on the consumers, rather than face the fact that talent needs to be there to create a CD that costs $18 and is worth buying at that price. The RIAA would be much better off hiring talent scouts and voice coaches than attorneys.
I've be sort of following this. People aren't thinking. Of course the RIAA is suing pirates, and there is nothing wrong with that.
There seems to be a lot of scapegoating. First it was Napster isn't bad, its the people pirating on napster that are the problem. Now its the boogieman RIAA for defending its members (record companies) from obvious copyright infringement and going after individual pirates on P2P networks instead of the networks.
If the GPL was being violated wouldn't you want the violators to get whats coming to them from the copywrite holders? Hows that different from someone who writes a song and wants to make money at it, but they're not making as much as they could because people are pirating it? (yeah I know people will pirate stuff they wouldn't pay for, but I've seen people stop buying because its available for free)
They give the enforcement to the RIAA so the artist don't look bad. Metalica didn't want to give away there music and everyone started screamming.
If you create something shouldn't it be your right on how its used for a time (copyright). If you want to give it away free go nuts, if you want to sell it to a company that charges for it, thats you right too.
Should the RIAA just turn a blind eye to these people republishing "pirating" works they've paid for?
Whats right is right.
After watching Pepsi attempt to normalize the RIAA's abuse of power, I have no desire to purchase that soft drink.
Theft is removing from someone physical property or actual assets, and is a violation of criminal law.
Copyright infringement is diluting the value of an existing copyright, and depriving someone of *potential* assets. It is, accordingly, a violation of CIVIL law.
They are really two very distinct concepts.
Heisenberg might have been here.
So if I owned the entire universe it would be imposible for anyone to steal from me since however much they took I would still have an infinite amount of stuff remaining?????
That's very perceptive of you Mr Stapleton and rather unexpected in a G Major
Wouldn't this tend to attack the standard tactic of negotiating a less-costly out-of-court settlement? Wouldn't it strike at the roots of plea-bargaining?
Whether you think those would be good or bad side-effects, I think you'll agree that they are far-reaching and worthy of careful study.
It is saying, "why don't they leave our innocent P2P networks and developers alone, and go after the real criminals?" Now they are suing people against whom we may expect they have actual evidence of copyright violation, and again this is wrong? I don't understand.
Why are you using the past tense? Pirates are very active around the world.
Global piracy on the rise but try searching google and all you get is MPAA, BSA, ETCA..
To put it another way, if you work minimum wage at Burger King and you download $200,000 worth of music, have you really deprived the music industry of $200,000? No. That's why I find the numbers they spread around about the cost of "piracy" to be misleading.
You might indeed deprive the music industry of $200,000 if you then make these downloaded files available for many many others to steal. It's not the downloaders that's the problem, but the sharers!
Jeff
stty erase ^H
The problem is, they don't know who they are suing. That is the reason they sued kids and elderly people, some who had no clue why they were being sued.
Now if the RIAA was suing everyone, I would expect that there be some "collateral damage", but they are supposedly carefully crafting their lawsuits, and are still F'ing it up. Usually, you know who you are suing and why. The RIAA doesn't, and in my book, that makes them a bunch of greedy stupid clueless pricks.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
*You* would be the law-breaker, not the recipient. They didn't request the material. Downloaders, however, *do* request the material.
Someone morally opposed to the DMCA, who has agreed to let you distribute their cr's material, would be complicit in your scam. And again, the recipient didn't request it.
"I never could have afforded them anyway"
Ah, the plaintiff rationalization of the thief.
"To put it another way, if you work minimum wage at Burger King and you download $200,000 worth of music, have you really deprived the music industry of $200,000? No."
Yes.
Well, hooray for that judge. When the Navy finds a record-company's ship adrift or scuttled, with its crew murdered and the holds emptied of CDs, the RIAA can call *that* "piracy", but I don't see how anyone could do that through a wire. (Okay, maybe with robots....)
Indeed, I should think that calling someone a pirate in court solely because he violated copyright is not just a cheap emotional appeal, but actionable as slander or even false testimony.
Amateur Radio has forever been defiled.
"Huh? 'Ethical lawyer' that's a bit of an oxymoron isn't it?"
No more so than "equal justice" or "innocent client"
For those that are Canadian and reading this, check out CanFLI (http://www.canfli.org/)...the site is currently having issues but bookmark it and check it out later; it's a site where there are lawyers who are willing to help you if you get sued by the CRIA.
Michael Lauzon, Founder
The Quill Society
http://www.quillsociety.org/
mlauzon@quillsociety.org
Ouroboros isn't a worm. He is a serpent. He is currently holding intertwined with Loki, far under the ground. Earthquakes are caused by Loki writhing as the acid from Ouroboros drips into Loki's open wounds. But don't feel to badly for him. It's a *GOOD* thing that he's held down there. When Loki finally gets loose, that is the start of Ragnarok.
That's not good.
There are no gods but ourselves.
This is exactly what DirecTV *continues* to do by threatening to sue their customers who bought ISO standard smart card readers for other legal uses, but then offering to settle for $3500.
Actually, you're the copyright holder, so you can distribute the work without penalty to you or anyone you distribute it to. You could try to get someone else to distribute it to them illegally, but it'd probably be highly suspect.
Read jack phelps dot net
Republican DOJ take action against a corporate entity? I like your sense of humor.
Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
I am a musician and it seems in this battle our voices have been muted. The RIAA claims to represent copyrighted music. My music is copyrighted but I am not recieving any benefit from them. They seem to believe that the only copyrighted music that exists is owned by record labels and Independent artists seem to be ignored. I have had my music on the net since 1999 and thru downloads, file sharing and audio streaming I have been heard by thousands. Having an internet presence has also increased my commercial value. Initially I was against file sharing until I found out that I was being shared, which now is the newest definition of fame. People dont share things that are bad and they certainly dont risk prosecution for things they percieve as awful. While I would prefer people buying my music it is more important to me as a musician to be heard. I think people should realize that the independent musician is not supported or promoted by a label. When they email a band or musician he will probably read it. The caveat here is that while downloading the music and sharing it is okay the piper still must be paid. If you cant afford to buy a CD but you enjoy the artist buy some merchandise or at least pass the url and word on to some friends. If you dont support Indie artists that share their music then you are empowering the labels and RIAA to control your musical values and how you use the internet. Dennis Jennings Celestial Image http://celestial-image.com
Much of the VALUE of software or music or whatever, to me, is in the ability to copy it. I pay for that value by buying VCRs, computers, digital media, etc. When one makes copies, one is not getting something for nothing. Far from it.
But her case is WEAK. Disclaimer: IAAL; and despite my opinions on this matter (all personal, constituting neither a professional opinion nor legal advice), I despise the RIAA's strategy and the laws on which it is based. She's still going to lose.
Racketeering activity includes only certain conduct that falls within a list of specific *criminal* activity listed in 18 U.S.C. 1961(1). Scan the list - the only even remotely arguable connection is "extortion."
"Extortion" under federal law (and therefore under RICO) means "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right."
To try to fit the act of filing a legitimate (although despicable) lawsuit in the hope that your target will settle is not extortion. The only arguable fit is "under color of official right" which generally means illegitimate use of legitimate power (i.e., crooked police shaking down merchants for protection money; regulators denying licenses unless they get a kickback). It does NOT mean exercising a legitimate right by threatening to sue when one is entitled under the law to do so.
If any one of you ever have the misfortune to need to sue anyone to recover money, a settlement's EXACTLY what you'll hope for. It's sooo much better than dragging out years of litigation and appeals. And it's generally what happens in any serious lawsuit. You file, wait for your defendant to answer, and propose a settlement to save everyone time and effort. An enormous number, perhaps even a majority, of lawsuits in the U.S. are resolved by settlement.
Also, keep in mind that judges are lawyers. It's unlikely in the extreme that any lawyer/judge is going to determine that the RIAA committed extortion by exercising a legitimate right that Congress clearly gave them.
So, sorry to throw cold water on this, but I think her countersuit is a loser from the beginning. Nonetheless, Kudos to her for trying; if the RIAA is going to sue, make them work for it. Also - sorry for posting on the topic of the actual article instead of joining in the visceral and general RIAA-bashing, however justified it is.
Each of those phrases is describing different crimes. First degree murder is not the same as second degree murder or anything else listed there. Each has its own definition as to what it is. You can't charge someone with "murder."
From http://www.lectlaw.com
LARCENY - Illegal taking and carrying away of personal property belonging to another with the purpose of depriving the owner of its possession.
STEAL - the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently.
INFRINGEMENT, CONTRIBUTORY - A person who sells a material component of a patented invention, knowing that the component was especially made or adapted for use in the infringement of the patent and that it is not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, is liable for contributory infringement. 35 U.S.C.
INFRINGEMENT, DIRECT - A patent owner may enforce the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the patent invention in an action for patent infringement. Anyone who, without the owner's consent, makes, uses, or sells in the United States any product, process, apparatus or composition that is legally protected by at least one claim in the owner's patent is liable for direct infringement of the patent.
There is no way that making an exact electronic copy of something (especially for home, non-commerical use) fits the definition of Larceny or Stealing.
Scimeca is one of a growing number of people fighting the record industry's copyright infringement campaign against file-swappers, although few have used such creative legal strategies.
... I must really question her legal strategy. If the RIAA has a case under the law they have a right to pursue it. They also are smart enough to realize the likely hood of receiving full payment for the damages they are alleging is next to nothing. So they offer a settlement. In there eyes it is a "win-win" situation. They only way her case can win is if she can prove that the RIAA doesn't have a legitimate claim or that they are guilty of some sort of fraud. Though I am not a lawyer, I think the chances of her proving that in court is about the same as the RIAA getting 150,000/per song out of her.
I think a little too creative. I do applaud her efforts and root for her to win but
and the lifestyles of the record company executives Not to mention the extravagant lifestyles of the artists .. why does no one mention this, ever watched MTV's Cribs, most recording industry artists arent going hungry thats for sure.
A good sense of humor is essential to deal with the worlds reality.
cyber-terrorist hereafter only applies to robots with bombs
Which would make the US cyber-terrorists. The US military used a Predator robot aircraft to bomb people in Afganistan.
- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
It's impossible to avoid. Copyright law automatically copyrights everything you write. No formal procedure is necessary. So any email requesting a response that you respond to has violated the DMCA, because you are sending them copyrighted materials which they requested. Every form you fill out, too. If you get a subpoena to appear in court for file-swapping, and you respond to that, you've got an automatic counter-suit.
"But they do have the right to control the distribution of there copyrighted work."
But it's not their copyrighted work to begin with! They didn't make the music, they just steal the money from the artists.
Damnit; that deserved better than an 'offtopic' mod. I hope I get a metamod on it.
This is probably because they could never get convictions against Whites for killing blacks in the Old South.
The "solution" to that problem was Federal "Violating Their Civil Rights" charges to avoid both double jeapordy (by trying them for a different offense) and jury nullification (by trying them in a different venue).
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I don't get it, if you hate them so much why do you listen to music that is copyrighted to them again?
You can't handle the truth.
It's like going out and starting your own post office in the US, in violation of the law. Or attempting to run a wire by a few houses to the next county and provide a cheap long-distance relay to there.
Copyrght infringement is just violating a government granted monopoly on copying certain information. That's all it is. It's not theft, it's not piracy, it's competing in a market you're aren't supposed to compete in, copying and distributing Spice Girls music. A certain record label has been granted exclusive rights to do that under copyright law.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
And if you owned the entire universe, you would by defination own the people in it, and thus any property of theirs is yours anyway.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
It strikes me that if someone created an application that generated random MP3 files (i.e. an MP3 structure populated with truly random data), it would be hard to prove that a given traded MP3 originated from a copy of a copyrighted work, rather than being coincidentally "discovered" in the dataspace that such an app would be (randomly) exploring... (it might be highly unlikely that an accidental duplicate would arise, but couldn't be *proved* impossible).
Such is the logic inspired by vague and badly worded law...
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
The constituion mandidates that, when a law is passed, it not have a cruel or unusal punishment, or an excessive fine (of which this is both). Well, what they are using to sue for all the money is STATUTORY damages. That's different than actual damages.
If you break my $100 CD player, and I sue you for $100 plus court costs, that is actual damages. You actually cost me $100 to replace it, plus the cost of suing you to get the money. That is usually what you are seeking in civil cases and is the main point of a civil case. Someone causes you monetary loss, you ask the court to compel them to give you money to make it up.
Well, as I noted there is no way that they can claim actual damages as high as they are. So why are they allowed to ask for so much? Statutory damages. What that means is there is a pert of the legal code that says that in the event someone shares a song, you can sue them for this amount on top of actual damages.
This is actually not uncommon, there are quite a few things that have statutory damages. It is designed to help act as a punishment and deterrant. This is all well and good, but it is quite clear that the statutory damages in the case of copyright infringment are totally out of line. Damages of 2-3x ctual damages are reasonable, damages thousands of times actual damages are clearly an excessive fine and cruel and unusual.
Well, since it's a statutory thing that means, as I said, it's part of the legal code. That means it is subserviant to the constitution. Since it is unconstitutional, it should be declared void.
I have no problem with the RIAA suing people. I have a problem with the fact that they are able to sue people for such an overwhelming amount of money that they have no choice but to settle. I have a problem with the fact that the amount they are suing for is totally out of line with the actual harm the infringement causes.
I would never pay them a cent. I am an out of college grad student with no money and if they want to throw me in jail for not paying up that is fine. But I am a complete stubborn asshole who hates authority.
I can't imagine the RIAA lawyers after I tell them that I want to go through the court case, get fined $150,000, and never pay up. I think if one person stood up to them it could seriously have a huge effect on them. Politicians only stand up for big companies when the media isn't looking.
If I only cost them their lawyer fees for going to court it would be worth it for me. Fuck their deep pockets and unethical business.
I think ... CHARGING for some one elses work IS piracy
Kinda like how a CD can cost $20.00 while the artist (without whom the product would not exist) makes about $1.00 off of it?
The law - at least, the snippet quoted - doesn't apparently differentiate between requested and unrequested material; just receipt. If that's the case, then every person in the USA routinely violates the DMCA. I want to believe that this is a misunderstanding of the law, but there's a cynical part of me that finds it easy to believe that our lawmakers simply just don't care about the actual contents of the laws they pass.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Theft deals with what YOU illegally aquire. If you aquired something illegally you STOLE it. And stealing is theft. It doesn't matter if it's physical property or not. If you illegally aquired it, you are a theif.
The court puts makes a distinction because the PENALTY is determined by what the victim lost. There only needs to be a LEGAL distinction for the sake of handing down punishment which requires calculating cost.
So yes, if you illegally aquire music or whatnot, you are a theif. The court will give you a more legalistic term since the punishment is different than if you stole say a car.
"Using politically motivated, inflamatory language ["theft"; "piracy"] does not make it any worse an act in reality."
That's right, stealing nonphysical property is exactly the same morally as stealing physical property.
Hiding behind legal distinctions that were invented to make handing down punishment clearer makes you no less what you are if you illegally aquire something; a theif.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Didn't address the other point... yes, whoever did this would be breaking the law, and unless they were able to do this completely anonymously, they would have to face the consequences. Since it would amount to an act of civil disobedience, though, I suspect that anyone who would go through with this would want to make the effort to ensure that they were not anonymous, so that their actions would have a greater impact. Breaking the law is not the end goal, but just an event that could be used to demonstrate the flaws in the existing language of the DMCA, with the hope that such a demonstration would lead to a change in the law.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
First you got annoyed when they sued the ISPs and programmers. You said, 'the users are the ones breaking the law, sue them.' So now they're suing the users, and you still thinks that's bad? Who are they supposed to sue? The people being sued now are actually guilty! Even worse, they're not just the 'drug users', they're the dealers - they're providing music for other people to download.
The RIAA is doing what they need to protect their copyright. Complain all you want, but it's already the law.
Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
You don't own a dictionary, do you? Copyright violation has been onew meaning of the word "piracy" for a few hundred years now.
1 - Find out how much the RIAA pay their lawyers, call that amount X
2 - Hire a lawyer yourself
3 - Use the lawyer to sue the RIAA for copyright infringement claiming X*(9/10) damages but offer settlement of X*(5/10)
4 - Put all the legal papers on the internet for download
5 - Let anyone download the papers, fill in their names in appropriate places, and submit them with only the filing fee to pay
6 - Have them all sue the RIAA at once, for a whole bundle of lawsuits, all of which it is more economical to concede on than defend
7 - If it does concede any of them, and if anyone opposes one of the RIAA's later lawsuits, have them invoke the doctrine of unclean hands on the grounds that the RIAA has settled in a whole bunch of copyright infringement cases
8 - Laugh
There was a famous series of jury nullification cases in Canada in the 1960s and 1970s.
The government tried three times to get a conviction against the only doctor in Canada who was openly (and safely) performing abortions at the time.
The third time, they charged him with conspiracy to perform abortions. All three juries refused to convict him. But it was a close call. At one point he sufferred a heart attack while in jail during a trial. Rumour has it that at another point, he was let out of jail temporarily, because the judge's daughter needed his services.
"To put it another way, if you work minimum wage at Burger King and you download $200,000 worth of music, have you really deprived the music industry of $200,000? No."
Yes.
No. They never would have had that money, so they were not deprived. They did not lose $200,000US. They never even had the potential of getting the money from that individual.
Molog
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
You guys are all wrong. The only reason for juries to exist is to give civil servants (i.e. lazy subhuman morons with no education and no motivation to do anything remotely worthwhile with their lives - basically welfare people with 'jobs') and stupid old people something to do.
Not entirely true. Buying goods on the black market would be considered illegally aquiring something - but you didn't steal it. Buying something illegal to sell in the US in a foreign country and smuggling it in is considered aquiring something illegally (ie: cuban cigars) - there is still no theft involved there
The funny mod is the perfect mod for Karma-whoring "Article text" posts!
Wikileaks, no DNS
4) A wealthy defendent who hires an Attorney who can go the distance. This would also be very bad for the RIAA.
Or a wealthy defendent's 12yr old kid.
Care to take the "RIAA" challenge and fund some of these causes?
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
That has nothing to do with copyright law. The artists have, in most cases, signed a contract that either gives up those rights completely or at they very least assigns the right to control the works to a record label. The record label in turn has assigned the defense of those rights to the RIAA.
Whether you agree that the artists should be required to sign these types of contracts is yet another issue.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
"If you infringe on someone's copyright you have stolen something. "
;)
That might be your opinion, but it certainly is not applicable to US Copyright law. If you believe differently, please show me a single reference to 'theft' or 'piracy' in the entirity of US Copyright law.
Hint: Don't waste your time, I've gone over every inch of that area of law, and nowhere is theft mentioned.
Ergo, regardless of your philosophical interpretations of what it is, the law (in the US) calls it 'copyright infringement'. Legally speaking, calling it 'theft' is akin to calling it 'treason' or 'vehicular homocide'. From the standpoint of how the offense is viewed, it's on the same level as tresspassing. The collectible damages are simply absurdly high to discourage commercial copyright infringement.
" the way that the RIAA is handling this and it very well might be extortion. But they do have the right to control the distribution of there copyrighted work."
If this truly does amount to extortion or racketeering, as per court decision, this could call into question the legality of the RIAA's very existence, vis-a-vis RICO. Also, with regards to distribution rights, the RIAA's monopoly in the music industry actually calls into question those rights to restrict distribution, vis-a-vis anti-trust laws.
Thanks Teddy (trust-buster)
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
The television show Cribs does not represent "most recording artists." The fact that you think it does is indicative of how little you understand about the music business. A very few recording artists (a number I would estimate in the low hundreds) are wealthy. The vast majority of recording artists struggle to put food on the table.
My post was specific to music. Music is a medium where more awareness means more sales. That does not apply to any other type of IP.
I break IP into several categories. Each has a different purpose. Each SHOULD have separate laws. The US legal system tries to group most of them together, then have exceptions for a variety of situations. I believe they should be defined separately, and then laws can be made to deal with each. My categories and opinions are:
1. Sound recordings, typically music.
- The creation is done by a very small group of people. The production is handled by a slightly larger, but still small number of people over hours or days.
- Awareness sells. The more you hear a song, the more you will like it. Distribution was the main cost, but technology has effectively lowered it to zero. An individual will play a song many times, and if it is popular enough, it will be used in profit generating settings.
- Laws should encourage distribution where no money is involved, but require payment in all profit generating settings.
2. Visual recordings, typically movies and TV shows.
- Creation may be handled by small teams. Production requires large and expensive teams for months. TV revenues come from paid subscriptions. Movie revenues come from theaters and home purchases/rentals.
- Most video is watched once per person. A few may be watched many times by a small minority. The home market developed because the movie theater was (and still is) an incredibly poor experience. Too many other people in very uncomfortable seats = no comfort, privacy, or control. The home experience solves these issues, but most people do not want to own the movies; they will rent them to watch once. A second viewing usually happens only when a visitor expresses interest.
- On-demand viewing is the preferred method of delivery. People are willing to rent video from a store. Time-shifting technology is incredibly popular for TV.
- Large production costs. Limited viewing because of the time investment by the consumer. The industry should improve and capitalize the market they control if they want to survive. Change the theaters to have comfortable box seats so you do not see your neighbors, and keep the movies in the theater for more than 2 months to avoid the "I'll see it on video" syndrome. Couches with private (but very large) screens that can be paused, and movies that will only be available in the theater for at least one year, will revitalize that industry. There would be more choices, and start times are whenever your entire group is there. The home video market will still be there next year; it does not need to and should not attempt to capitalize on the promotion of the theater release.
3. Text for entertainment, books of fiction.
- Creation and production handled by a very small group.
- Most people read a book once. Electronic distribution can be free, but the current generation of people prefer paper. The next generation may prefer to read on a portable electronic device.
- The small cost of production and willingness of people to give away their work may kill the industry. Popular artists will sell paper-based copies for some time, but expect this industry to be overrun by amateurs. Laws cannot protect anybody if the majority of work is priced zero.
4. Text for information
- Creation and production handled by a very small group.
- Used as on-demand reference. Many people just use free sites on the web. Will encyclopedias and other references just disappear? Is there a method to make any money by providing information as a web service?
- This industry may be doomed. I doubt any laws can save it.
5. Ideas
- This is handled by patents, not copyrights. The current system is broken, because there are no tests before a patent is granted, and the patent office assumes the legal system will decide if the patent should be valid. Since patents are expensive, this gives a very large advantage to large companies that have the money to buy them. The system would be greatly improved if there was a period of public review, such as used for trademarks.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
If you went and cloned someone else's car, that would be analogous. Your physical/nonphysical distinction is a strawman.
Wikileaks, no DNS
When I was a kid, I used to make "unauthorized copies" of lots of programs for my Commodore 64 (I don't do that anymore... I mostly use Free Software or buy the few things I can't get as Open Source).
:-)
Wow. I think it's time to upgrade. There's so much more software available for the 8086 computers these days.
I have to agree.
/zero/ dollar impact to companies for the majority of people who really are the downloaders using p2p who 99% of them have not changed their spending habits.
I own perhaps 10 cd's and dozens of old cassette tapes. I earn about 1/2 the money I did in the mid 90's (stupid economy!) and I really have to make the choice between music, software or food.
Reality is, I'm not in the market to purchase the music I might download on a p2p program anyway, so it wouldn't matter if I downloaded one song or every song ever recorded the RIAA and the myriad of other music groups etc would never have lost a penny because of it because quite plainly I would not be spending money on media one way or the other.
Downloading a song or an iso of some program makes
Personally (and there are 80 Million+ American's or more who agree with me) I do not recognize the farce called the DMCA as being constitutional. It should be overturned and shown as nothing more than an attempt to corrupt the fair use laws our fore fathers wrote into the laws to protect us from tyrannical corporations and individuals who may take the kinds of actions these idiots are now purportedly now legally allowed to pursue.
P2P has brought networking and information sharing to an entirely different level than imagined possible before. Advents of Bit Torrent has made sharing of huge amounts of data to a vast number of people possible with a modicum of the resources it once required. We're the ones leading the future of information - not the Governing officials.. and they know that... they are out of control and that scares them... THAT is really the issue here.. 'control' over us.
Ok sorry, I'm ranting a bit but my point stands ~ we're not going to duck under the desk and hide because some bureaucrats think they can scare us... but some of us still remember the words 'we the people' and lets be honest here, 'we' want legal and free transfer of information... now all the gov't has to do (if they want to keep being elected) is back the people instead of big business...
lol, ok I'm ranting again.. I'll end my post (here).
the artists who struggle to put food on the table are probably not good anyway otherwise we would have heard about them. All the popular artists we know ( and whose music ppl download the most ) are very well off.
Reality is, I'm not in the market to purchase the music I might download on a p2p program anyway, so it wouldn't matter if I downloaded one song or every song ever recorded the RIAA and the myriad of other music groups etc would never have lost a penny because of it because quite plainly I would not be spending money on media one way or the other.
Why does this matter? The point is that if you don't pay, you have no right whatsoever to enjoy any benefit or value it may provide.
Actually, copyright infringement has recently (in the 90s), been made a criminal act by new legislation in the US and Europe.
But it still isn't theft.
Seems like common sense to me. After all, doesn't threatening to sue end users for violating a copyright that THEY didn't violate (the distro vendor would be the one guilty of this) in order to apparently coerce them into paying a fee (kinda like protection money) for a product that the company doing the threatening might not even OWN (THey may only own a right to distribute) all sound a little bit like ...uhm... dare I say, extortion?!?!?!?
Why does it matter?
The RIAA liars claimed monetary losses that pushed laws to be written without any thought to the dissolution to our Constitutional rights and you need to ask why it matters? Please.
The only reason the p2p transfers were demonized was the purported losses alleged by the recording industry when in reality its their poor marketing strategy, product overpricing and a sharp decline in marketable talent which has placed the music industry in this position.
The point is - your rights have been squandered away with a few strokes of a pen at the beckoned call of the great harlot of music and you don't even see what you've lost. Sad.
The concept of fair use 'was' simple. I buy a cd, I copy my cd, I give you and others a copy at 'no charge' and based on that lack of charge there's no violation of fair use. (Pre DMCA law of course) Now, you expect all of us who understood what the BetaMax case meant to fair use to ignore the freedom that case clarified was already given to us through Constitutional law and allow this mockery of law called the DMCA to be what we follow? Well given time the DMCA will be found to be, as I've mentioned, unconstitutional and overturned - unless there is no justice left in the American legal system anymore.... and I refuse to accept that but perhaps that's really what this means - that the impartiality of our court system to follow law rather than money lining their pockets has left us without a just court system to guide our laws... I guess time will answer that.
My anger isn't at you or people with your clouded sentiment - just that people really don't seem to get it... We've lost more freedom over the last 3 years than anyone seems to notice... Really, read the words.. Read the 'patriot act' in all it's splendor or the DMCA for that matter and compare your rights prior to their inception.
We're a lot less 'Free' as Americans than people of other countries - alas, I'll still continue to fight for you and for others like you.
You're welcome.
What is completely ludicrous, sir, is your conclusion.
By your arguments, if I lend my hammer to my friend to pound some nails, then he should have to pay HomeDepot (or where ever) for the priveledge.
Likewise, if I use my hammer every day, I may get 1000000 uses out of it and it may be valuable to me each and every time.
Alternatively, I could give my hammer one-after-another to each of my 1000000 friends (yeah, I am THAT popular!) and let each of them take a crack at thier respective nails.
Should they each have to pay a cut to HomeDepot?
What about this: Each of the 1000000 friends looks at the hammer I lent them, then constructs another one for themselves, so that they neither have to bug me for it, or buy it outright.
Now should they have to pay a chunk to HomeDepot?
Of course not.
Don't be rediculous.
I am also a software writer as you describe. I also understand the market forces and economic desires you describe.
However, understand that you entire reasoning seems to be built due to your desire to profit each and every "transfer" of the program you write. This is natural to desire, as it will lead to great profit compared to the alternative.
Just like, HomeDepot forcing each of my 1000000 friends to pay a cut to use my hammer which I purchased would really profit HomeDepot.
However, "potentially profitable" != "fair, accepted, and (what is generally considered) moral"
So, you get your hair cut. You walk outside the barber shop, and I see your haircut.
Suppose that I want the same haircut, and "copy" it by taking your picture, walking into a completing barbershop, show your picture, and say, "do that to my hair". Should I have to pay your original haircutter because I copied her work?
Of course not!
However, this IS the result of what you are arguing.
To put it quite plainly, and IMHO, there is NO MORAL ISSUE here!
People can PROFIT MORE by reducing the scope of "customer activities" after the sale of object X. This does not require that X be "information" or "digital" to be true. I refer you to the accepted "rights of first sale" for this, and the legal history of why this is not accepted practice.
Moving into the "digital" or "information" realm doesn't change this situation at all. People can STILL profit more by limiting purchaser's options after purchasing. This does not make
The pig browse. With Google. Sigh is to the chicken. Chicken is fool. Giggle. The DailyWTF giggle.
I am not even a paralegal so don't take my advice for it but. I would settle after such threats to me, just to show my good will of co-operation with the law. And then go to file a lawsuit of my own for this purpose. I can use then as an example how they bullied people into settling under the organized crime laws. The way I see it any settlement would only add value to my case.
After all that is all there is to it: a small group of people is racketeering money out of small bands and innocent citizens for the benefit of a few rich people. The occasional artist knows that the money won't be made from albums because the RIAA takes all that money (to cover huge distribution costs, yeah right), most bands get to do shows to make money.
I think this sort of counter action is very appropriate in light of the, sue then settle for much less tactics the RIAA is using.
A barber who cuts your hair is performing a service and it needs to be paid for. That's correct and it looks to me that he never disagreed to that. But then again you are paying for his performance. No contradiction.
When you code something, you are performing and normally you will be paid for it. Really, it's not even logical to gain over your performance over and over again because after you code, your code is actually been performed by machines.
I am a professional coder myself but I won't try to neglect his arguments repeating something just because that makes me more comfortable. He has a point and you didn't even argue against him, you didn't touched his point. You just said 'no, it's not'.
Please read it again.
Patola (Claudio Sampaio)
Unix System Administrator
First, I'm not a Lawyer, and anyone actually considering going to court needs to become familiar with the laws of their own applicable jurisdictions, and obtain the help of a qualified professional in whatever fields of law apply. With that said, you obviously aren't one either.
The term "Piracy" doesn't appear that way in just any standard dictionary. Get a legal reference, such as the judge uses, and see if it appears that way there. The written law is the only standard that applies in court, and there, all those "standard references" do NOT create a standard. piracy is specifically a legal term, and so in a courtroom, that's the way it is expected to be used, and the judge has every right to expect professionals to stick to that use.
Friend is a word that appears in most dictionaries. It has a legal definition as well, If you doubt the two are different, you can go to a courtroom, and claim to be there as a "Friend of the court", and insist that you be allowed to use the word Friend in the normal manner in defining that. Please note I don't recomend you actually try this, in fact I strongly recomend you don't. Amicus Curae is not the same thing as, "I feel like laws are a good thing".
Who is John Cabal?
All the hairs on the back of my neck stood up as I wrote that, but I did specify "claims".
Who is John Cabal?
The RIAA liars claimed monetary losses that pushed laws to be written without any thought to the dissolution to our Constitutional rights and you need to ask why it matters? Please.
Whether the RIAA's claims of losses were legitimate or not is irrelevant. The fact is that you have no right to enjoy the benefit of their property unless you agree to their terms. Don't like the terms? Don't listen to the music.
The concept of fair use 'was' simple. I buy a cd, I copy my cd, I give you and others a copy at 'no charge' and based on that lack of charge there's no violation of fair use.
Give others a copy? I think you need to re-acquaint yourself with notion of fair use. There's nothing fair about giving away someone else's property.
Regardless what you think about the RIAA, the fact that the defendants are trying to use the RICO Act to countersue just shows what a danger RICO may be as an instrument of harrassment. As described in this essay it has never met a full constitutional challenge. It appears to be broad enough that many activist organizations could be seen falling under its guidelines. The threat of RICO prosecution could have a chilling effect on both freedom of speech and of association.
Is IP something that the creator has the right to control, or should it be in the public domain?
Copyright was created so that other people would not profit from an artist's work without compensating the artist. The time period was limited so all work would enter public domain in about a generation.
Today, copyright is used to keep work under the control of corporations. The period has increased to 50 years past the death of the author. Corporations do not die. I do not want Disney hit-squads coming for me because I wrote a book for which they want to make a movie someday. I want to be able to integrate the works of my grandparent's generation into my own efforts. (Oops, my song used 2 lines from Elvis or the Beatles. Here comes the lawsuit.) I want my grandchildren to be able to write a story or song without worrying that it is similar to any work that was written after Steamboat Willy.
The free distribution of works without generating profits is happening. Fiction and reference materials are already available. Music is available, but some countries (the US) allow the profit seeking companies to terrorize the people who use the modern methods for no-profit distribution. It is not whether music will be distributed for free; it is about how much harm the dying industry will cause before disappearing.
I will be releasing my songs under a license that states they may be shared for any purpose that cannot be connected with benefit to others beyond enjoyment of the music. I believe the legal eagles are creating a similar license. Eventually most music will be released this way.
creators are perfectly free to release their IP for free distribution
Much of recent music is controlled by a few companies that will not open their catalogs, and that hurts humanity. One century of music that will never be free. One century of music that can never be used again. Our descendants are going to curse the Twentieth Century until they revolt.
* Artistic license about calling it a century. Actual period = ~1930 to ~2010 AD.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
"Give others a copy? I think you need to re-acquaint yourself with notion of fair use. There's nothing fair about giving away someone else's property."
lmao, well I'm sure there's a place for you working with the RIAA if your not already working there; however, the rest of us who support fair use and use p2p (hundreds of millions worldwide - most of which have greater freedom and are not held under the same legal restrictions our Country imposes) will continue to fight this fight.
Fair use is exactly that - as long as I don't sell copies I've made, I did not break the good ol fair use doctrine - too bad short sighted bureaucrats with deep pockets and little concept of fair use approved the current ( and temporary imho ) legislation because its going to take a lot of work to get that garbage out of the legal system but it will be removed just the same.....
Anyway, nice debating with you but you must realize that one or two generations from now our grandchildren and their grandchildren will judge us for our lack of action on this and why we allowed this freedom to be trodden over. What will we have in response? Think about it before you choose your side.
please fix this or get off the net.
Thank you, drive through.
Har ye bilgerat! Piracy be rape, robbery, murder, and the occasional buggery on the high seas not listenin' to chanties on the internet, matey.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
2) Person A never hears the music, and thus doesn't buy the song.
...
But scenario 2 is definitely not theft.
It's treated as theft, and compensated for, in those countries that levy a blank disc/blank tape surcharge, with that money going to the record industry. Now that's one *powerful* monopoly -- get the Government to give you money you think you should have made but didn't for some reason.
deus does not exist but if he does
RICCO FOR RIAA
"Law Are Created for A Purpose" this guy must be a lawyer-no other purpose
It is compensated for, but it's not treated as theft.
:)
It is treated as what it is: compensation for the expected violation of one's rights. That compensation is dished at on the assumption (in this case) that the vast majority of blank CDs are used for piracy.
While I personally believe that this assumption is flawed, if it's valid, it's a reasonable line of thinking. Of course, this should immediately result in the legalisation of copying music to CDs: you've already compensated the injured party by buying the media.
A far more interesting question in this scenario, though, is how do you distribute money back to the artists. The labels own the copyright (transferred from the artist), but the contractual agreements behind that require compensation to the artist. How do you fairly distribute money in this environment? I mean, you can't do it based on the number of albums sold; an exercise in simple logic will show that the more copies of an album are sold, the less likely it is that the album is being extensively file shared...
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
"...by suing file-swappers for copyright infringement, and then offering to settle instead of pursuing a case where liability could reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the RIAA is violating the same laws that are more typically applied to gangsters and organized crime."
The file swappers are guilty. The day you can't settle a case against someone who is guilty of a crime without being accused of a crime is the day I lose faith in the US as a country that upholds individual rights, and must conclude that majority opinion outweighs individual rights.
Vote for Pedro
It's not theft, but the net result of copyright infringement is a lowering of the value of your product, which is a violation of your rights.
A far more interesting question in this scenario, though, is how do you distribute money back to the artists.
:) Ideally this wouldn't be weighted at all by the artist's attitude to filesharing... after all, the labels get their money any which way.
:/
Statistical* sampling of a particular artist's (a) number of fans, and (b) predilection to piracy.
Sales in the record shop and number of downloads already seem to have the same effect on money flowing to the artists (no effect, that is, due to the creative accounting -- they're always being ripped off at whatever the record companies think they can get away with) We'll be paying for it one way or another. Stop buying it and it's just more evidence of piracy to the record companies, even if bandwidth usage also drops 25% and sales of blank discs are down 50%. What can we do?
* "Lies, damned lies and statistics." Pope, was it?
deus does not exist but if he does
" I just read that a fedral judge told the RIAA to stop calling file sharing 'piracy'.
He said, it is something new and not yet defined, but it is not 'piracy'
I do not think I should have to pay some organazation every time i hear a tune.
I think making counterfit CD's or CHARGING for some one elses work IS piracy, but I really am not sure file sharing for free is...
And neither is the fedral judiciary
cheers"
What part of the term copyright infringement don't you understand.
Vote for Pedro
I think we agree on the major points. I want the return of reasonable time limits to copyright protection. Software patents are counter to the purpose of patents. The world was better when software was considered mathematical algorithms that could not be patented. Does anybody believe that software patents are encouraging progress?
---
The nature of the music industry for the past century was that to distribute your music, you had to deal with the distributors, and they are an oligopoly that forced the artists to give up their rights.
Have you read the short story "Melancholy Elephants" (C)1984 Spider Robinson? It was released free on the web, but baen.com seems to be down. Humans have very limited ideas about what sounds good, and we will run out of them. I am very careful that each of my songs is unique. I get upset when I hear something that sounds much like one of my songs. I was extremely angry at a friend when he played me "Welcome to the Jungle" because I thought his band was stealing my music. (I forgave him when he convinced me it was not his band and they were from the other coast, but I still discarded the music.) The worst compliment is "That sounds like that song by so-and-so" because that means my song may not be truly original.
"Oops I did it again" was written by Max Martin and Rami and released in 2000. Do we have to wait 50 years past their deaths to be able to create a song that is similar? Or is the copyright owned by an immortal corporation? Someday someone may want to use words or melody similar to "Oops, I did it again". They will not be allowed to distribute it until the copyright laws are changed. It is not about having to pay for THIS song. It is that we have lost the ability to create anything similar to this song.
---
I write software, music, lyrics, and books. Much of my life is based on IP. I decided in the 1980s that publishing music under the terms allowed by the music industry was bad for me. The only music I have downloaded was provided free on the artists' websites, except for a Dave Matthews song provided by Yahoo. My interest in copyrights is as a producer, not as a consumer.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
I have lived overseas since the 1970's, but had one chance at jury duty before I left Texas. First thing Monday morning, I went off to the courthouse to do my duty as a citizen. An older engineer took me to one side and took the shine off. He said we would be back at work by Wednesday. No lawyer wants an educated juryman.
He was right. I see no reason to think times or lawyers have changed.
I think the jury is still out on the first point but I concede on the rest.
That's very perceptive of you Mr Stapleton and rather unexpected in a G Major
Hell, if the eff or a similar organization starts some sort of public donations fund to help with this lady's legal costs, I d be more than happy to donate money. Eventually more and more people will fight back, there are more of them, than the RIAA can handle, and given the fact that the RIAA lawyers are settlement lawyers (coug * cough, MBA's in disguise), it may not play out so pretty for them if the federal judge grants this woman a trial by jury.
Or maybe he is right and you don't wan't to hear the truth?
What a greedy bunch of bastards. They have no ethics at all, want every thing they can get, are selfish and don't care about anyone but themselves.
Oops, were are talking about the RIAA? I thought this was about P2P thief^H^H^H^H^H"copy-right offenders"(Thats what you call youselves to justify your actions and hide the guilt right?).
lmao, well I'm sure there's a place for you working with the RIAA if your not already working there;
I'm no fan of the RIAA- I think what they do is detestable. Be that as it may, I do not think that anyone can rationally justify the mental gymnastics that people use to support their notion that taking and using property that is rightfully owned by the RIAA without permission or due compensation, is in any way, right. It isn't. The only thing that makes it easy to do this (but no more correct) is the fact that the property in question is easily reproduced. No one seems to realize that the method of reproduction has no bearing on one's perceived right to someone else's property.
Fair use is exactly that - as long as I don't sell copies I've made,
Fair use is citing a sentence or two, or perhaps even a passage, in an effort to illustrate a point (and providing due credit to its author). Fair use is copying an article for use in an educational setting (like a classroom). Fair use is making a backup copy of your software (or your video, or DVD) so that you still have it available if the original fails. Fair use is being able to accommodate medium and time shifting. Copying a CD, movie, or DVD, and handing it out to your friends has nothing to do with fair use.
Anyway, nice debating with you but you must realize that one or two generations from now our grandchildren and their grandchildren will judge us for our lack of action on this and why we allowed this freedom to be trodden over.
If they're at all enlightened, they'll sit back and wonder why everyone was so lazy - why they didn't use the freedom they had immediately at their disposal - the power they wield over their own wallets as consumers. They'll wonder why the consumer public allowed this rediculous charade of co-dependency to continue on for as long as it has. They'll wonder why the freedom they had was taken completely forgranted.
Weird Al does attempt to contact the artists he is parodying, but parody is acceptable under copyright law.
Coolio included a sample as well as a rewrite, so he must have gotten permission.
Reference website.
Cover songs are covered under a mechanical license. The artist cannot stop you from covering their song.
Samples require the permission of the publisher and the owner of the master. They set the terms, so they can easily charge enough to make it infeasible.
From the copyright office:
There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances.
I know that chord progressions cannot be copyrighted, or all combinations of I-IV-V would have been eliminated long ago. But I would not use Star Wars' Imperial March without disguising it. The similarity argument rests on
amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The only case I remember was Bon Jovi suing and winning for one line of "Living on a Prayer", but I cannot find a reference. They won because the line was the same words and melody in the chorus. (I think it was "We're halfway there".)
If "On Top of Old Smokey" was not public domain, we would not have "Chariots of Fire". Restaurants write their own (awful) birthday songs to avoid paying for "Happy Birthday" written in 1893.
I wonder that melody is considered so important, since every singer applies very different melodies to my songs. I usually write 2 melodies for each song for my own singing so I can change depending if my voice has warmed up. Live versions usually have different melodies than the studio versions. I saw Britney Spears do "Baby One More Time" in a medley on TV once, and the melody was very different than the radio version. (I think it was because the TV version was live and only had one note.)
Today it is up to the artist to notice that someone released a very similar song. "Melancholy Elephants" refers to a world where the copyrights are checked against existing music before being issued. Given the patent office's reluctance to do anything resembling work, we should not have to worry about automatic copyright validation, but it would be much easier to validate music with computers than patents.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
http://wolfse.webhop.net/starmanta.png
What a loser. Looks like he gets buttsex from all his whitey Mac lusers.
That's your definition. First, legally, theft is defined however it's defined. For example - how can a "service" be stolen? It can. If you back your car up to someone else's dumpster and unload your trash, that's exactly what you're doing, and depending on the locality, the law will say so. If it's my dumpster, it doesn't deprive me of anything, it just means that your getting service you didn't pay for. How is stealing music any different?
Second, your definition completely overlooks the fact that when you take something like music (that's a copy of the original), you are acquiring benefit and/or value from someone else's property- WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. That's theft.
I have now contributed two cents. And what's that worth these days?
Firstly, that's the common law definition of theft (i.e. to intend to deprive etc.). Next, a service can be "stolen" since there is something which you can steal, or which incurs charges whether directly or indirectly. E.g. if I borrow your car, I cause wear and tear, use your petrol, deprive you of the use, put it at risk etc. If I use your dumpster, I deprive you of the used space, extra trash charges, if any etc.
Secondly, "acquiring benefit and/or value from someone else's property- WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT" isn't theft unless you qualify it further. For example, if my house benefits from my neighbor's paint job, or I happen to hear The Doors on the radio, what precisely have I stolen?
Since you obviously want to be a pedant, please explain why you think you should define "theft" simply as you like it whilst using a definition of "copyright" in the same sentence that's tied to one particular legal system.
Yeah, but they're bad people, with rags on their heads. So fuck them.