Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Grinds Down Individuals in the Courtroom
Iphtashu Fitz writes "The Associated Press recently reviewed many of the copyright infringement lawsuits that the RIAA filed against individuals charged with illegally sharing songs on P2P networks. According to the article over 800 of the targeted individuals have settled for approx. $3000 in fines. One man in California had to refinance his house to pay his $11,000 settlement. Many of the defendants are unwilling to face the possibility of even higher fines by fighting the suits in court despite the fact that it could resolve important questions about copyrights and the industry's methods for tracing illegal downloads. It seems that even some of the judges presiding over these cases question the RIAA's tactics. 'I've never had a situation like this before, where there are powerful plaintiffs and powerful lawyers on one side and then a whole slew of ordinary folks on the other side,' said U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner, who blocked the movement of a number of these cases in her courtroom for months. She wanted 'to make sure that no one, frankly, is being ground up.'"
Let me re-state what I've said before: If you do not agree with what RIAA is doing, stop supporting it. Sadly, this means stop supporting artists affiliated to it. Quit cold turkey. Do not buy their CDs. Do not attend their concerts. Do not request their songs on the radio. And do not download/share their songs on the Internet.
Go on and protest their actions. The louder, the better. But stop supporting them, or your cries will fall on deaf ears.
No sig
I wonder if it is legally possible to mount a class-action defense? The defendants could then pool their resources for lawyerage, expert witnesses, etc. If a class of parties can act as a plaintiff, why can't a similar structure be used in defense?
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
The sad thing, I think, is that those of us who would be brave enough to stand up in court aren't participating in the types of activities likely to get them targeted.
A lot of the people who are doing this probably don't own copies of the songs to begin with, which makes it tough for them to stand up for themselves.
What really needs to happen is that someone with an extensive music collection, and the desire to fight this, needs to leave various P2P applications open 24/7 with access to their vast, legal music collection, so that someone will notice.
'I've never had a situation like this before, where there are powerful plaintiffs and powerful lawyers on one side and then a whole slew of ordinary folks on the other side,' said U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner
the honourable Nancy Gertner has presided over, by her own admission, numerous drug related trials. US government vs crack addicts seems pretty similar to me.
Get some money hungry lawyers (I know, redundant), to start representing these guys and make a show out of it.
Blech, never mind. It's the diet pepsi talking.
This is all to common a theme these days. People are unwilling to stand up against tyranny, which is exactly what this legal campaign is. It's very similar, IMO, to the racketeering of DirecTV against people who had purchased smart card programming equipment.
If people would take a stand against the RIAA/MPAA when it comes a-knocking, a lot of light would be shed on their lair of demons. As said by the original poster, this would be a great chance to publically question the (RI|MP)AA about their calculations and figured, and tactics, and have the answers on record. Even if the individual being sued had a judgement made against him/her, I do not believe it would be anywhere near what the desired settlement would be, and it would finally set a precedence for limiting what could be sought in future cases.
If no one stands up against them, they will continue to rape and pillage the consumer. Think about "A Bug's Life,"; the RIAA/MPAA grasshoppers NEED us ants, and they KNOW we are strong and outnumber them, but somehow they are able to bully us into submission.
Shouldn't it be up to the people to decide the laws, not organizations? When did it come to organizations, companies, being more powerful than the government? The government is suppose to be by, for, and of the People.
if you're going to trumpet Brian Martin's work, do it with a link and a few excerpts.
Against Intellectual Property, Chapter 3 of Information Liberation by Brian Martin
driving above the speed limit is illegal. Just don't do it! Someone, please explain this to the driver of the 18-wheeler tailgating me!!
If it is illegal, then I would like to see them doing this in criminal court. I would bet that the jury would asked for $20 fine per CD and done with this.
Posting to Slashdot while driving is also illegal in some states.
As part of a fair trial, wouldn't the RIAA have to supply a list of the songs it accuses you of downloading? If so, one could go to the store and buy the songs before the trial. Lose the receipts so there's no correlation between the trial date and the date you downloaded the song. Then in court, you prove to the RIAA you already owned copies of the songs.
Better yet, go to a used record store and save some money in the process!
Don't confuse what is legal and what is right. It would have been illegal for my ancestor's slaves to run away or disobey (I happen to be a distant descendant of a very wealthy slave trader), but that doesn't make it wrong.
Is that the sort of "class defense" you had in mind?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Advising people not to pirate music is modded -1 Troll? Thats just sad mods.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
I've never had a situation like this before, where there are powerful plaintiffs and powerful lawyers on one side and then a whole slew of ordinary folks on the other side.
I guess she's never worked in criminal court.
And if they loose, the each member of the class could provide a coupon to the RIAA for $5 off a CD...
I am so happy to see that fine, upstanding corporate citizens such as the RIAA, are finally having their day in court. Our society will never be able to progress and move forward until the plebeian consumers finally understand their proper place in society. This example serves to prove why corporations should finally be given the right to vote in elections, according to how much money they attribute to the economy. Only when the corporations move forward, can the rest of our society follow.
OK, here's my little mini-rant on the topic of legal protection and public health care.
Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States or the amendments thereto is there a guarantee for health insurance. Or a guarantee that the government will take care of your doctor and drug bills when you get old. Nowhere. Go, read it, I'll wait.
Done? OK, but you'll notice in several places a reference to "equal protection under the law".
Don't socialize medicine. Socialize the legal profession. There's a constitutional basis for it, or at least more of a constitutional basis for it than socializing medicine. Give everyone equal protection in a court of law, something these people (and people accused of drug offenses) don't have.
Let's have lawyers like the Canadians have doctors. Let's have Johnnie Chochran representing some rich white kid who downloaded music from whatever kids are downloading with these days, and let's have it cost him absolutely nothing.
Go for it!
PS: those who stood up (and didn't settle) lost more money.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Ultimately, those against copyright law will win in the end - you're fighting physics when you try to oppose decentralised information sharing. The socialist and bureaucratic copyright laws just won't be able to keep up.
Note that it wouldn't be the first time increased personal freedom has been bitterly faught by those that stand to gain from restriction - see the american civil war and slavery.
Bring it on mods.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Because expending our energies coming up with a system that's tolerable to everyone is out of the question. No, we'd rather wear ourselves out arguing "yes or no" long after it's been determined that neither of the positions really work.
It's tragic. Laugh.
I'll clarify what I meant. There seems to be an overwhelming amount of people who see such sharing as okay. To say each and every person is doing something illegal seems contradictory when the laws which make such things illegal are suppose to be for the People.
I was wondering, even though its P2P, is it legal for the RIAA to gather evidence how they do? Maybe I don't mind some people in my computer but I don't want the RIAA poking around in my files without my permission.
Copying an mp3 file to replace a cd that you bought is under the fair use requiremnts set up by court cases RIAA particpated in..its legall!!
Copying music mp3 files of music you do not own and do not sell is also allowed uner the fair use guidelines for music..
Warning the 2nd fair use req stated above only applies to music..
Read the cases and law before you leap not after...
Don't Tread on OpenSource
CD sales are down...the RIAA is in panic mode. Many people already HAVE stopped supporting them which is why they're suing people left and right.
The cat is out of the bag...the horse has left the barn....the _________(insert favorite metaphor here). The MP3 Genie is out and they can't put it back in. Sorry, but it's a losing battle.
The industry will change...this is a fact. The RIAA doesn't like this because they're basically going to stop making the huge mark-up on the CD/Record Market they had cornered. But their monopoly is crumbling, and it's crumbling more and more as the day wears on. Their trying to plug the leaks but the whole dam is falling all around them.
Is this good or bad? I honestly don't know, but it's going to be an interesting thing to witness! We've seen it many times in the past here, when a business is failing, the last-ditch effort is to issue lawsuits.
Want to support a band/artist? Go see them in concert OR send money to them directly...and I mean directly TO them...not to the management/record company. Will people send off a check to Chili-Peppers? Don't know, stranger things have happened.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
How would one go about giving their P2P bots false positives? I don't share any files illegally, but I think it would be amusing to see them accuse someone of doing it that actually wasn't.
Before the invention of eruptions, lava had to be carried down the mountain by hand and thrown on sleeping villagers.
Don't like the RIAA's tactics? Don't like how they rip off artists and sue their customers? Then don't buy from them. It's simply not that hard- buy used CDs if you must, get freely downloadable music from any of a dozen sources, go listen to a local unsigned band and buy their CDs. I've bought exactly one RIAA album in the last three years, and that was because I was curious about iTunes. I still get to listen to interesting new stuff all the time.
As far as file sharing, folks, as the law as written, file sharing of copyrighted works is illegal. No matter how you spin it (It's not theft, it's not wrong...), it's still illegal. If you think this is wrong, you have two options
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
For speeding, (which is arguably a more serious offense than file sharing because lives are put at risk) we have a system where people are caught and given a ~$100 fine on the spot. They can choose to drag it out in court later, but most don't.
Some items:
Cars have license plates. Likewise, IP addresses shouldn't necessarily be deep secrets. Put in place a system for instant subpoena of a suspected offending IP to obtain the user account.
Only cops hand out traffic tickets. Likewise, a copyright holder would have to work through law enforcement authorities to initiate any action against suspected violators. Remove all civil liability for small-time file sharing; make it purely a petty misdemeanor. An enforcement officer would verify that the copyrighted files in question were indeed available on the IP address in the complaint.
To prevent abuse of the above system, the suspected account owner would need to be notified in real time whenever such a subpoena is issued. This would detail who was requesting the IP address info and what for. This would be similar to the speeding system, where you usually can plainly see the police car with the radar on the side of the road once you get close enough.
If the suspected activity is confirmed, law enforcement authorities would mail out a ticket for ~$100. The fine would provide the funds to pay for this system. If the suspected infringer voluntarily pays the fine, it's the end of the story.
If the suspected infringer goes to court to defend himself and is found to have been falsely accused, they would be eligible for compensation of ~$5000 from the accuser. This would prevent excessive abuse from the **AA.
I think that this kind of system would essentially halt illegal file sharing (at least within the borders of a single country) without causing undue stress on anyone or violating too many civil rights. To me it makes a lot more sense than trying to make examples by handing out harsh punishments to a small handful of unlucky suspects.
Same with this DirecTV thing. Their were cheating them out of programming by getting a smart card that was illegal and getting them products for free.
Actually the DirectTV smartcard issue was a bit different. They went after anyone who had purchased the gear needed to reprogram the smartcards that they were using regardless of if they used it for that or in some cases even had DirectTV at all!
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
The Insurance might decline certain cases for example for gross misconduct but usually you've got some support when needed, typically for less than 50 Euros per year.
In cases like this it is not uncommon for such insurances to bundle their efforts, sometimes including consumer organisations, to get a more fundamental ruling.
Of course littigation on the scale we now see in the USofA is not (yet) as common/rampant in Europe.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
...who just happens to be a real successful lawyer or have a lot of friends in the EFF or something, and it'll be interesting. They keep on throwing these lawsuits out helter skelter, and it's obvious they're not doing a lot of research about it (remember when they sued an 11 year old or something?). Eventually they'll hit somebody who'll fight back.
Who wants to be a martyr when you have kids and a family to support?
Nice try junior lawyer.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Here's a report that says "Nielsen Rating System At Odds With RIAA's Claim Of Lost Sales".
Here's a report that states "downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically indistinguishable from zero".
People were openly sharing copyrighted material without permission. That's illegal. Period. The law is right to crack down on them. As much as we can hate the RIAA, I don't see how they're wrong on this issue.
Now, there are plenty of good reasons to hate the RIAA. Like, that they have been trying to pass laws through Congress that limit our freedoms. That is downright outrageous and wrong.
Heck, these cases might prove that copyright law as it exists would be enough, and we don't need to add in any of Fritz Hollings' tripe to "protect" the RIAA!
Try shoutcast. From rap to rock, oldies to newage, trance to folk music, even music exclusive to Asia, you can find it here to listen to. Whenever I want to listen to music I use shoutcast.
Yes, I know this sounds like a sales pitch.
Get some kind of fund going and finance someone that is willing to fight.
Or find some lawyer strong enough to fight the RIAA that will do it free or at the low end of the scale.
It almost seems like the RIAA picked specific people that were unable to finance a defense.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Redundant would indeed be better then troll. People know what the law says roughtly. What the article is about however is what the RIAA is doing and if people should just cave in or fight it. So... either redundant or off-topic..
truth and justict for those who can pay for it...
Young out of school lawyers are often fighting for a postion. They have to work hard to get noticed and get into the higher spheres. Competition is fierce.
I am always reminded of Lionel Hutz in the Simpsons that's running after patients in the ER looking for a case. It's a parody, of course, but parodies are an exaggerated reflection of life. So, this RIAA nonsense, the software patents, the ridiculous EULA's and the things we bitch about all day long here have to be a strong case for any one to take on.
Fight the establishment, you'll get noticed, win, and you'll be a hero.
I'm fed up of reading about the big guys complaining and bullying everyone around, someone should slap them with the clue stick.
We should have been
So much more by now
Too dead inside
To even know the guilt
but he DOES NOT call for the removal of credit and the lineage of knowledge. you are blinded by your hatred of corporate greed, which is understandable, but what you fail to take into account is that knowledge is cumulative, and that hard work should be acknowledged. Martin is not so much of a fool as to believe that authors should not be credited with their creation. his argument is against their creations, the knowledge that they provide, is held from those who need it most using corporate funded law to enhance PROFIT. he has nothing against recognition.
There are several thousand cases now to analyze. If the RIAA is actually selecting poorer than avarage plantiffs (as some here have alledged), this will show quickly in proper statistical analysis (plot the location of the plantiff on a map, look in the government's poverty index to see what the average inocome in that location is, assign points to an appropriate scale, i.e. 1 point/1,000 $ US).
If it's there, and can be statistically proven, the next step is to tell the media the RIAA is selectively targeting poor people. A good strong piece of evidence, like RIAA plantiffs averageing 20% below median income, deserves a nice simple "National Enquirer" type headline, like "RIAA out to crush the working class", don't you think? Offer the press a chance for one like that, and some of them will bite.
While you're at it you could analyze those plantiffs on ethnic lines if they are willing to share the data. If the RIAA has selectively targeted poor people, it would be very hard for them to avoid having selectively targeted minorities at the same time, although they could possibly have deliberately thrown out a percentage of minority cases to avoid the appearance. I'd suggest if this proves fruitful, rather than contacting the media directly with the allegation that the RIAA is selectively targeting black people, you let the NAACP bring the allegation, as in such case, there WILL be a class action countersuit filed, but it will have 22,000,000 members.
Of course, it's possible there is no consistant pattern. In this case, wait until a couple of months go by where the numbers of plantiffs that are poor or minority is statistically high, and then make the claim "In recent months, the RIAA has switched tactics, to selectively target poorer people."
Who is John Cabal?
Congrats to RIAA, 800 sued, another few billions togo (approx. 2.365.891)
Things in a rear mirror might be behind you
This isnt meant to be a troll or anything, I really am curious:
If some of these people fought the RIAA, what legal ground would they have to stand on ?
If they were clearly engaging in copyright infringment how would they get off in court? If its so easy maybe the EFF should have one of these people take up the battle and maybe offer some financial support?
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Yep, really fair and balanced legal system im seeing here. This is a fucking disgrace, guilty murderers have had more legal support.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Where the hell is the ACLU or somebody to help defend these folks? Until and unless somebody with time and/or deep pockets is ready to stand behind one of the RIAA targets, it's just going to keep happening.
--- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
So at a time when they're suing thousands of their own customers...not a good business strategy IMHO...they're also cranking out really boring, insanely depressing music that all sounds like it was stamped out with an audio cookie cutter.
If this keeps up they'll have to give up the cocaine, private jets and porn star girlfriends! I'm having a hard time working up any sympathy for them.
So, yeah, hit them back in the wallet. Go out and sample free downloads, there are thousands of legal songs you can check out. Here are a couple links to get you started:
You can also shop at used CD stores. The only way you're going to get them to change is to stop buying their crap.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
you're putting words in Martin's mouth. your passion is commendable, but you're citing it, not Martin when you say "he wants it to fly like the dove in the wind."
Martin has very specific objections to intellectual property, and he does claim that information, specifically the recognition of work, follows a set of rules and guidelines. though i would be silly not to back up the "plagiarism = quoted without source" argument with Martin's own words: Plagiarism means using the ideas of others without adequate acknowledgement.
in fact, that sentence begins two paragraphs that recognise that plagiarism is a bad thing. what he's against here is copyright as a tool to combat it, which he argues is ineffective.
You are legally allowed to share them if you own the CD's and thus a legal right to the music.. so if they sue you, can't you buy the CD's of the songs in question and claim that you thought the people you where transfering to also had the right to listen to the music?
I mean can they *really* prove you didn't make the MP3 from the CD that you said you did?
who names who ?
Ask the National Socialists
Socialism doesn't start with concentration camps, that's where it ends.
Pogo on a nazi, spit upon a jew,
Vicious mindless violence that offers nothing new.
Left wing violence, right wing violence, all seems much the same,
Bully boys out fighting, it's just the same old game.
Boring fucking politics that'll get us all shot,
Left wing, right wing, you can stuff the lot.
Keep your petty prejudice, I don't see the point,
ANARCHY AND FREEDOM IS WHAT I WANT.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Well for starters I'm not afraid to attach my name to an opinion I post, unlike some people I know...
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
One recurring theme is powerful well-funded RIAA pursuing individuals who are forced to settle in order to avoid worse consequences.
Question:
is there any such thing as a "reverse class-action"?
IOW, is there any way that multiple defendants can gather and force RIAA to pursue them all as one joint defendant, so that they could pool their defensive resources?
They're getting what they deserve. All sophistry and rationalizations aside, what they did [i]was[/i] stealing.
That being said, someone needs to really fight this to cut the RIAA down to size because they're acting like a damn branch of the government now. The pendulum's swung too far in their favor.
If you can not pay for court expenses, at least make sure you install PeerGuardian or Protowall or make sure that at least you have a firewall to drop the ip ranges of anti-p2p organization.
The issue is that the RIAA is the one fucking up normal citizens' lives for no reason other than to buy time for a failing business model. If you disagree with this, it is not a good idea to continue to hand them money with which to do this: instead, you ought to boycott them.
I've been doing this for some time now, and there's quite a bit of non-RIAA music well worth listening to. Metropolis Records is a good place to start for industrial/EBM fans.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The point is not that the people being sued probably were committing acts illegal where they lived. The point is that a massive organization is steamrolling over individuals to make an impression, whereas those individuals would never have bought for example, enough music to refinance their house, etc. The RIAA is also doing things which they didn't used to do 10 or 20 years ago, when people recorded a lot of their music off the radio as one poster mentioned.
I don't buy RIAA music, haven't since I noticed the price of CDs in the stores was getting intolerable, this was 15 years ago. Somehow though I don't think removing one customer from their market is going to make a big dent.
Look, they're asking for it. This wave of litigation against individuals seems like a first for the judge because usually, customers don't tolerate that kind of shit. The RIAA believes it can get away with it and continue to feed you shit at high prices and you will continue to buy it. They are DARING you to fight back. Think about it.
So what else can you do? Well, if you are in business you could financially support non-RIAA or anti-RIAA bands, stations, software, or organziations. If you are in the prime RIAA demographic you can work hard to get all of your friends to stop buying RIAA music (especially the ones who are visible about it).
Ad agencies are beginning to realize the P2P type social networking (not just Internet-based, think word of mouth) gets much higher quality candidates (potential customers) than ordinary advertising. This can be turned around on the RIAA and suitable software / funding could magnify it. I think the iPod thing at Duke is fantastic. Now think of how to ensure that those iPods could massively reduce the amount of income the RIAA would get from that University, think and do something about it.
I don't buy RIAA music. I do like to watch live concerts on TV, and sometimes like what I hear on the radio (though I don't hear much of that either these days). These days cellphone subscriptions are starting to have a very large effect on record companies by removing disposable income from young people that would have gone to the RIAA. I am not for promoting illegal activities. I do see though a very unsettling trend of corporations taking over America (and elsewhere) and believe that litigation by the RIAA against potential customers , and the media slant on the affair (well there is a law against it so..) is a symptom of that.
The RIAA is within its legal rights at the moment to take these kinds of actions. It think it will be interesting to see their response if their customers exercise their legal rights to not purchase, to publicize, to organize, and to legally foment discord and financial destruction in the RIAA. Perhaps a good first plan of attack is to create a fund to hire artists away from the RIAA.
Remember, it is a lot like smoking. Every time you buy an RIAA product, you are saying "Thank you, please hit me again" to these nasty people. But the RIAA is always looking for new customers and new artists, every year. There is no reason why we couldn't start to put the pressure on them. Food for thought.
If someone that got sued by the RIAA came to slashdot and created a website to help with legal funds I wonder how much the /. crowd would raise for them?
Are we just talkers or can we each put a dollar where our mouths are?
I would think a donation thread and an advice thread WOULD help win a case against them.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
1. You make an excellent point about how people have a false sense of security merely because they're physically isolated. However...
2. "with P2P programs, you are essentially advertising to the entire world that you have something to share"
Actually, certain p2p architectures make it impossible to prove that the file was ever resident at the immediately-adjacent node, or to prove the identity of the contributing node. Combine this with encryption, and you have plausible deniability to the claim that the immediately-adjacent node had any way of knowing anything about the content being relayed.
...it were that easy. Somehow not buying CD's doesn't seem to be enough. First of all, it's the KIDS who buy the CD's, and they just want to hear the music. Good luck convincing them while the RIAA gears up it's anti-piracy 'badger' campaign (or whatever the hell that thing is). Secondly, you forget where the RIAA gets a lot of revenue from - licensing. Whether it's Muzac or motion pictures, the RIAA has PLENTY of other sources to gain revenue from.
Beleive me, the RIAA is with us for a long time - even if they never sold another CD or venue. Something else needs to be done - probably legally. EFF anyone?
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
While I may be in the minority, I have done just that..
.. and better luck next time.
If I have downloaded some live show that I will listen to and feel is worth money, I send the ARTIST some cash..
If it wasn't worth any money to me, then I don't
And if decide its worth buying an actual studio CD from the artist, I refuse to fund groups that are with the RIAA, as they have alternative options now, and I support the groups that choose 'plan B'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
i don't post as AC, so sorry, you've only been showing off how utterly retarded you are (to me, at least) for a couple of posts. :)
Sure, try this -- though it seems to reference "default" judgments. Regardless, the people who lose those default judgments wind up paying more than those who settle.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Why should you be entitled to a better defense simply because you have more money? What about "equal protection under the law"? And it's very convenient to say, "Oh, but the poor don't produce enough... it's their fault." But maybe you got your money through unscrupulous or even illegal means. Being rich or being poor doesn't really say anything about your moral worth. Even hardworking people sometimes get hit with financial disaster.
You say "the State listens to taxpayers and doesn't fund defense attorneys well" because "they do nothing but defend scumbag criminals!" But by your own rules, they don't defend only "scumbag criminals" -- and everyone knows it because there are no alternatives. Do you really think that people would allow an unbalanced system to persist when they know that, if they ever get called into court, they will have to use those same lawyers? You see, here the holy "enlightened self-interest" argument of rabid free marketeers comes back to haunt them. If everyone's access to lawyers is only to the same pool of lawyers -- if you can't secure an advantage through material wealth -- then there is strong societal interest in having the system be fairer. It's the whole "veil of ignorance"
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Ahh, sophistry rears its head.....
With the RIAA suits, people are sued after someone allows pirated music to be downloaded from their computer.
With the DirecTV lawsuits, people are sued for merely possessing equipment that can be used for pirating DirecTV. Regardless of the spin DirecTV's lawyers like to put on it, the equipment people are being sued for truly has multiple purposes, some of which are legit. Rather than DirecTV being forced to prove you used it for piracy purposes, they drag you into court and you have to prove you didn't use it for piracy purposes.
The RIAA equivalent would be them sueing people who purchased DVD or CD burners stating the reason their lawsuit targets used them for piracy purposes. But with CD/DVD burners people, in general, understand them and know they have multiple purposes, many of which are legit. Judges/juries, in general, do not understand smartcard technology and DirecTV brings in dozens of "paid expert witnesses" who testify that the stuff is only good for pirating DirecTV. Sure, you can bring in your own expert witnesses who could show how full of crap DirecTV is, but it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars, at a minimum to get to that point. No wonder that people, even the few innocent ones (e.g., they bought it but never ended up using it for piracy purposes for whatever reason [e.g., changed their mind, too hard to figure out how to use, etc.]), settle for $5K instead of fighting it; it's a matter of simple economics.
Are most people who get sued by the RIAA guilty? I'd definitely say "Yes".
Are most people who get sued by DirecTV guilty? Again, I'd definitely say "Yes".
Have most people who have purchased DVD or CD burners used them to pirate a DVD-Video or a CD? I'd unquestionably say "Yes". So would it be fair for the MPAA or RIAA to just "carpet bomb" or "blanket sue" everyone who has purchased a CD or DVD burner because, in their opinion, 50, 60, or 90% of people who own them have used them at some point in the past to pirate music or a movie???
However, in the first case (RIAA), their is direct evidence you did it; they can download a song from you and verify it is actually copyrighted -- they actually "observe" you committing the illegal act. In the second case (DirecTV), there is normally no direct evidence you did it. And that's what makes what DirecTV does, de facto, illegal, but in civil court, the person with the biggest pockets always wins. And until DirecTV sues someone with big pockets, they'll continue to illegally sue people and there's not much anyone can do about it.
So what would I do? If I was going to buy a smartcard reader or a CD/DVD burner in 2004, I'd go down to the local store and pay cash for it. I wouldn't use anything like a credit card or my real name when I bought it. If I couldn't buy it local, I'd go to a WiFi hot-spot, sign up with a Hotmail account, use a fake name and have the stuff sent to a rented PO Box (signed up for using a fake name) and pay for the stuff with cash or a money order.
And if you are wondering why I'd do the above with a CD/DVD burner. It's because people, in general, aren't going ballistic at the methods DirecTV is using. People, in general, just sit their with their thumbs up their ass when they hear about this, shake their head at the bad satellite TV pirate, while they listen/watch to their pirate music/movie that's playing that they burned with their CD/DVD burner.
As stated, IANAL, but how does this work, as far as reasoning and logistics go, when applied to the current laws?
... how STRICT is copyright infringement/copyright law? If we could put preventative measures into place, like the abovementioned watermarking of ripped tracks, we could avoid ALL of this crap that the RIAA is putting everyone through....
Is a photocopied document accepted as the original? Or is it considered a REPRESENTATION of the original, and not accepted as THE original because it could have been faked/altered?
Let's apply this logic to MP3s.
Round up a bunch of RIPPING software. These MP3s had to start as redbook audio on a CD somewhere, right?
Now what happens if we ANALYZE this MP3 and compare it to the original song on the original redbook audio CD? Does the technology used in the RIPPING accurately preserve EVERY PART of the orignal redbook audio track?
If it doesn't, this is not a copy of that track. It's an ALTERED version, and therefore not a copy of the original.
I mean, if a copied document is not acceptable in court, and only an ORIGINAL document is, shouldn't this precedent apply to digital media as well?
Also, if the bitrate that the mp3 is sampled at is less of a bitrate than the original redbook audio CD is, doesn't that ALSO make it a rendition of the original track? Almost like a coverband performing it?
Taking this a step further (I realize that THIS might be stretching it) couldn't we develop a RIPPING software that put a subsonic NOT AUDIBLE TO HUMAN EARS watermark at, say, the beginning and end of a ripped track, that made it MEASURABLY DIFFERENT than the original redbook audio track, and therefore not an accurate representation of it enoguh to be considered copyright infringement?
I guess it all comes down to
or if it's as easy as proving that the copied document precedent makes their claims that this is copyright infringement invalid, lets do that.
Any lawyers have an opinion on this type of defense? Or has it been tried before?
...this is how things often work in the legal world, now-a-days. Legal professionals want to go to court as only a last resort, for the simple and compelling reason that you don't know what could happen. The RIAA doesn't want to go to court, as it's worried that they will set a bad precedent for their legal racket. The defendant doesn't want to go to court because they could lose big time, and be forced in to bankruptcy.
The problem goes much further than this specific case--the legal system is broken and needs fixing. We've created this zero-sum game, forcing people to either settle early and choose their own destiny, or go to court and leave it up to no more than a coin flip.
Thing is, under the current system, I'd advise my clients to do the same thing. Settle and get on with their lives. Yes, we need a test case to set some precedent here, but I would not put any of my clients in that position unless they were adamant about it.
There's just too much risk and money involved with going to court, and, so, settlements are creating a practically private legal system with often confidential terms. What to do, what to do...
default judgmenets are where there is no response from the defendant, the plaintiff is usually awarded what they asked for.
Yep, I agree. I got heavily into Metallica in the late eighties and subjected my friends to "And Justice For All" and "Master of Puppets" to the point where eventually some of them became fans too.
My fandom stopped when Metallica went on the rampage against their fans during the year 2000. What total sell-outs. I had bought every album up to and including Reload - in fact I bought the black album twice when the first CD got scratched. Since that time I haven't put a penny into their account, and wont now on principle.
Fortunately from what I've read, it appears that they haven't since released anything worth listening to anyway!
The biggest shame is that I never did get to see them live, and now never will.
Unless you're prepared to point out specific fallacies in the grandparent post's logic, it's probably best to keep accusations of sophistry to yourself.
0 1 - just my two bits
Stop listening to crap ...
That would be a perfectly viable way of ending the reign of RIAA-led corporate terrorism in music, if a majority of music listeners were to join in and stop listening to the crap. As things stand though, 99% of the audience consists of musical sheep, ie. people who despite their good intentions follow exactly the instructions of the music industry in deciding what music is "good" at any given time. The vast majority simply don't realize what's being done to them. Brainwashing is not too strong a term.
It's pretty inevitable. Unless you shut yourself off totally from the media, you get enveloped in the utterly pervasive music machine's output of not just music and video, but celebrity, hype and buzz. You literally cannot avoid it, it's as sticky as napalm. Face it, there is no future in asking the 99% of musically non-militant people to cut themselves off from the media, not even to enter the shopping malls where that sticky music is playing. The brainwashing is everywhere.
That public rating idea is great, and if it were to catch on then it might even improve the quality of "big business music" through perceived audience pressure. But meanwhile, music downloaders are being crucified, and leaving them to it in the hope that a long-term strategy might prevail is less than charitable. Some sort of direct legal action or preventative technical solution offers better prospects for the short term.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Now that's just crass......
RIAA Radar is one of the utilities on the web you can use to avoid spending your money in ways that support the RIAA in favor of supporting artists who are not affiliated with the RIAA:
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/I suggest everyone check out the RIAA RADAR, It has a list of most artists and their releases, and tells you if the artists company is RIAA or not. Check it out at: http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/
Enjoy!
"Comedy's a dead art form. Now tragedy, that's funny."
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that they have to PROVE it was you pirating the music. If there is more than one person in your household capable of using your computer, then how can they prove it was you? If they can't prove it was you, they probably can't prove it was the other person, or even both of you.
They have no case. This is 100% intimidation. These wimps in the article settled out of court. If you win your case, they will probably end up paying your legal fees. If I illegally traded music, I would gladly take these mofo's on in court.
IT's about the RIAA abuse. There attacks on people who can not afford to fight an untested case.
They do not jave the right to crack down on anything. They are not a part of the government.
Another thing to consider is that a judge is fed up with them as well. That tells me that the RIAA is way out of line, and only using the courts as a tool.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The fallacies have been pointed out ad nauseum ever since Napster reared its ugly head. Just because the original still exists means nothing; one can extrapolate that fallacy to justify counterfeiting, too.
The biggest point, as Lars Ulrich pointed out in his seminal slashdot interview, is of consent. If there's no consent by the artist, the copyright holders, the labels, etc, it's stealing, plain and simple. Putting aside the "music wants to be free" crack dream and the non-corporeal nature of music, at a bare minimum music sharing is the stealing of royalties and profits.
Sharing with 3 million of my closest friends isn't Fair Use. It's all a question of scale...
From the beginning of your post you aknowledge the fact, that the accused are responsible as the accusors charge. So why argue about the standard of proof at all?
Or do you, in fact, sincerely believe, that some of the people RIAA, who has targeted so far, are innocent?
Or are you, perhaps, afraid, that RIAA (or MPAA) will, in the future use the same tactics to go after the much wider group of people, and there will be innocents there? That would be a legitimate concern, of course, but as long as it still costs RIAA more (in absolute terms) to wage each of these little battles, than it gets from the "victims" in settlements, there is no need to worry -- they are not making money off these settlements. They just want to scare people enough for the illegal downloads to stop. Whether this is a wise plan or not should not concern us...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Thank you for fillin pages and pages with text.. sadly enough your post is entirely irrelevant for the discussion.
The issue at hand is not wether IP is good or bad, but wether the RIAA should be allowed to use civil courts and the lower standard of proof, and use bully tactics to prevent people from having a fair trial.
Thatnks for trying tho.. lets see if you can copy/paste as logn a text that is actually on-topic..
(Yeah, yeah: -1 OT. Big deal.)
The fact that you believe that public defenders might be, as a class, passionate and competent means that you have had insufficient contact with your local (assuming US) criminal justice system. Go find someone who is a criminal lawyer, police officer, or judge who sees the courtroom on a regular basis. Ask them what the public defenders are like. Go look at the track record of PDs compared to private attorneys---counting a plea bargain as a conviction (because it is). Then check back here and let us know what you found out.
IMHO this is the natural consequence of (a) massively underfunding the PDs, and (b) not giving defendants any power in the selection of their PD.
If you ever are a criminal defendant, I strongly urge you to pay for private counsel, by any means necessary.
'I've never had a situation like this before, where there are powerful plaintiffs and powerful lawyers on one side and then a whole slew of ordinary folks on the other side,'
Hey All,
Where is the ACLU in all of this? Are they too busy fighting for the rights of NAMBLA?
Cheers,
--The Dude
that would make it easy for musicians new and old to put their music on the internet for both free and for pay.
and once enough do use it then others will create sites contaning ratings, etc...
Of course this is aimed at non-riaa musicians but once the ratings for any group or artist gets up there, then that group or artist then have bargining power with RIAA..... to force them to either get better about the treatment of artist of come to an end.
And since such a system will reduce subsidizing new bands and the risk of it, by the RIAA....
OK, and as I said in the parent post, just about every case so far has either settled for about $3000, or lost for about $5000-$10000.
A default judgmenet is a loss, and those who have lost via default judgmenets are paying more than those who have settled.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Whay concerns me here is:
:))
Whant tools are the RIAA using to get into peoples boxes?
How do we geeks keep the RIAA out of our boxes? So we can teach laymen to do the same...
Do firewalls work for this?
Those should be the real concerns here!
What can we do now ?
Because at some point, the whole concept of trading vastly inferior copys of the original media, thereby giving a non-corporate non-radio outlet for artists/media will be widely recognized as the legal and acceptable activity that it is.
Until then, we need to batton down our TCP Ports!
(and if this has already been beat to death, sombody kindly e-mail me a link! puhleeez?
Fight, but don't try to win... Don't even get a lawyer... But make sure you let the media know that you are going to martyr yourself. As soon as they make mention of how much money you have cost them, take out your wireless laptop and start your perl script to copying a single mp3 over and over again. Have a nice little running counter going on the screen of how much money you have taken from thier babies' mouths. Once you reach a number higher than the amount of money than they reported on thier taxes, or more money than the GDP, whichever, as the court why they are not being procecuted for tax evasion... after all, in a couple fo minutes, they will have just virtually lost more money than exists in teh nation. Then offer to plead guilt only if you are made to pay back the ENTIRE sum that you have stolen from them, all ten quadrillion billion dollars. Any judge with a sense of irony may just let you do it... File for bankruptcy and ride the media parade out the courtroom door.
...that lying in open court is just a bit more illegal than copyright infringement. Besides, they're not suing downloaders (as far as i know), just the uploaders; I doubt that actually owning the CD would do you any good.
It was my understanding that banners and MOTDs that read "IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF ($GOVERNMENT_ENTITY|*AA), (YOU CANNOT USE THIS SITE|DOWNLOAD ANY FILES|PROSECUTE ITS MEMBERS|ETC)" had as much legal weight as some people's e-mail signatures that state that "only the intended recipient may read this, if this was not meant for you delete it, etc etc".
That is to say: none whatsoever.
With each "conviction", hatred toward them will grow. Their enemies are accumulating. When bad deeds are done to RIAA and it's people, there will be too many suspects to narrow down.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
The fallacies have been pointed out ad nauseum ever since Napster reared its ugly head. Just because the original still exists means nothing; one can extrapolate that fallacy to justify counterfeiting, too.
No, you can use it to say that counterfeiting isn't stealing, which is true. That doesn't *justify* anything. You're missing the entire point of the "copying isn't stealing" argument. I don't think it's ethical or legal, I just don't think stealing is the right word for it.
at a bare minimum music sharing is the stealing of royalties and profits.
Nope, sorry, it's not. Music sharing is violating the rcord label's legal monopoly on distributing a copyrighted song. If we grant that copyright infringment is theft, where does the stupidity stop? Do we redefine homicide as theft of life, assault and battery as theft of health, public drunkenness as theft of peace and quiet, speeding as theft of highway safety and so on?
0 1 - just my two bits
What ever social/moral issues exist (e.g., artist, like software engineers, need to get paid for their work), peer-to-peer networks have many interesting computer science issues associated with them. For example, Hector Garcia-Molina database group at Standford is also involved in peer-to-peer network research. A peer-to-peer network that provided privacy to those who supplied files would not only avoid RIAA suits, but it would protect people who publish material that governments and corporations wished to suppress (e.g., it would be a way to guarantee free free speech).
I have not worked this through, but on the face of it, I would think that it should be possible to create a peer-to-peer network where it would be difficult to tell which system supplied a file. The idea (half-baked, perhaps) is that a request would go out for a file, or perhaps a string which could be matched by a responder ("Barry Manilow"+hits). The response would be routed through intermediate systems and might not follow the same path through the life of the transaction (e.g., the file fetch). Neither the requester or the responder would know that path to the other. They would just send packets out to their neighbors.
While in theory it would be possible to trace these transactions, it would be difficult. And doing so might be similar to wiretapping the internet, which might be illegal without a court order (at least in the US).
So there are a few questions:
Is there p2p software that obscures the source of files? Certainly what I've proposed is not terribly original, so perhaps it already exists. Avoiding getting sued by the RIAA seems like a pretty good incentive to use this software.
Is there some problem with this concept? Would a peer-to-peer network that emulates a routing network be easier to track than I think?
No, you can use it to say that counterfeiting isn't stealing, which is true. That doesn't *justify* anything. You're missing the entire point of the "copying isn't stealing" argument. I don't think it's ethical or legal, I just don't think stealing is the right word for it.
No, I'm not missing anything: there's just not a more appropriate label.
Music sharing is violating the rcord label's legal monopoly on distributing a copyrighted song. If we grant that copyright infringment is theft, where does the stupidity stop? Do we redefine homicide as theft of life, assault and battery as theft of health, public drunkenness as theft of peace and quiet, speeding as theft of highway safety and so on?
Stupidity? What else is a homicide but the theft of a life? As even you're trying to prove, the thief doesn't have to have tangible after a crime is committed. All of your definitions are literally correct. You may not be able to put the theft of a life in your pocket, but it's a theft nonetheless.
So if we're taking a test together and I copy from yours, I guess I'm not guilty of cheating because your test answers are still on your page? You haven't lost anything, right? (Yes, this last is more a response to one of the other posts than to you....)
at a bare minimum music sharing is the stealing of royalties and profits.
Nope, sorry, it's not. Music sharing is violating the rcord label's legal monopoly on distributing a copyrighted song
ps--the key words in the sentence are "legal" and "copyrighted."
If you don't like that arrangement that the artists willingly enter into, tough--that ain't none of our business.
If you work for AcmeManufacturing and I think you're underpaid and your management makes too much and charges the customer too much, that doesn't give me the right to go steal their widgets.
The reason popular music is popular is because people happen to LIKE it.
The reason popular music is popular is because people have already heard it and are comfortable with repetition. Classical, Musicals, Big Band, Swing, Gospel, Rock, Punk, Metal, BoyBands: each generation did not morph into a new type of human being preferring a new type of music; each generation was indoctrinated by the music aimed at them during their formative years.
Today's popular music is simplistic compared to music before the rise of the guitar. Modern music is complex when it has 2 vocal melodies, 1 instrumental chord pattern, 1 instrumental melody, and a beat limited to what one person can create (hands doing one pattern and a single-note bass drum line.) Songs are limited to 3 minutes because there is not enough content to keep anybody interested longer. (I enjoy LinkinPark, but they usually turn off the music when they sing, and much of the "singing" does not have a melody.)
Today's music is not "better" than older material because it is more popular. It is popular because we hear it more often.
---
Please refrain from poorly written personal attacks. I do not know Morgaine, but the post was not "self-involved" and does not exclude Morgaine from the sheep category.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
Obviously you don't live in California.
Speed limit for trucks/autos with trailers: 55 MPH
Speed limits for cars can be 65 or 70 MPH
The OP had a very good point, that the speeding 18-wheeler tailgating him is much more a threat to society than someone offering music for downloading.
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
Before going off on a rant about the definition of "civil disobedience", you should perhaps learn what it means. Here's the Wikipedia article on civil disobedience.
What Washington et al practiced was open rebellion. Henry David Thoreau was the first to dub the term "civil disobedience" and to pontificate on the topic in a concrete way, well after Washington's time.
As it turns out, we'll never know if civil disobedience would have worked. It worked for Gandhi, who, as it turned out did willingly surrender himself many times to the British government on the charges they brought against him.
So, you may think that civil disobedience is stupid, and it may very well be ineffective or not worth it in this case. However, the term is pretty well defined, and thus practicing "civil disobedience" pretty much means you do need to accept the punishment for the crime.
Rob
Not the downloaders, so... download all you want.
Just don't share.
I hate this whole "don't buy from them/don't download from them" mentality. Don't buy from them? Agreed. Don't download? Hahaha, no. Download all ya want.
Just don't share.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Posting to /. while you drive -- what, $200? (many states prohibit the driver watching TV while he drives, a computer screen should qualify)
Tailgating - $200 or so?
Speeding -- much less of an issue than tailgaiting, but let's say $200 again.
Offering copyrighted works ($150,000/item.)
When you hear some yahoo call into the radio station and request a song that the DJ then cheerfully plays, understand the yahoo's call was recorded and played back only when the song was due in rotation. Add in a little DJ sound byte, and you get:
You think people like no-talent ass-clowns? The reality is her record company might've paid CCU a couple-three million cash, provided a car or whatever for a contest give-away, and maybe shipped in a cadre of cheap Mexican whores and blow for the Mayeses.
Yeah, right.
You comment still holds true for people living in areas where the truck and car speed limits are the same. FWIW, Calif's 55 MPH limit for trucks is probably why the Nixon administration settled on 55, not 50 for the "temporary speed limit".
Lessee, at least 4 people killed a couple of days ago in Wyoming due to among other things, speeding trucks.
As long as I'm on a roll - we could make great strides in highway safety by requiring all trucks to carry speed recorders - that would involve less infringement on rights than what the RIAA is doing.
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
Not all the geeks on slashdot are computer geeks - I'll bet there are a fair number who like seeing what they can do with deflagrating granules used to push pieces of lead/antimony alloy wrapped in gilding metal down tubes made of 4140 alloy.
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
Ants p2p does this and more theres even a proxy chained encrypted webserver just added .
Ants p2p Features
* Open Source Java implementation (GNU-GPL license).
* Multiple sources download.
* Automatic resume and sources research over the net.
* Sources finding over the net given the hash of the file.
* Search by hash, string and structured query.
* Embedded support for etherogeneus data types (not only arrays of bytes...).
* Completely Object-Oriented routing protocol.
* Point to Point secured comunication: DH(512)-AES(128)
* EndPoint to EndPoint secured comunication: DH(512)-AES(128)
* Automatic serverless peer dicovery procedure.
* IRC based peer discovery system.
* IRC embeded chat system.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/antsp2p/
I think the RIAA is both Venue and Victim shopping to build enough precedent so they can survive a robust defense, which has to come along someday.
Bigger concern: Is the RIAA right? And I mean legally, not morally. Does internet file sharing constitute a valid example of "fair use" or not?
In the US legislation, the fair use defense is assessed on a case by case basis, weighing the four factors outlined in 17 USC section 107: (1) purpose and character of use, (2) nature of the work, (3) amount copied, and (4) market effects. Common examples of fair use are criticism, comment, education and research.
So if I own a guitar, can I call it a slam dunk and say: "I was learning those riff's, man... educational fair use!" ? Or how about "those words Eminem rapped really spoke to me... I LEARNED something about myself after that man... a truly educational experience."
If the rumors are true, and music sales are actually up (by some measures), then #4 goes out the window. Can the Record companies post a profit and still use the defense that the market is affected? If they can't when do the shareholders bail?
Lets face it: copying 100% of the work solely for personal listening pleasure so you don't have to purchase the work to begin with (in a market where Big Record Companies are losing their shirts) is a compelling case against an individual claiming "fair use." But that is spinning the case like the RIAA does every time they take on the little guy.
How exactly would Joe Sixpack defend himself? Maybe settling for $3000 is the smart play?
...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
...if people do that, they blame it on piracy.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
People have also heard objections to the law, so under your reasoning posts blasting copyright law should be modded down as well. And modding down an unpopular view for being "off-topic" is almost as bad as modding it down for being a troll.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
It is Free!
No. Freedom is not Free.
As for boycotting RIAA artists... not a bad idea, but I can't do it. I am a very devoted Mariah Carey fan, even if you can find me someone else with an amazing voice just like hers, who sings songs just like her, you still couldn't replace her. I can't replace some of my favorite artists. I will always choose John Mayer over any of the copycats because every artist is different, even if they're within the same genre. So to ask me to give up RIAA artists for non-RIAA artists is like asking a Coke addict trade Coke for Sugar. Sure, they may look the same... but that's about it.
However, I'm always open to trying new artists, new genres, and what not (trust me, you should see my music library, it's eclectic to say the least) and although I can like it more than other artists, you just can't replace another artist.
I don't like to sit. Sitting is for people who like to sit.
You are looking at art as a method of deriving pleasure. By your definition only the fact that someone enjoys the art matters. Art to you is nothing more than a drug.
...
I am looking at art as something that can contain merit in and of itself. There is something that can constitute good art, and a person can spend their entire life just trying figure that out. Those persons get degrees in Literature, Music Theory,
It appears as though we have a difference of definitions. No conclusion can be reached in this argument. All I can argue in my favor is that the majority of people that really know art would strongly disagree with you.
A Usenet Troll Triumphs on Slashdot
I am looking at art as something that can contain merit in and of itself. There is something that can constitute good art, and a person can spend their entire life just trying figure that out. Those persons get degrees in Literature, Music Theory, ...
Whether or not a thing is art, or has value, is not determined by egotistical little ivory tower jackoffs. It's determined by anyone, anywhere, who cares to think about it, or attach value to a thing.
What you're missing is that no one gets to decide for another person what is art, or what is good music. Only that person gets to decide. To state anything to the contrary is to show that you're nothing more than a megalomaniac with a complete disregard for anyone who happens to disagree with you. Just another typical elitist snob who goes about saying things like "people that really know art".
We have a name for people like that. We call them "losers".
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
This just in...
Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
somebody has a serious anger complex.
chill the fuck out and stop blaming your bitterness on the fictional elitist college male that you seem to think is haunting you.
education
That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.
~a.bierce
What you're missing is that no one gets to decide for another person what is art, or what is good music. Only that person gets to decide. To state anything to the contrary is to show that you're nothing more than a megalomaniac with a complete disregard for anyone who happens to disagree with you. Just another typical elitist snob who goes about saying things like "people that really know art".
I only think you are getting about 1/4 of the point that I did not convey very well. You are assuming all kinds of things about my proposition that are not true.
1
Just because I don't like a particular instance of art does not make it bad. Just because I like a particular instance of art does not make it good.
I believe that art is a partially ordered. For some instances of art A and B it may be the case that A>B or A<B or it may be indeterminate. For instance you could say that Bach > Simpson, but you could not say that Bach or Mozart is better than the other.
2
Just as with science, the opinion of a person who understands the subject carries more weight than a layman's opinion.
Compare the two opinions:
I like Missy Elliot because her music sounds good.
I like Missy Elliot because she makes good use of syncopation.
The first opinion is entirely subjective. The second opinion has elements of objectivity and that is what your position lacks. And that is why I feel that your position is mostly baseless.
3
I don't look down on the people because of their poor choices in music. I do not feel superior in that regards. I am saying that I believe some music is better than others. And I quote you
We have a name for people like that. We call them "losers".
You are saying that you are a better person than I am. You have commited in the far greater sin.
A Usenet Troll Triumphs on Slashdot
I see that in my original post I did refer to an Ashely Simpson listener as a stupid sheep. I did that completely out of humor (in responce to the parent post) and wasn't serious about the statement at all.
If anyone drew the wrong conclusion from that statement, I appologize.
A Usenet Troll Triumphs on Slashdot
If a judge cannot hear both sides and understand the issue in ONE HOUR, then his capacity of intellect and reasoning are at best as good as a chicken. Get rid of em, send em packing home.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
If there's no consent
Who do you get consent from?
artist, the copyright holders, the labels, etc
Oh, I see. It gets muddy real quick.
it's stealing, plain and simple
There is no theft. The product was legally sold. Blatantly ignoring reality does not give a company or the RIAA the excuse to mount a lawsuit. The existence of laws which blatantly ignore reality is only a glaring reflection of the mentality of the ruling caste. There is no secret that the product is easily copied and easily distributed. If the vendor is unhappy with the terms of sale they should raise the price. This arguing over the concept of ownership after the point of sale is behavior fit for a child. The argument that people can be legally bound by a document which nobody reads is nothing less than criminal.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
CD sales are not down, the RIAA/BMI 'Music Biz' just wants you to think it is. In europe and th euk at least the number of actual CDs sold is up, by quite a lot, but they dont harp on about this.
What is actually down is the Gross Value of CD Sales, this is because the prices have been forced down by large supermarkets and online companies ignoreing the RRP and selling for less profit.
Best i can tell, despite the CDs being sold at a lower price, the RIAA still gets the exact same revenue per disc, so its profits are up. its only the retailers profit per unit that is down.
1. I should have said "electric guitar". Acoustic guitars were usually part of an ensemble.
2. I should not have blamed the guitar. Other guitar-like instruments, such as lutes, have been used by minstrels for centuries. Anything portable that can produce polyphonic music without requiring the mouth is good for travelling solo performers to accompany themselves.
3. While there was simple music before the electric guitar, most of the well-known music required an orchestra. Horns (brass and woodwinds) and most strings are monophonic, so multiple instruments were required to create music. The guitar, piano, accordian, harp, and vibraphone are the only multiphonic instruments I can remember at the moment. I have never heard a solo perfomance on a vibraphone, and the only popular accordian player is Weird Al.
4. It is possible to create complex music with a single guitar, but it is still limited to 6 (or 7) notes. A symphony can have more melody lines than a guitar, and have them played in several octaves at the same time.
Tthe number of people required to play popular music has decreased since the electric guitar was invented. I prefer to blame the increase in power of the recording and distribution companies than the guitar. It is cheaper for those companies to hire a 3-4 person band than to hire an orchestra, so the profits are higher if they can sell simpler music.
---
I am a guitarist, so please do not interpret anything I state as disparaging to guitar music. While I have been to the opera and a ballet recently, I prefer guitar music. I hope guitar music remains popular to increase the audience for my music.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
Any author worth his salt will use many references to the work of other people.
Copyright gives the wrong illusion that somehow these people come with completely new ideas out of nowhere, specially under the current draconina terms which make copyright almost perpetual.
Unde thes circumstance the only slash back is to promote a systme in which copyright is either completely eliminated or heavily reduced in terms and scope.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Science relies on empiricism, based on facts. Art is not a 'fact'; an opinion on art is just that, nothing more, and the weight of that opinion doesn't become more important just because the person spouting it got a degree in the subject.
There is nothing 'objective' about art. So-called experts are just people with an overly-inflated idea of what their opinion is worth. It's telling that 99.9% of the human race could give a rat's ass what most 'experts' think when it comes to art, with the possible exception of movie critics.
I don't look down on the people because of their poor choices in music
You just did, by assuming their choice in music is poor...simply because you say it is.
Your opinion is just that, and no more important on the matter than anyone else's.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Science relies on empiricism, based on facts. Art is not a 'fact'; an opinion on art is just that, nothing more, and the weight of that opinion doesn't become more important just because the person spouting it got a degree in the subject.
You understand that you are arguing that there is no reason that you like a certain kind of music? That there is nothing rational about music to study and no way to compare anything. That studying music is nothing more than naval gazing.
If I am a rational person and you are an (irrational) emotional person then we already disagree upon the fundamental set of axioms. There is no point to us having a discussion other than to say that we disagree - and then to realize that we disagree because we are arguing from different premisses.
So unless you are going to take a U-turn and declare that you like music for a reason, then there is no more to this discussion.
> I don't look down on the people because of their poor choices in music
You just did, by assuming their choice in music is poor...simply because you say it is.
I like calculators.
Say you purchase a calculator, say its a Casio.
I have deemed that you have made a poor choice of calculator.
Do I think you less of a person for purchasing a crappy Casio?
Heaven's No. It's a fucking calculator. It doesn't amount to anything.
What do you want me to say? Your boy band music is bad, but I love you anyway.
A Usenet Troll Triumphs on Slashdot
There is no secret that the product is easily copied and easily distributed. If the vendor is unhappy with the terms of sale they should raise the price.
Awww, c'mon--that's silly. Everyone's favorite (other than listed previously) excuse is, "A CD is too expensive." Imagine if they calculated how many copies the average person gives away and priced it accordingly...not a pretty picture, is it?
At least how it is now with the sharers being sued, they're the ones bearing the direct costs--not me.
Everyone's favorite (other than listed previously) excuse is, "A CD is too expensive."
And the common response is,"Tough, don't buy it." Since the executives are running off with all the real profit anyway let their kids spend their money on it and let the kids share. This will lead to greater strengthening of cliques and social circles but, well, that's a fact of life.
Imagine if they calculated how many copies the average person gives away and priced it accordingly...not a pretty picture, is it?
It is no pretty picture for universities to need to police their networks. It is no pretty picture when attorneys subpoena an ISP. It is no pretty picture when I can't leave my webserver up so that I can listen to my music collection at work because some RIAA official might sue me into oblivion. It is no pretty picture when an already struggling family is handed a $5k judgement because their son decided to participate in the heinous crime of letting his friends listen to his music collection. It is no pretty picture for government officials to be actively scanning networks searching for people to label criminals.
This is not about pretty. This is about socially responsible. It is more socially responsible to face reality: the product is easily copied and easily distributed. Raise the price or make a better product. It is completely inexcusable for the government or the industry to target individuals. There is no secret about which entity has the greater resources.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
What I wanted was for you to show your slashdot (you know, the name of the site we are posting on) identity and stop posting as an anonymous coward.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
"Get a very, very large number of people to confess to file sharing"
They could still be sued individually, at RIAA's discretion --
not to mention the "recruitment" problems.
My point is, is there a way to gather a bunch of people ALREADY BEING PURSUED, as a single defendant?
There is a lot of free music on the net in all genres. Yet people still believe good music is "What I hear on the radio". Many individual musicians have free downloads on their home site and major sites like Amazon and Download.com have free downloads. Some people consider the free sites and indies as "inferior" when in fact many are musically and technically superior to the major labels products. The illusion of percieved value is created by the media and as long as people continue to buy into it then they run the risk of the litigation and fines. Look at it this way: Everytime you purchase a major label(RIAA) artist you are paying for someone else's prosecution and persecution or maybe even your own. Dennis Jennings http://celestial-image.com
Then I find out that the RIAA's members had stolen from me by price fixing. They offered me $20 in compensation for this theft of thousands of dollars.
Well, as President Bush says: "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, won't get fooled again." So now I have put my music on my computer to make it available to me wherever I am. And I have downloaded (legally) songs that I have already paid for (some twice).
Now the RIAA threatens to sue me for having my music online, claiming I am making these songs available to theives. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. This is tantamount to saying that if I watch a DVD on my porch, and the neighbors can look on, I have stolen from the copyright holder because I did not keep their product secure. Bullshit. If the RIAA wants to sue me for downloading music, and keeping it on the internet for my own private use (I don't steal music and don't enourage others to do so), then they have to prove that I have not legally bought these songs.
Now I have the money and inclination to oppose the bandits at the RIAA I say: Bring it on!
Price fixing is stealing!
Everyone's favorite (other than listed previously) excuse is, "A CD is too expensive."
And the common response is,"Tough, don't buy it.
Absolutely! And the corollary is "Don't steal it, either."
It is no pretty picture for universities to need to police their networks. It is no pretty picture when attorneys subpoena an ISP. It is no pretty picture when I can't leave my webserver up so that I can listen to my music collection at work because some RIAA official might sue me into oblivion. It is no pretty picture when an already struggling family is handed a $5k judgement because their son decided to participate in the heinous crime of letting his friends listen to his music collection. It is no pretty picture for government officials to be actively scanning networks searching for people to label criminals.
Life's a bitch, isn't it?
This is not about pretty. This is about socially responsible. It is more socially responsible to face reality
Socially responsible? That's a pretty whack definition of "responsible." That's pretty much the opposite definition of anyone else's.
This is not about pretty. This is about socially responsible. It is more socially responsible to face reality: the product is easily copied and easily distributed. Raise the price or make a better product. It is completely inexcusable for the government or the industry to target individuals. There is no secret about which entity has the greater resources.
The only thing I agree with in anything you've said is the government shouldn't be involved: this is purely a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Other than that, raising prices will only exacerbate the problem, and what the heck does "better product" mean? A better distribution model? That would be great. The success of the Apple store's proven the people are willing to embrace other models. Better music? Not applicable cuz even shit is pirated today.
Got it?
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
The RIAA is a lobbying organization. It's staff is full of lawyers. Think of them as a big special interest law group. If they're not suing someone, they're drafting legal agreements or working on changing laws to more suit their member companies.
As have been said before, they don't care about the settlement amounts. They are sending messages and establishing a body of prior case law.
The RIAA is really more of a messenger. If you hate the RIAA, you should really hate the RIAA member labels as that is where the RIAA's direction is coming from.
Start a letter writing campaign to your favorite bands and record labels demanding they end their membership in the RIAA.
Absolutely! And the corollary is "Don't steal it, either."
Nobody stole it. It was bought and paid for.
Life's a bitch, isn't it?
It doesn't need to be. There is no social responsibility in using underhanded methods to turn customers into criminals. CDs, DVDs, VHS tapes, and other media are SOLD in a "all sales are final" environment. There is no pretense that the customer is only renting the material. What is licensing but an embellished rental?
The only thing I agree with in anything you've said is the government shouldn't be involved
Then we agree on all points. If the government weren't involved then 1) both of us would be satisfied and 2) this wouldn't be an issue. The fact is that the media companies rely on the government involvement to make their case for them. If the government is involved then it's obvious that the accused are guilty. Without government involvement the victims would have lawyers dying to take up the case of sale and ownership.
That's a pretty whack definition of "responsible." That's pretty much the opposite definition of anyone else's.
You're far off base.
FACT: You have a product.
FACT: People want to buy that product.
FACT: It is easy for people to copy and share that product.
FACT: It is cheap for people to copy and share that product.
FACT: People are inclined to copy and share that product.
There are no secrets in any of these.
What is most socially responsible? You can lobby government to make everyone pay to hunt down whoever you feel like targeting today or...You can give intelligent thoughts to the facts before selling your product. You can't begin to tell me that media conglomerates, with multi-million dollar marketing departments, aren't fully aware that their product is easily reproduced and redistributed. Attempting to fight this fact through politics and legal finger-crossing is the most socially unresponsible and repressive idea in history.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Look around, how many people keep that box unchecked? Virtually no one. Its the mods job to determine what rating my post has, not mine, not yours. So until you get moderation power, just keep your trap shut, deal?
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
(no text)
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Absolutely! And the corollary is "Don't steal it, either."
.mp3 was ever ripped. There's no doubt about the sequence of events here.. Plus, there's no "social responsibility" in BEING a criminal. People do this to themselves. My heart doesn't bleed at all for them. And, while we're on the subject, what the eff does "social responsibility" actually MEAN? It's a great buzzword, but it's rather bereft of meaning, especially in this context.
Nobody stole it. It was bought and paid for.
Once. That confers on you lots of rights, but sharing it with someone who didn't isn't one of them.
Life's a bitch, isn't it?
It doesn't need to be. There is no social responsibility in using underhanded methods to turn customers into criminals.
Whoa, back up with the passivity there. People turn themselves into criminals: copyright infringement was illegal long before the 1st
CD's, DVDs, VHS tapes, and other media are SOLD in a "all sales are final" environment. There is no pretense that the customer is only renting the material. What is licensing but an embellished rental?
As someone once said, if you don't like it, don't buy it. But not buying it doesn't confer any other rights or abilities.
The only thing I agree with in anything you've said is the government shouldn't be involved
Then we agree on all points. If the government weren't involved then 1) both of us would be satisfied and 2) this wouldn't be an issue. The fact is that the media companies rely on the government involvement to make their case for them. If the government is involved then it's obvious that the accused are guilty. Without government involvement the victims would have lawyers dying to take up the case of sale and ownership.
Nice job of selective quoting--you work on the Bush campaign, too? The government shouldn't be pursuing violators.
That's a pretty whack definition of "responsible." That's pretty much the opposite definition of anyone else's.
You're far off base.
FACT: You have a product.
FACT: People want to buy that product.
FACT: It is easy for people to copy and share that product.
FACT: It is cheap for people to copy and share that product.
FACT: People are inclined to copy and share that product.
There are no secrets in any of these.
What is most socially responsible?
You wanna tell me again what socially responsible means? And what whatever that means for this? Yes, those are all facts. And as I learned years ago, "if 10 million Frenchman think the Earth is flat, that doesn't make it flat." If you're trying to say that the industry needs to re-examine their business model...you're right. HOWEVER, that doesn't make sharing NOW any less morally reprehensible.
You can lobby government to make everyone pay to hunt down whoever you feel like targeting today or...You can give intelligent thoughts to the facts before selling your product. You can't begin to tell me that media conglomerates, with multi-million dollar marketing departments, aren't fully aware that their product is easily reproduced and redistributed. Attempting to fight this fact through politics and legal finger-crossing is the most socially unresponsible and repressive idea in history.
You, if you think that, need to get out of here and get some help...and get some perspective on life, history and the world. End of conversation. We've moved from a reasonable conversation to you scaring me...
It doesn't download songs yet; it uses your existing iRATE playlist. I wrote it because the algorithm iRATE uses (or at least used to use) to decide which track to play next sucks. There was a problem where popular songs got "stuck" and you woudn't hear them for ages ... that one may have been fixed, but the other problem, that old lower-rated tracks which you would expect to hear every once in a while you will never hear again. The main author of iRATE has declared that to be a non-problem, so I don't think it will ever be fixed.
AlterniRATE uses xmms to play tunes, and needs a couple of CPAN modules, but has no java dependency.
I'm not actively working on AlterniRATE anymore, but if anyone's interested in helping make it a full-fledged client, I'd probably get back on it.
-- Only unbalanced people can tip the scales.
Here are my thoughts/opinions... If you buy a CD/DVD, you should have the right to personal use. Personal use would be... Playing it for friends, family, and money-less parties. In any situation, if someone is earning money, i.e. a profit, then I consider it an infringement. Copying the data. The advantages of this isn't to share it, which would be an infringement, but to have a back-up incase your CDs get ruined. What if someone steps on it? Paying $9.99 for another copy of a movie seems unfair if it wasn't your fault. Lending the CD, the original hardcopy CD, to a friend, a family member, etc. I see nothing wrong with this. But copying the data onto a spare CD, then giving it to someone else, that's not borrowing. That's giving in a sense. For online lending of music/movies/etc., that's a grey area I'm not going to touch upon yet.
So they can't know before filing whether the person they're filing against is an 11 year old girl or a high-powered lawyer. Nice try, tho.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
There is always something objective about art.
Picasso didn't just pick up a brush and start painting masterpieces. His father was an artist, and he trained and practiced for many years. That training and practicing is scientific, even if artists might not recognize it as such. They hypothesize that a certain technique might result in more interesting paintings, they do an experiment by painting something using that technique, and then make a conclusion based on the output.
It's true that when things are close to comparable levels of quality, that it is difficult or impossible to say that one is objectively better than the other. On the other hand, I think it's fair to say that the song "Silent Night" is objectively better than the sound of a baboon screeching.
If it's telling that 99% of the human race couldn't give a rat's ass about what experts think when it comes to art, why is it that when people think of art, they think of the Mona Lisa, the Scream, and other critically acclaimed art?
Along the same lines, if people don't value critics, why is it that they watch what the MTV critics think is good enough to air on their station, or what the reviews in magazines say about upcoming CDs? Not all critics have degrees in their subject, but most of them have experience in some way. Would you pay any attention to a magazine's music reviewer who was deaf? What about a reviewer who didn't know the difference between Country and Rap? Even if you, personally, don't buy music based on these critics, a lot of people do, and that's how music becomes "popular".
Popular music is partially the result of getting decent reviews by critics, but it's also partially the result of a powerful marketing machine. If a band produces a great song, but can't get the word out, then nobody will ever hear it. On the other hand, if a well known band produces a mediocre CD, then gets it into the hands of every reviewer in the country, pays to have it played on every station across the country, it will probably do pretty well.
The problem is, it's relatively easy to make popular music. The formula isn't too hard. On the other hand, it's hard to make a truly great song. Most of the time, making a truly great song means taking risks. Since music companies don't like taking risks, they will generally stick with the sure thing, and so the music they produce is rarely great, but also rarely awful.
If every artist had equal access to ears, then the songs that most people liked would really be the good ones, and "popular" music would be "good" music. With our current big-money-dominated music scene, popular music is just the best music from a selection of tunes that critics (in the form of marketing people at recording companies) think is good enough to sell well.