Slashdot Mirror
Mothers Taking the Fight to the RIAA
An anonymous reader writes "p2pnet is reporting that two more single mothers are refusing to be victimized by the RIAA. Patricia Santagelo was one of the first to stand up and fight the lawsuits, which some say resemble protection racket schemes. Now Dawnell Leadbetter of Seattle and Tanya Andersen of Oregon have decided to follow suit and stand up against the recording industry behemoth. From the article: 'Don't let your fear of these massive companies allow you to deny your belief in your own innocence. Paying these settlements is an admission of guilt. If you're not guilty of violating the law, don't pay.'"
Fuck the RIAA. Maybe when they get their business model out of the stone age, I'll consent to give them money once more.
Now that the women are taking care of business, crap will get done
To think is to engineer, to engineer is to become God
If you're going to call yourselves editors, please edit the articles.
Scheme has an h.
It doesn't matter whether you're guilty or not. It doesn't matter whether or not their accusations are true.
They are more powerful than you because they have more money than you, and that's all that matters in the United States in 2005.
Paying these settlements is an admission of guilt. If you're not guilty of violating the law, don't pay.
Wrong. Your only choice lies between paying a few k dollars to an extortionist company, or getting many millions to be able to afford lawyers and stand through the trial. It's not something an average person can do, so the choice boils down to either paying the extortion or suffering a personal bankcrupcy.
You're a citizen, not a company. You have no rights.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I will not let my fear of the moderators allow me to deny my belief in my own innocence. This is not a troll, moderate according to my belief system, you fascists. Reality be damned.
Now excuse me I get back to watching my son steal music, which I believe not to be stolen.
...is most applicable. They are accusing based on evidence that would not stand up even in most civil courts never mind criminal, demanding a settlement before the filing of any suit, and then refusing to negotiate regarding said settlement, all on the basis that defending yourself is more expensive than paying. This is indeed a protection racket and the RICO hammer needs to be wielded against the RIAA.
I hope some crusading federal DAs have their children targeted and decide to go after the RIAA.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
I wonder how much it would affect the strategy is large numbers of objectors banded together to create a massive defense fund. Retain a few lawyers and offer to defend anyone who is accused.
Agile Artisans
MARIAA. That does make a nice acronym.
What do I have to do to get a sig around here?! www.bearscanfly.org
"This is the RIAA Collective," they said menacingly. "Prepare to be assimilated. We will add your Financial and topographical distinctiveness to our own. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."
That and we don't got dates for Saturday.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
From TFA, she sounds like someone who'd be on dialup. The RIAA should thank all the people on P2P on dialup for pissing people off with long download times and making them go out and buy the CD.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
So, someone has Kazaa installed on her computer, never uses it, deletes it, is accused of copyright infringement, and refuses to pay it. So she's stealing?
People like you are the reason that the *AA can get away with just demanding money from people. Hell of a lot easier for them than, you know, doing their jobs.
x = x + ++x;
If you're not guilty of violating the law, don't pay.
You know if you are guilty or not. If a court of law says you're guilty but you know you're not, still don't pay.
I'm not a journalist, but I play one on slashdot
Copyright infringement is not theft.
Copyright infringement is not theft.
Copyright infringement is not theft.
Copyright infringement is not theft.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
"Only follow the law when the law is just."
Ordinary Americans desperately need, now, to begin to take back their country. If they leave it much longer, they themselves will not be the only ones to suffer consequences at the hands of their government and groups like the RIAA. The Australian government has already begun passing draconian laws of its own, following the cue of Bush, and I have no doubt that more will follow.
Technology is such these days that it is no longer good enough to merely talk about removing a dictatorial regime after it has come to power. In this case, it's not merely prevention being better than cure...Prevention may be our only option.
"If you steal music, via internet or at the store, you're still stealing. The choice you make, the chance you take, the price you pay. Its simple. These mom suck."
If you run a busines selling music, and you fix prices, and you refuse returns, and you treat the artists like shit, and you refuse to adopt new technologies that come along in favor media that you can over-price, you have no right to act surprised when your customers find their own way to satisfy their demand. These RIAA suck.
"Derp de derp."
If you steal music, via internet or at the store, you're still stealing.
Repeat after me, COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT IS NOT STEALING. It is in a legally separate category. Copy right infringment is sometimes against the law, but it is never stealing.
So they kids are spoiled because they don't want to spend 15 bucks on a potentially crappy CD, which, even if good, will probably only have 1 or 2 good songs? Even if, as studies show, people who download music buy more legal music than other people?
The RIAA is fucking spoiled.
IT IS NOT STEALING. When will you people get this through your thick skulls and stop believing the propaganda? Copyright infringement is a crime, but it is NOT theft. If it was theft, they wouldn't have to invent a whole new category to call it. To steal something, you have to gain what another person loses - you steal a car, someone loses a car and you gain a car. Copyright infringement is NOT stealing. You can tell, because due to the lobbying of these assholes the penalties for copyright infringement are WORSE than the penalties for genuine stealing.
If you steal music, via internet or at the store, you're still stealing.
It is my long-held belief that if we can point to one problem in this country that is responsible for human-caused shit it is people that can't follow a logical argument. You, my friend, appear to not be able to follow a logical argument: Read my lips:
Downloading music off the Internet is NOT stealing. It may not be legal, but it NOT stealing.
thank you,
[then again, look at your sentence: "If you steal music... you're still stealing.] Aaargh.
I'd just like to point out that stealing music at the store and copyright infringment is not the same thing.
Why isn't the U.S. Attorney General's office investigating the RIAA for engaging in racketeering? Oh, that's right, the RIAA have the politician's in their backpocket.
I hope some crusading federal DAs have their children targeted and decide to go after the RIAA.
Our freedoms are by now depending on that _hopefully_ someone with real power will happen to be bothered so they stop the behemoths stomping on us powerless, reduced to mere consumers, human beings. Ponder on that.
The only thing the RIAA does is provide a false sense of security to a group that refuses to accept that their buisness model is outdated. Not to endorse the Russian Mafia but I know of so many people who are willing to use allofmp3.com because their prices fall more in line of what they're expecting to pay ($0.10-$0.25 per song). Now if the music industry would just accept this as a price point I would expect them to make way MORE money than they ever have because they would make up for lower prices by selling a lot more ablums/songs.
What Napster really did for people was open up their eyes and give them the desire to own a large quantity of varied music; at $15 an album only those people who have a ton of money to spend can afford the music they desire.
Wouldn't that be embarrassing to get the lawyers all fired up just to find out a technical misinterpretation meant you were putting the wrong person through complete hell over something that's worthless anyway!
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Point is, physical laws on an electronic medium.
If I took you to court and said, "This man over here stole $4000 worth of music from my music collection. Pay me right now for damages." they might consider it, but what if I told them by stealing I mean that you took my CDs, copied them, MP3'd them, and then returned them without any kind of damage? Now is it stupid to ask for their full value?
Now what if I said that instead of my entire music collection, you owe me 50 times the price I paid for them. I'd be laughed out of the courtroom and cornholed by the baliff for making him miss McGuyver.
But its all good if you're a company, because God knows whatever a company says has been well researched, thought out, and their word should be taken over mine at all times.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Mother I'd Like to Sue
Excuse me? I can't tell you to RTFA, because you are quoting the article, but this is just totally out of context.
Full paragraph:
I have always been against music downloading. In fact, I have been a member of BMG's music club for quite some time and I purchase my music either from there or from Target. When I first got my computer set up almost three years ago, I had a friend set it up for me since I did not know how to do it. She had put Kaaza Lite on there and told me what it was. I never used it and had no interest in doing so. I deleted it since I had no use for it. Even though I deleted it correctly, as is recommended by Microsoft, Mr. Eilers has told me it can hide out in my system and play without me knowing about it. I have done a total check of my computer and it is no where on there.
I don't know if you're trying to make a point or not, but you completely ignored everything Tanya Andersen said in that paragraph.
If you're reading this, stop it.
What happens in civil court when you show up and tell the judge that you can't afford to hire a lawyer?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Nice job of selective quoting.,,
She tried to delete it and her computer says it's deleted. It can't be her fault if it's still used to share music.
"...She had put Kaaza Lite on there and told me what it was. I never used it and had no interest in doing so. I deleted it since I had no use for it. Even though I deleted it correctly, as is recommended by Microsoft, Mr. Eilers has told me it can hide out in my system and play without me knowing about it. I have done a total check of my computer and it is no where on there."
eom
Associations I'd Like to Fuck
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
If the woman is telling the truth, that she deleted the software right after it was installed, how did the music get on there in the first place?
She says that they never downloaded illegal files, not that she never uploaded them. Kazaa Lite's default options are set up to share all of the music it can find, so she could have had legal files, which were illegally downloaded from her computer by others.
I hope they keep up and tell the RIAA where they can shove their lawsuit. All it will take is one judge to rule in favor of any one of these single mothers to set a JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE nullifying every other case the RIAA tries to file.
Now back to reality, this will probably not happen this way. I'm not saying that the right to download a song is the exact same as the right to die or right to chose what to do with your own body, but everyone knows that these lawsuits are rediculous.
I hope they stick with it until the end, through all the appeals ... and win one for everyone. This is where we all knew that it would come down to. Whichever one of these cases actually makes it to court, will be the case that people refer to.
Lets just wait and see.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
this is something which, while tired, deserves attention whenever the copyright conservatives start preaching about "property". How about individual property rights? Apparently if you don't own a copyright you're a neo-serf.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Essentially that is what they are doing by suing parents and grandparents of kids who downloaded music illegally.
Here's a solution everyone except the really biblically paranoid can agree on as a punishment for those kids:
Tattoo a name of a Band or albumn cover art on the kid. Simple and it allows for a solution that doesn't cost working class parents an arm and a leg and it is a punishment most people would shrug at.
Then, eventually, when a parent sues the RIAA for civil rights abuses based on religious grounds, the damn organization will have to try to focus on how to improve their products instead of relying on extortion to make up for lost revenue.
Since when?
Nothing like two sets of people fighting a legal battle over something neither one understands.
Unfortunately, in the US, it's not that easy.
Tort law is one of those things that isn't intended to punish the person causing the harm, but to compensate the person that was harmed. Consequently, we have lots of situations where a seemingly innocent mistake on one person's part can end up with them paying significant damages to someone else. "But I didn't know!" It doesn't matter.
To put it another way, if it can be proved that infringement of someone's copyright was done, the law is set up to make sure that person is compensated. It doesn't matter of the person causing the harm knew, or intended it to happen.
I personally hate this, since it allows for a completely innocent mistake or accident to completely ruin someone's life, if the damage they caused was significant enough. (Some of this is balanced a bit by the requirement that the person being harmed wasn't negligent in allowing the harm. Driving around in a billion-dollar car made of diamonds, and then suing someone into bankruptcy for dinging your car door, probably wouldn't go over well, for example.) I'd favor, for example, penalizing the person if they knowingly or intentionally caused the harm, else compensate the victim out of a fund built from taxes.
But IANAL, and it's possible that this approach to torts is reasonable once you get at the heart of things.
what if I told them by stealing I mean that you took my CDs, copied them, MP3'd them, and then returned them without any kind of damage? Now is it stupid to ask for their full value?
Yes it is stupid. You cannot sue someone for copying your Britney Spears CDs. Only the copyright holder can sue for copying.
But its all good if you're a company, because God knows whatever a company says has been well researched, thought out, and their word should be taken over mine at all times.
It's good not because they're a company but because they are the COPYRIGHT HOLDER.
I've seen it suggested that we put the same restrictions on our cash that they do on their music. I think it's a fair trade, but this sounds better. I hope they win precedents which send the rest of their campaign into a flaming tailspin.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
"These mom suck." I agree with evertyhing you say up to that point. Do you know the cases intimately? Do you know if they are actually guilty? Perhaps it _WAS_ the babystier, or somones high school friend. Do _YOU_ know? I sure dont. Look if you stealing online or in a store or wheever, and get causght, I have sympathy for you. But I have a hard time defending you. However, if you are ACCUSED of stealing, and you havent. I have an easy time defending you. Not being TERRIBLY familiar with the case, I find it hard to defend or condemn anyone. Until the last three words, you might qualify as interesting. After them, it is hard to see you as anything but flamebait.
YOU DO NOT KNOW if she has or has not been committing copyright infringment! Until you do, who the FUCK do you think you are to tell people they suck just because they've got the courage to defend themselves?!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The title of this aricle should have been:
"RIAA suit causes Hemorrhoid flare up!"
From Article:
"I also must admit that all this stuff that has been occurring with this whole ordeal has triggered my medical condition to flare lately."
Anyway, I think she is lying. She is using the 'my friend installed Kazza' excuse. I used the play counter-strike, I've heard it all. "My friend's roomate's brother-in-law broke into my house when I was on vacation and installed cheats on my PC! I swear!"
So, I'm going to be a bit of a prick and ask, where was the logical argumant there?
Now it really is everyone and their mother.
"Now that the [wo]men are taking care of business, crap will get done"
Ever notice in commericals that if a man gets kicked in the balls it's funny but if a woman get's abused suddenly its a nono?
Say no to discrimination based on gender in what ever form you find it.
Sure they've got millions of dollars but how many people are they suing? What if every person stood up to them? I'm betting they'd feel that hit on the wallet.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Any article that starts out by whining about someone's physical handicaps, when they clearly have nothing to do with the matter at hand is a priori full of "#$". How on earth are physical health problems related to one's guilt or innocence with respect to copyright law? The answer? Not at all. Hence, the author starts his argument with a laughably idiotic argument, and that sets the tone for the rest of the article.
In any case, finding a half-dozen sap stories of possible mistaken identity out of 14,000 is not surprising at all. Even in these cases, many of them just look like the parents were not paying due diligence to the children's habits.
What music? There's no evidence that she has any music on her computer.
Probably because he doesn't believe her.
I have to say I don't either, and I think she's banking on the RIAA not being able to prove she did it rather than actually being innocent.
We need a class action suit. Spread the cost.
Get a new laywer that wants to make a name for himself, and go on contingency.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
...cause i'm interloping with random thoughts, i always sang it:
freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose
&
Life is just another word for one thing left to choose.
hope yall think that's as deep as i dew.
Too bad that it's the uploading and not the downloading that is actually illegal.
How much do the artists actually make from the sale of a CD, though? People say I/we/they are stealing money from the music industry, but don't most musicians make most of their money from clothing, concert ticket sales, and putting their names on brands?
So, for example, if I pirate an entire CD from a band (a whole, what, 9 songs nowadays?), and then buy a hat, cologne named after them, and go see them in concert, wouldn't that make me a bigger supporter of them than someone who bought the CD, but didn't buy the paraphernalia?
So, in theory (if they don't make much off of their CDs), wouldn't it be better for the bands to release their music online, and then reap the profits of all the music fans who have that extra $10-$15 to spend on their labeled stuff? So, really, all I'm hurting is the faceless corporation who paid to promote them in the beginning, right?
What if I 'steal' their MP3s, and then buy their sweatshirt if I like them? Wouldn't that encourage them to make better music? How about I just give each member of the band a frickin' dollar? They'd still make more money than the sale of my new CD.
If a no-name band gets a record offer, they have to sign. It's their only chance at stardom. But with blogs, message boards, and ravenous fans, it doesn't have to be.
Of course I want to support my favorite artists.
Of course I want them to make more stuff.
I don't mind paying for a shirt.
But giving way too much of my hard-earned money to do-nothing, fat, old guys? That hurts.
I think, in the end, it's the fault of the fans who listen to whatever's 'hot'. If you rely on the record lables to advertise the best stuff, then you have to give the devil his due. Brainwashed fans, mass market pop stars, cliche rockers, and the greedy industry that promotes them hurt both the artists and the fans, leaving only the RIAA corporations the money.
You really wanna support the music industry? Don't 'steal' MP3s. Go find independent record labels you like. Bands who let you listen to their music for free, make and sell their own CDs, sell their own shirts, and get most of the money, and then write about them in your blog (admit it, you have one), tell your friends about them, and buy their stuff.
THAT is supporting the music industry.
(Plus, if you decide you like local bands, you get to see them play for, like, $4.00)
But the RIAA is a perfect example of why many people around the globe have the feeling that most of the USA is full of nut-jobs!!
What a load this trivial seeming crap puts on the justice system.... just outlaw the RIAA, revoke their copyrights, returning them to the artists and be done with it. The artists are not profiting from these lawsuits. Turning everyone from 18 to 80 into white collar criminals is so unbalanced as to be laughable.
I hope these women make a dent in the RIAA money stash. I no longer care if the *AA have any valid arguments, their behavior is disgusting, and continues to be.
What a sham! Trying to force a single mom, too ill to work, into debtors prison, or its equivelent? Anything with dignity, legality, and general social validity rarely ever culminates in such outlandish situations... at least not that I can think of.
So how does America (and the world) get the attention of sensible members of the justice system? How does the public reverse this trend? Don't tell me how they were criminal and wrong and deserve to be prosecuted. There is no smoke without fire, and the stories of such ludicrous racketeering behavior is probably just the smoke.. not the fire.
Its just disgusting...
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
She does not say when she deleted it. And the fact that the RIAA has records of her IP address uploading music makes me rather skeptical.
That has got to be the most impressive specimen that I have ever seen. Well done.
i dont download nor buy RIAA music. fuck the RIAA.
But anyone can set any IP address he likes, manually, as long as the other computer is off (which was mostly the case). Depends on the type of the network, probably. And if she had a WiFi router, unsecured...
Even if she did do it, if the RIAA can't prove it, they should never have brought the case. The RIAA is suing IP addresses which may or may not be permanent or reliably traced and expecting people to send them a check because they're too poor to fight them. They don't even care who they send the suits to as long as a check comes out of it.
It looks possible that Kaaza was on her machine, but that she was unaware that it was there and what it was doing, for the purpose of this comment I shall assume that this was the case. (I am a Brit and so from an understanding of UK law).
Several independent points:
Can we make an analogy in law between liability of pet activity and liability of computer activity ?
In theory a computer is completely under its owner's control, but many people lack sufficient understanding of their machines to control it properly; what is the situation when a computer is hijacked by some malware that (unknown to the owner) causes damage (needless to say this happens frequently) ?
I think that the last 2 points are very important, I am not aware that they have discussed -- now is the time to debate this very important issue.
I would love to know what the law decides: is a computer like a dog or a cat ?
Copyright violation is, legally, an entirely different crime from theft. However, in common speech, 'stealing' can be applied to any number of things that don't conform to the strict legal definition of the word. Since the base of the conflict here is at a level of personal belief on who has authority over language (the governing body of a particular naiton or the billion or so people scattered across the globe that use the language as a means of communication) the conflict is inherently unresolvable. This gives people an excuse to yell at each other without accomplishing anything, which is why the relevant debate surfaces so often on /.
So, to answer your question, there really ain't any. It's a base assumption argument, not a logical one.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Die Ya RIAA
Was it her IP address at the time of the upload or did the RIAA just ask for whoever had the IP address at the time of their request and neglect to specify a time? Can the software that tied the user to the IP be considered 100% accurate? Has an audit been done to insure this?
If one of these women wins and the court rules that there is not enough evidence to side with the RIAA, can't the women countersue for court costs incurred while defending themselves against a frivolous lawsuit? and i still say the riaa is not doing enough investigating before suing people. Shouldn't they have to PROVE you have the file on your computer rather than just blindly sue?
You can sample the music on such places as iTunes, the store, or the band's website. Your laziness is not an excuse to break the law.
Your latter point is irrelevant. The question is do these people buy more or less than they would without file sharing. The answer is almost assuredly less. All your point boils down to is "people who like music are both more likely to buy music and download music".
Logically, you have C causing A and B, and are trying to infer a causation between A and B, due to their correlation via C.
Blame the RIAA!
(they're not even a real country anyway)
Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
How do we send these women money?
It's only a matter of time before someone calls the RIAA and MPAA into court under RICO, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's a recording artist.
Let's say someone "illegally" downloaded 2,000 songs, but evidently he did not download 2,000 songs by the same artist, because no rocker is that talented yet. So, a rough but likely scenario is this: this person downloaded 5 songs by Metallica, 3 songs by Vanilla Ice, 6 songs by Britney Spears, and so on. With the value of each downloaded song being worth 99 cents, the financial tally sheet goes something like: this person owes Metallica 5 dollars, Vanilla Ice 3 dollars, Britney Spears 6 dollars, etc, you get the picture.
Here is the point: this person owes Metallica 5 dollars only if Metallica demands it; if Britney Spears decides not to ask for the 6 dollars she really does not need, then RIAA does not have a case as far as Mrs. Federline is concerned. We now know that many musicians are against RIAA's draconian way of suing the downloaders, but are afraid to voice their opinions for fear of offending their musician colleagues, I therefore suggest, as a legal tactic, that these single mothers publish their lists of "allegedly stolen" songs and publicly ask these artists if they want their 5, or 3, or 6 dollars paid to them. In other words, ignore RIAA, and go straight to the musicians, who, I'm almost positive, are more reasonable.
Sun and Fun
"But its all good if you're a company, because God knows whatever a company says has been well researched, thought out, and their word should be taken over mine at all times."
What does god have to do with this?!? Oh, right... the courts...
The main point of these lawsuits is to rack up wins in the PR department. They want to point to "14,000 successful lawsuits" and say, "P2P is against the law, and it's dangerous! Look at the numbers of people who have paid already! You WILL get caught! Don't do it!".
Aside from the fact that your chance of getting sued is still on the order of your chance of accidental death from a number of causes, the RIAA's lawsuit activities have another flaw: in order to work, you have to sue a lot of people. That means the pressure's on to file lawsuits in the first place. And how are they getting the material for these lawsuits?
I would not be surprised at all (though I don't know this for sure) if the RIAA is basically paying a bounty to the likes of Media Sentry for IP Addresses. They may even pay a fee per IP address. If so, that's an incentive to crank out "offending" IP addresses on the part of the bounty hunters, and could lead to very sloppy work documenting offenses.
As the court documents in these cases show, this may be exactly what's happening. It's a practice that may bite the RIAA very hard in the ass.
Kythe
The more RIAA sues people, the less likely I will EVER buy ANY music in any media format. People who are being sued can stand up against RIAA. And those who do not, refuse to buy music for at least 1 fiscal quarter to 1 fiscal year. Sure it might be hard without new songs but we do have movies, tv, and games.
Copyright infringement is not theft. It's not stealing. "Stealing music" is a phrase invented by groups like the RIAA to try an justify their actions to the general public. Only the truly gullible and terminally stupid (i.e. you) really believe them. If you want proof that copyright infringement is not stealing, then simply look at the papers the RIAA filed. "Theft" is not the offence these mothers have been accused of. QED, copyright infringement is not theft.
Your post assumes that these mothers are guilty of the 'crime' they have been accused of. They way the RIAA spin in, it's beholden on the accused to prove their innocence. This act is directly counter to the principles that many legal systems were founded upon; notably - that one is innocent until proven guilty.
It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. All the mothers can hope to do in this case is prove that they didn't use P2P applications or have music on their machines they didn't have a legal right to. This doesn't prove they weren't sharing music at the time the RIAA alledge.
The RIAA should be made to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that:
Windows Tweaks
This isn't a murder charge. Standards of evidence are somewhat relaxed.
IIRC, RICO can be exercised as an ordinary civil suit, you just have to be able to state a claim for damages. In this case I would think that Anderson would have a claim for the stress factor this RIAA BS is causing her.
I hope she's reading this, more money for her and her attorney.
BTW, this is why you NEVER want to limit what attorneys or you can recover in lawsuits - because sometimes regular attys have to do the hard work that govt. either will not do, or when govt. is acting against you (as in criminalizing "copyright infringement" as if it were *SO IMPORTANT* to the whole of society instead of just some big wigs at the record and movie companies).
She broke the radio with the board of education...
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
I share 9500 songs, and 200+ movies and more than 500 GB of software daily on a private hub.
Yet the RIAA, BSA and MPAA have never come after me. They only go after those that are obviously illiterate with computers, that way they know these people can be scammed. I dare them to try and sue me, they wouldn't get through step one.
Talking to Geeks is like eating jello with a chainsaw, interesting, but painful.
The legal *cough* experts at slashdot tell us again (and again and again) that copyright infringement is NOT STEALING. It seems to offend your sensibility that someone uses that term so loosely.
Is there someone (anyone?) out there who actually knows if the word stealing is a real legal term. And if so, where? Are the legal buttheads at slashdot right?
Most people have an informal idea of what stealing is, and the whole argument about whether this is the right word rings pretty hollow to me.
I would love to put this stupid fucking semantic argument to rest.
What a crock of shit. Just what we need: another illiterate asshole that cannot fucking read the article.
These people are claiming innocence.
Yet they actually drop suits left and right to keep a judge from ruling against them when the truth about the supposed infringement comes out. They even refuse to examine the equipment supposedly involved because they'd have to share their findings with the defense. If they found that there was a program, virus or other malware covertly sharing files without the owners knowledge, the owner would probably get off, so the RIAA doesn't even want to look at the equipment for fear or finding it.
Can you please point out where in the "law" it says that downloading MP3s off of a p2p network is not allowed? The specific paragraph would be helpful. Thanks.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Okay this is such a crybaby story. Why does the Motherhood of these women matter? Why does the marital status of these women matter. Are they alledging these are defenseless creatures or something. Oh PLease.
It's okay to hate the RIAA. But demonizing them for kicking elf, stepping on spiders, and scaring babies is just taking it too far.
Enough with this crap.
Seriously. This is enough to make me believe all the anti-RIAA propaganda we read here is just as much hot air as this story. I'm beggining to think if this is the best people can do to smear the RIAA that maybe I should consider if the RIAA has a valid point. Hmmm maybe they do since the people opposing them are apparently excitable children.
grow up!
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
testing html on an old thread
This may sound bad/conspiracy theory-ish.
I'm starting to wonder if the RITA* is using geolocation with the lists of IPs they bought from some possibly questionable collection/data mining agency. I don't remember the last time I heard of a middle or upper class kid getting sued, but they probably have a prepaid no limit iTunes account to go with their 60GB iPod photo. Are they sueing people who in most cases cannot affort their minimum $3500 settlement. They seem to be relying on lists of numners bought from IP harversters and taking what they get as 100% correct and never infallible. My advice to anyone who is unfortunately being sued an as far as they know they have done nothing wrong is how they got their information on you. If someone is using dialup and disconnects data will still be sent to that IP for some time, especially if they were requesting information from P2P apps, maybe kazaa supernodes.
It's possible that the requests were made several minutes before the IP was assigned to them but with the low response time you get with dialup, by the time the RITA snitches' packet sniffers got hold of it the "infringing" IP was assigned to someone else. I used Verizon DSL a few yrs ago before optimumonline was available in the area. The policy was one IP per house but you could connect as many PCs as you want. Without a router to keep a semi-static IP I'd go through lots of IPs a day since I turned my PC off when I left. For at least 20min after connecting ZoneAlarm would record pages of logs from traffic intended for the previous user of the IP, the IPs appeared to be immediately reassigned. I've on seen one takedown notice with logs, the inital detection and followup detection times were 20sec appart. With checking times only 20sec appart it's very possible that the packets they sniffed were going to another person but were time delayed.
Challenge the sources, if they're unwilling to reveal them then they're no more credible than kid A telling the teacher claiming that kid B did something bad or McCarthy's list of Communists that he never let anyone else see.
*I've stopped called the RIAA the RIAA, it's really the RITA Recording Industry Trust of America
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
articles like this show /. is about as credible a news source as Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh.
Vote for Pedro
I'm still pretty sure they need to accurately identify the person before they are allowed to sue them.
" They are (generally) going after people who can't afford to fight...
I wonder how much it would affect the strategy is large numbers of objectors banded together to create a massive defense fund. Retain a few lawyers and offer to defend anyone who is accused."
Everyone ignores the fact that these people are guilty, even if they themselves don't realize it. Those computers are all being used to distribute copyrighted material illegally. The people owning the computers just don't realize it's happening because their kids or their kids' friends installed and used the software. To assume that the accusations are false is to deny reality. I can download p2p and find any song I want. Someone has to be guilty.
Vote for Pedro
In other words, ignore RIAA, and go straight to the musicians, who, I'm almost positive, are more reasonable.
Only very very big name acts that have managed to be around for a very very long time own their copyrights. Such artists also tend to aspire to be producers and owners. Basically such artists are junior members of the cartel proper. Most are no position to be more "reasonable". If anything they are in debt to the record compaines that have profited from their work and are contractually prevented from being any sort of mitigating voice.
Most music published by RIAA record companies is done as a work for hire. If the songwriters were savvy enough then they may own the copyrights to the lyrics and sheet music. In any case, record companies tend to insist on owning particular recordings. They also tend to insist on contractual restrictions on how, when, and where the music can be recorded and performed regardless of who owns the copyrights.
Think of the position a software developer working in a cubicle for a large software house is in. Most do not own the copyrights and most have no voice in how the business is conducted. The recording industry worked that way long before PCs came onto the scene. That isn't to say software industry "innovations" like EULAs haven't set these vampires to simultaneously drooling and masturbating in public.
They won't permit "going straight to the musicians" to work. This can only work with those few musicians who refuse to have any truck with the cartel.
this was in a slashdotted article the other day: "So call me an extremist, but you know, I think business logic may be on my side. I think there's big money to be made in online music, but not until someone has the cojones to route around the the record labels. To disintermediate, to focus on the artists and the listeners instead of the extremely-fat cats currently addicted to selling 25-cent plastic disks for $20 and doling out a few pennies to the musicians, and trying to protect that franchise by suing their customers." -TBray Someday we can hope that this will happen. Not only is this business model harmful concerning its actions with the RIAA, its is extremely harmful on the quality of the music that is pushed thru mass media, which is pretty evident whenever you turn on the radio. Record lables dream of finding the next Britney Spears or 50 Cent, low grade horse shit that 13 year old girls will eat up. These kinds of artists take a minimal investment and have the largest returns. Which means that they do not like to nurture new artists who take more than a couple albums of investment in, to start seeing returns. This is why the indie lable market is so important because it creates a space for emerging artists to develop their art. The problem is that the RIAA has such a strangle-hold on mass media, (in conjucntion with clear channel and the like)that these indie artist are not able to find exposure, and people are not able to find the music they want through normal channels. What we have is an industry catering exlusively to 14 year olds. Un-established artists that do not appeal to that sales demographic, are basically left hung out to dry if they are not an istant sales success with the lables. We have a lot of good musicians in this world making really good music. Unfortunatley due to the recording industries current business model, it becomes very hard for people to find the music they are truly looking for. It is hard to see an industry built upon so many problems lasting for too much longer without serious changes in the way it opperates. This should be about THE MUSIC! making beautiful works of art! You should be able to make some decent money at it too. But suing the shit out of people who don't have the ability to fight your legal jugernaut? Thats about as far from the beauty of music as I can imagine.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -Hunter S. Thompson
I'm sure you would have the same laid back attitude towards evidentiary standards were you accused of a crime.
"p2pnet is reporting that two more single mothers are... "
Hmm... Is this some sort of message saying to geeks that they are "looking"?
The hip way to get your IP. No ads, ever.
First they came for the Britney Fans
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Britney Fan.
Mostly because Britney sucks in more ways then one
Then they didn't come for me, I own piles of vinyl records, and I listen mostly to College Radio. But more or less they are picking on those likely to cave in quick. They settle quick too, they can't lose their momentum. When they do they drop off for about 8 months then start again. They won't go away, there is too much money at stake and none of it comes from these lawsuits. These games make the Industry get a warm fuzzy feeling right down in their beancounters. Makes it look like it works or means much. Bark back loud enough and they run away like the school yard bullies they dreaded when they were kids.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
I believe Merriam Webster may disagree with you. Let's see, dictionary, jack ass on slashdot, who would you refer to concerning definitions of words?
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice
transitive sense
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of
According to the transitive sense of the definition in 1b, one can have their liberty stolen yet liberty is not a physical object either. Let's just stick with the first definition though. Does it mention anywhere that the property must be physical? No, it doesn't, therefore intellectual property. would fall under this definition as well. Simply because you do not like the way a word is used does not mean it is being used improperly.
That the files had been placed in a shared directory through a deliberate interactive action, not placed their automatically by an application / trojan, etc.
I put it to you that one is responsible for every action one's computer takes: under direction or as a result of malware. Failure to monitor what a computer is doing with an Internet connection is analagous to letting a dog roam free unrestrained and unattended.
Let me get this straight: We pay a royalty for every blank CD we buy thave to pay another royalty for downloado RIAA because they assume we're copying copyrighted music to it, even if we don't. Now, doesn't that justify downloading something for free to burn to the CD? If we then have to pay a royalty for downloading the music, aren't we then paying for it twice? So, they're actually sticking it to us at both ends. Maybe my logic is flawed, I'm not sure. However, I thought some country in Europe saw it the same way a couple of years ago.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Oh yes, please quote Merriam Webster to a judge, you'll make a great attorney! Try Black's law dictionary genious steal, vb. 1. To take (personal property) illegally with the intent to keep it unlawfully. [Cases: Larceny 1. C.J.S. Larceny 1(1, 2), 9.] 2. To take (something) by larceny, embezzlement, or false pretenses. or if you prefer: theft, n. 1. The felonious taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of depriving the true owner of it; larceny. [Cases: Larceny 1. C.J.S. Larceny 1(1, 2), 9.] 2. Broadly, any act or instance of stealing, including larceny, burglary, embezzlement, and false pretenses. Many modern penal codes have consolidated such property offenses under the name "theft." -- Also termed (in Latin) crimen furti. See LARCENY. So... an MP3 is personal property to you? Now let's try: copyright infringement. The act of violating any of a copyright owner's exclusive rights granted by the federal Copyright Act, 17 USCA 106, 602. A copyright owner has several exclusive rights in copyrighted works, including the rights (1) to reproduce the work; (2) to prepare derivative works based on the work; (3) to distribute copies of the work; (4) for certain kinds of works, to perform the work publicly; (5) for certain kinds of works, to display the work publicly; (6) for sound recordings, to perform the work publicly; and (7) to import into the United States copies acquired elsewhere. Ding ding ding...
Not that relaxed. The RIAA still has to present evidence. Mere assertions won't do.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I see it a bit differently. A computer is just a machine, like a car, or a gun.
I own it, I use it (the car) periodically. I'm not liable if someone else uses it to damage someone else. I would only be liable for my own, independent negligence, such as leaving the keys in the car, or whatever.
They have to sue the *person* doing the harm, not the owner of the device used to inflict the harm, righ? (Again, unless the owner independently did some wrongful act.)
Why can't all these people simply deny that they did it, and, as the article mentions, let the RIAA go after their child or whatever? Wouldn't it be the burden on the RIAA to prove WHO did it? So, suppose they depose people, and people are candid about it, and they determine that, if anything, it was the teenage child. Let them sue, let them even win (if they can). Then just have the child declare bankruptcy. Nice! The RIAA driving 14 year olds into bankruptcy! What a way to start out in life.
As much as I think the RIAA has not done what it would take to embrace the digital age yet, and as much as I think they are obviously trying to make examples out of these trials, rather that just apply the law... I'd like to say, even if that's not popular right now, that sharing and using creations (books, music, movies, software...) without the proper license and the author's consent (given or implied) is illegal. Yet, the IP laws are clearly being violated all the time at an ever growing rate.
So either some of you are really advocating changing the IP laws - in this case, you'd better get into politics or at least vote for the right persons next time - or you just want to ignore the law. Which one is it? Do you think breaking the law is acceptable just because it doesn't seem to do much harm? Even if it didn't do any harm (which is questionable), would that be a good reason to break the law? So how come a lot of people get all upset when the RIAA is just trying to enforce the law? Again, if you have a problem with the law, do what it takes to have it changed. In any case, how is it the RIAA's fault?
Nor are they likely to lose most of these cases, as the people are guilty of breaking the law. This should be obvious, regardless of whether you like the law or not.
The problem that both he MPAA and RIAA rely on automated filename searches without varifying the content can hardly be construed this way (IANAL). If I put up my Cascading Stylesheet Stripping Sed script I call DeCSS on my web site, and I get sued because the MPAA thinks it might be the other DeCSS, that is bad faith because they are failing to do any due dilligance in these case. If they were trying to settle after they became aware of their mistake in order to prevent case law from requiring such verification in the future from them, that would, IMO be an abuse of their access to the courts.
The fact is, the RIAA is acting on behalf of the copyright owners on these cases. They have very questionable evidence based on these automated searches with no human verification. You can hardly say that this represents enough evidence admissible in court to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard (remeber, IANAL, of course). So unless they have extremely strong evidence linking these specific individuals (not their computers) to real files containing copyright information (not merely ones with similar sounding names like rebuttal-to-metalica.mp3).
Evidence? How much due dilligance do you think they are doing when they are litterally pursuing thousands of cases at any given time?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I do miss the penis bird...
Now all we need is the ascii goatse guy.
Depends. I think you're a little underinformed. In any event, you may wish to revamp your definition of "bad faith".
... this is deterrence. It is not even about recovering damages for illegally-copied material. What this is about is making peer-to-peer technology seem too dangerous to use, because the RIAA (not the courts, not the justice system) has the power to destroy you at will. And the reason they want to do that is so that they can restore the heavy-handed control of content distribution that the Internet so handily took away.
There's a very real chance the RIAA would lose each and every one of the lawsuits they filed, since they aren't actually investigating these alleged crimes. Worse, they are basing their accusations on only the flimsiest of evidence (and I use the term loosely.) Besides, this is not justice, this is not even racketeering
The only real chain of evidence that exists in these cases are ISP logs. That's it. That's the only link between an address acquired via monitoring file-sharing networks (an activity that is, itself, of questionable legality) and the supposed infringers. Someone's life and livelihood hanging in the balance over an entry in a log file somewhere. Maybe in your mind that constitutes a sufficient body of evidence to warrant accusing someone of the heinous crime of copyright infringement. Courts, on the other hand, generally take a dim view of frivolous lawsuits, as they consider them to be a complete waste of time. If it were otherwise, the RIAA would be taking all of these cases to trial, rather than simply intimidating people with their Armani suits and threats of bankruptcy. The very last thing they want is a defendant willing to stand up to them and take this to court.
The RIAA is using the law in a punitive manner, acting as judge, jury and executioner, effectively bypassing due process. They are doing this by selecting people that they feel will not take the risk of a full-blown trial. How can you possibly say they are operating in anything resembling "good faith"? My God.
Now, even if one accepts that ISP logs (and the RIAA's own monitoring efforts) are one hundred percent accurate, and trusts the RIAA to even provide accurate information, one cannot remotely discern the particular individual who is "guilty" (i.e., the person who actually clicked the "download" button.) Consequently, these sociopaths just sue the person whose name is on the Internet access account, regardless of whether or not that person did anything whatever to infringe someone's copyright. Seriously, I hope you have an unsecured WAP plugged into your cable modem: perhaps one of your music-loving neighbors will help to give you an object lesson in these matters. I would be happy to provide him or her with the requisite software and technique.
And this really avoids the question of whether the law is just (it isn't) and whether this behavior on the part of the RIAA should even be permitted under U.S. law. Another poster who claimed to be an attorney used the term "barratry" to describe this sue-happy behavior, and apparently it is illegal. So just be damned careful where you throw your support.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Oh, right, cue meaningless slashdot mantra.
If they have competent techies working for them (and they do), they've got more than enough evidence on the people they decide to go after.
Death To women's Rights
Hope the bitches lose.
Viva el Software Libre.
"1. To take (personal property) illegally with the intent to keep it unlawfully"
Where in this definition is the personal property defined as being physical in nature? Copying a file is taking something and you are keeping it illegally since you have violated the right of the copyright owner to reproduce the work. If you offer the file for upload you have also violated the copyright owner's right of distribution. However, you look at it, copyright infringement can be considered stealing but I'd wager that the original poster was thinking in terms of the general use of the word, not the legal definition of stealing.
One thing that has always remained unanswered to me is to what legal extent a person is responsible for security ? Let's suppose that you're not a network guru, have a wireless AP, and you don't secure it. Afterall, this is how almost ALL AP's come out of the box - unsecured. Let's suppose your AP is then used by others to download copyrighted content, and you get fingered for it. Is this your problem ?
Afterall, if you leave the keys in your car then you are responsible to a large extent for it's theft most people would say. But then, why aren't ultimately the ISP's responsible, passing it up the chain, since they didn't stop copyrighted material being transmitted on their service ?
Taking this further, why aren't the music providers themselves responsible for not properly securing their music in the first place - afterall, they left the keys in their car....or on the DVD in the case of movies. Or how about the manufacturers of the AP ?
I'm not sticking up for copyright theft at all, but I find the legal consequences of responsibility and who it lies with very interesting. I wonder if this has been tested in any courts around the world ? On my short 12km ride from work to home, a casual sniff reveals that around 40% of home WANs are unsecured on my trip....so imagine how plausible this scenario must be.
Dear Slashdot user 11846,
The song lyric that you reproduced without permission constitutes unauthorized distribution of my client's valuable intellectual property. Persuant to the DMCA, send us $50,000 or we'll sue.
Sincerely,
Consel to RIAA
Oh the poor RIAA being victimised for being the preditors they are. I feel so much for them... not. Cry me a river. GO MOMs, kick thier asses.
Here's what I don't understand:
If this were a case where people were downloading files and somehow able to fight against the RIAA, this would be news, as people would legally be able to download music. However, this is just people defending themselves on the premise that they didn't do anything. Why are we celebrating? Obviously, it's good for them, but for people who are actually (assuming the fact that these women are actually innocent) breaking the law, does these select cases mean a thing?
Mothers Against Copyright Cartels.
hmmm.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
Never, ever, ever tempt the wrath of a single mother.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
A hypothetical scenario (not that it can ever really happen): you - a complete computer ignoramus - went to Best Buy and bought one of those strange devices with two pencil-like protrusions on the top that, the salesman said, will let you access your lame AOL from your laptop without running any network cables. You came home, followed the "Easy Installation Guide" and... IT WORKED, to your complete astonishment. The same day Jack - a pizza-faced college student and your next-door neighbor - cancelled his expensive Comcast broadband, because he just discovered a high-speed WAP that some loozer (you) left completely unprotected (courtesy of the Easy Installation Guide). Jack is a big fan of eMule and an mp3 connoisseur. In a couple of months you receive a "settlement offer" from the RIAA gang, suggesting that you sell your car and wardrobe to pay for all those Metallica "hits" that you supposedly downloaded. After searching through AOL and discovering that Metallica is some sort of a musical band, you tell RIAA to shove it. They decide to drag you into court. Question: how can they prove your guilt? A follow-up question: how can you prove your innocence?
"Was it her IP address at the time of the upload or did the RIAA just ask for whoever had the IP address at the time of their request and neglect to specify a time?"
probably at the time of the request or when someone added it to the infringing IP list, but who knows, and they probably won't say if asked
Can the software that tied the user to the IP be considered 100% accurate?
NO, it's too easy for a "real" "pirate" to fake
"Has an audit been done to insure this?"
conducting an audit would be a violation of trade secrets, so that's another NO
I'm not saying there arn't guilty people out there, just that the methods used are unreliable at best. Especially when dealing with time stamps with dialup and DSL ISPs where the time really matters. Lots of cable ISP users leave their cable modem on all the time so they have very close to a static IP. My watch says 8:54, my PC has 8:48, what time your watch/clock say?
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
You can dance around the central issue all you want, but you ignore th obvious:
The business model has failed, and the RIAA thinks they can take advantage over the confusion of P2P and the internet to justify a pay-per-listen model that went out with the juke box.
If you go to the grocery store and buy some bad apples, you can take them back and say "these suck". The grocery store is apologetic and gives you your money back. The RIAA says "Ha ha, fooled you again".
The price of music should be going down because the price of production has gone down, yet, the RIAA is trying to get $18-20 for a CD. People are sick of it and so they take it.
Maybe its not right (and anything over 24 years old is fair game in my book), but people know what's fair, and what's not. The current system is not fair to consumers, and so they take advantage of the situation.
Its like a sixteen lane highway that has a 25 MPH speed limit. Nobody pays attention because its dumb, but it's still breaking the law. I can live with that.
Finally, I object to the FBI being taken away from its mission of actually fighting violent crime to act as the enforcement arm of the RIAA. Why don't I get that kind of personal attention from law enforcement? Oh right. Because I didn't give $30M to congress last year. I forgot about that little gem.
You don't think massive corporations suing single moms is demonic behavior?
Hmmm maybe they do since the people opposing them are apparently excitable children.
Or maybe they're tired of seeing corporations making billions of dollars in profits and who have been porking the music buying public for years with price fixing dragging people who work for a living through the courts. Does that make me an excitable child?
That's probably one of the reasons Sony, BMG and some others collaberated to form RIAA, the same reason MSFT funded the BSA. So someone else could be the bad guy.
It's sort of like the Republican controlled Congress and Senate passing the bankruptcy reform bill which makes it difficult to discharge credit card debt. You'd think with the increased collections the credit card banks would give people a break right? Instead they all raised their late fees and penalties, knowing that they can get away with it because people can't discharge their credit card debt in court. Bet ya didn't see that coming, did you?
I don't know anyone else, but I'm tired of corporate money running this country. I want my country back. I want to lead a torch carrying mob down K Street and sack every lobbyist office and burn every corporate jet at the airport. And this crap that RIAA is up to is just one more reason we really need to do that.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
No. Despite the fact that IANAL, they don't have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. They have to prove their case to a preponderance of doubt. There is a significantly lower standard.
...but it's not stealing. You're so insightful!
Also, FWIW, Slashdot posters take such glee in describing the whole "Copyright infringement isn't theft" thing ad nauseum. Look, we get it -- but it doesn't make it any less of a crime. A different crime, sure - but a criminal act nonetheless.
The vast majority of P2P traffic (at least under our current argubly draconian system) is in violation of people's copyrights. The people engaging in the vast majority of P2P traffic are engaging - willfully - in criminal acts. All of the replies to this post that scream "But I download my Linux ISOs with P2P," and "Lets ban TCP/IP, because it's the problem" aren't helping the situation.
All of the major file sharing P2P systems (eMule/Donkey, Kazaa, LimeWhatever) exist for the primary purpose of violating people's copyrights. They're 98% music, movies and warez and 2% legitimate content. You can sream "The RIAA is teh evil1!!one" all you want, but it don't make the acts of these people any more justified.
They can buy copies of music, listen to RIAA artists on the radio, or choose to listen to artists who haven't sold their souls to the devil. They're not Ghandi, making some sort of selfless demonstration. They're people who take the easy path to free downloads, because a buck a song at any of a half a dozen legitimate download sources is too much for them.
Here is the paragraph you are looking for. A "more official" version (but less easily naviable) is available here. In short, if you cut out the intervening parts that cover all the OTHER stuff you arent allowed to do, the relevant part boils down to: ... the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to ... reproduce the copyrighted work ...
Now, all nonsense aside, when you click that "download" button you ARE reproducing the work, copying it from the remote computer(s) to your own.
The civil and criminal penalties for violating that exclusive right are laid out a few pages away from those links.
BURN HIM!
This is the "freedom" that the Bush administration stands for: Giving a bourgeois corporation of parasites the right to bully anyone at will. Count me in for RIAA relief...
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
But they aren't claiming the music itself has been stolen. What they are claiming has been stolen is the proceeds they should have received from the sale of each copy, as they are the copyright holder. If you think there are flaws in the copyright system, say that, but that's a different matter.
I'm with you on this one. I think it's assumed (much like many people assume everything they seen in adverts is true), that someone must have checked all this, and would have done something about it if it wasn't true, and therefore they don't have to.
Check U.S. Title 17, Chapter 1, section 106.
It can't be considered stealing since you are not depriving them of the "property," whether physical or intangible. That is why it isn't stealing.
Just like Xeroxing a copyrighted photograph is not stealing it, it's violating the copyright on it, which includes distributing and copying it.
Allowing a dog to roam free and unrestrained has obvious and predictable consequences. Canine behaviour is well understood.
However, a computer is a different (pardon the pun) beast. Do you know what your computer is doing with its network connection at all times? I doubt it, even if you have your machine well-firewalled and monitored. My personal machine is tied-down, virus and spyware free and regularly audited by myself, but I could not claim to know what it was doing at all times unless I sat there watching end-points and connections continuously. Expecting your average Joe User to do that is pure fantasy.
In law, there is ample precedent for treating actions which result from innocent oversight or accident differently to those that result from deliberate actions. Murder versus Manslaughter, for example. Although the offences stem from the untimely death of an individual, they are different offences carrying different penalties. Another more analagous example would be (in UK legal parlance) the offences of motor manslaughter and causing death by dangerous driving (link). Again, although the result is the same (someone dies) the penalties, burden of proof and offence is different.
If the RIAA were alledging that the mother in TFA was "allowing infringement of copyright", it'd be a different story. However, they're not. What they are alledging is that she was infringing copyright; an act with necessarily involves wilful action.
Windows Tweaks
A made-for-tv movie staring Lindsay Wagner. Her physically-challenged daughter is just starting to make progress by listening to P2P songs when suddenly the RIAA files a lawsuit against them both. Only a last-minute visit from Madonna stops the plans of the evil RIAA. Yup.
Some settling may occur during posting.
Yes, exactly! Their methods for asserting that someone has been copying music need to be shown to be accurate. Maybe they really are carefully auditing everything every step of the way, double checking connections to ensure traffic isn't being faked, keeping paper trails to ensure data couldn't be modified, etc. However, until this can be shown to be true, the courts should be treating this like they would if anyone else turned up and said "Bob owes me because he illegally copied my stuff, and here's *wave computer printout* all the evidence".
To be honest, the RIAA shouldn't be doing this at all. Finding people who are illegally sharing music, and providing evidence of this should not be left to the people who stand to profit from it!
This is something regular law enforcement agencies should handle, and I'm disappointed that they are not, as it would (should?) have stopped the RIAA from getting involved in evidence gathering in the first place.
Unless you're directly involved in this, I think you're making assumptions. In the past, the RIAA have used John Doe Subpoenas before. http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa-v-thepeople.php
If they don't even have the name of the illegal filesharer, I doubt the have enough evidence.
Nowhere in any of these definitons, legal or otherwise, has the term deprive been mentioned. For it to be stealing you simply must take with the intent to keep illegally. Have you taken the file? Yes, even though it's a copy you have taken the file none the less. Do you intend to keep the file illegally? If you were using a P2P app, it is arguable that you certainly intended to violate copyright law thus you are holding the file, albeit a copy, illegally.
All we need is a few more viruses that download songs from p2p networks, and these lawsuits would disappear completely.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
First off these people are not being sued for downloading. They are being sued for distribution (uploading).
There are such things as statuatory damages (usually punitive) vs actual damages. The law provides for this. Statury damages can be as low as $200 per infringment for an innocent infringment but as high as $150,000 for a willful infringment. I would suspect the RIAA is seeking these types of damages, and not actual damages. The damages are different for criminal/commercial infringment.
My major in college was the study of the recording industry. I am an audio engineer but have had a couple of law courses focusing on the rec industry.
Libertas in infinitum
Well said.
I think that someone needed to point out that this is about due dilligence, due process, and good faith. The point is that if the RIAA is able to file suits against anyone they want to and then try to keep it from ever going to court, then we have effectively allowed them to skirt every safeguard in our system.
Allowing anyone (regardless of the legitimacy or lack thereof of their interest) to use the courts in this manner leaves us in a state of corporate fascism, where certain corporate entities who are beholden only to their member corporations, can effectively force their will on anyone simply by *articulating* a possible complaint and attempting to force settlement. We have the doctrine of sovereign immunity to keep this from happening to our government, so how do we face this danger against the citizenry by corporate interest groups.*
* Businesses will naturally keep their hands clean because this is at best a distraction from making money and at worst a way of encouraging substantial animosity on the part of possible customers. However, they will allow or encourage industry organizations such as the MPAA, the RIAA, and the BSA to essentially enforce their will against their customers.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
> In any case, how is it the RIAA's fault?
It's the RIAA's fault because they represent labels who have performed the following questionable or outright illegal actions (in no particular order)
- Paying radio stations in cocaine / sports cars / tens of thousands of dollars to make sure a single gets played 12 - 22 times a day every day for four months, ensuring a "reasonable" debut for an artist who nobody has ever heard of - and sometimes artists they have. This practice has been criticized and even litigated in the past (the 1950's and 1980's most notably) with little abatement in this practice.
- Ensuring that CD's remained in a $17 - $22 price range from [literally, no joke] 1983 to the present, despite the fact that literally anyone will tell you that the reasonable retail price for a CD should more likely be around $9, max. (Note that the price outside of North America is usually substantially higher.) LP's and Cassettes were priced around the $7-$9 range range when CD's were introduced (1982). Even with inflation there is literally ZERO reason for a CD to be "on sale" at $16 or so.
- Ensuring that their artists - even the ones who pull in the lion's share of profits for a label - only earn a maximum of $0.70 per cd sold (and not returned), yet making sure that that same artist is the one responsible for paying for the $100,000+ video they just made which will be played precisely one (1) time on your alleged music video station of choice.
- Continuing to take major percentages of money from the sales of any possible merchandise an artist can make while on the road, including the sales of T-shirts, cd's, posters, etc. at the show's merch booth. (Note: this is one of the only ways an artist actually stands to make more money in terms of a major record deal.)
- Failing to offer any consumer, anywhere, any sort of online alternative that actually makes financial sense. People know that digital files to not require things like packaging or shipping costs. Yet a song on iTunes = $1. That is flatly ridiculous. I don't get artwork, liner notes or anything else - I get the song. It's also not a high-quality version of the recording. My guess, that's worth $0.50 at the very most.
Why labels have been dragging their feet since the introduction of the MP3 is beyond me. Maybe lawsuits were part of their actual overall marketing plan for 2000 - 2015. I don't know. Either way: the RIAA knows all of the abovementioned points. They should be brought to bear on the actual fiscal facts of this situation. We as consumers have been putting up with this crap for decades, not just since the introduction of the internet.
In my opinion, especially the Santagelo case proves that the labels and the RIAA are well aware that they are on the cusp of breaching the law themselves. They back away when barked at loudly enough. My hope is that real justice is served and copyright law is examined in much greater detail in the courts. Artists are getting screwed anyway, no need for the labels to make out like it's our duty to correct that.
ad
Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
My major in college was the study of the recording industry. I am an audio engineer but have had a couple of law courses focusing on the rec industry.
Here are some of my brief notes from my copyright law course. Some of this is kind of random, scattered and dissheleved.
BASIC LAWS
There are currently 3 types of property in the US:
1) Personal - should be obvious 2) Real - and/buildings 3) "Intellectual"
There are mostly 3 tyes of "Intellectual Properties"
1) Patents - systems, processess, formulas, etc 2) Copyrights - original writings or works of art from an author or artist 3) Trademarks - logo, name, design, slogan 4) Trade Secrets - anything a company uses secretly which is not patented
Trademark conflicts are between businesses and is based on geographic location and which industry it is used in. When courts try trademark cases they base their decision on the objective of "causing the least amount of confusion in rhe market place"
Novelty and inventiveness are required for a patent, but not for a copyright.
Anything that has a minimal degree of creativity meets the threshold for copyright can be copyrighted
A creative work is copyrighted the instant it is put in the form of a tangiable medium.
IDEAS ARE NOT PROTECTED BUT WORKS THAT CONTAIN IDEAS ARE COPYRIGHTABLE.
What can be copyrighted?
Literary works, musical works (including lyrics), dramatic works (music too), pantemines, cheorographic works, pictorial, graphic, scupltural work, motion picture, a/v works, animations, sound recordings, archetectual works.
RIGHTS:
As the owner of a copyright what rights do you have?
- Reproduction - Authorize derivivative works - Distribution - Public Performance - Public Display
- Digital Transmission (DMCA)
Copyright litigation:
The 3 questions asked by the court:
- Who owns the valid copyrigt - Was there unlawful copying by the defendent - Substansiality and/or similarity
REMEDIES:
The remedies for a civil copyright infringment are this
1- Injunctions (preliminary and permant) 2- Impoundment and/or destruction 3- Damages (fines/restrictions) damages can be actual (plantiff loss + defendent gains) or statuatory (as defined by law) 4- Court costs and attorney fees
Statuatory damages and court costs/attorney fees are not availble remedies to the plantiff unless the work was registered with the US Copyright Office PRIOR to the infringment by the defendent.
Statury damages can be as low as $200 per infringment for an innocent infringment but as high as $150,000 for a willful infringment.
To have infringment:
1- Plantiff must have ownership of valid copyright 2- Unlawful copying must have taken place 3- Access must be proven; direct (defendent saw/heard copy of work); indirect (access is inferred by wide dissemination) 4- Similarity; 4 types- identical; striking, substantial, insubstantial
Criminal infringment:
Willful infringment for commercial advantage or private financial gain by the sale of 10 or more copies or retail value of $2,500 or more within a 6 month period.
Penalties: $250,000 fines for a person or $500,000 for an entity and/or imprisonment 5 years for first offense, 10 years for second offense.
Constructive knowledge - once a work of art is registered with the USCO it is presumed that the defendent is aware of the copyright.
FAIR USE
What is fair use? It is a defense against alleged copyright infringment
The courts evaluate 4 elements in defining fair use:
- Nature of the work (factual vs fictional) - Nature of the use (commercial vs educational vs private vs public) - Amount and substantiality (using the hook/chorus or verse) - The effect on the commercial market place (more weight has been given to this one recently)
MISC CONCEPTS/IDEAS:
There is concept called the idea/expression dichotomy. The expression of the facts can be copyrighted but the facts themselves cannot.
There is a concept called the Merger Doctrine; there
Libertas in infinitum
You seem a little clueless. The John Doe Subpoenas were to get their records from the ISPs in the first place so that they find what name went with what IP.
Change the law? Are you serious? With all of the money involved on the opposing side, it would be just about as easy to work at minimum wage with the goal of saving up enough money to buy a private island and enough yes-men so you can create your own little dictatorship that dosen't recognize copyright on materials older than a reasonable life span--all so you can thumb your nose at Mickey Mouse.
The Beatles, for example, are legends, and their works will continue to generate money well after the generation that first heard them have entirely turned to worm food. Michael Jackson makes a buttload off them, and they're just a drop in the bucket. It's in this industry's interest to make copyrights infinitely long, I realize this, they realize it, we all realize it. They have the money and the support to do it, and everyone else can eat shit. That's the reality. Unless someone cares to pull a few billion out of their ass to buy up and free all this good stuff, it will be tied up forever.
Somehow, to me, it dosen't seem unethical to copy music or other materials that have outlived everyone involved in its creation and its original investers, regardless of the legality.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Actually it isn't a crime until it reaches a specificed threshold as set by the US Code. Until then it is considered a "tort" which is a civil offense, NOT a criminal offense.
Criminal infringment is willful infringment for commercial advantage or private financial gain by the sale of 10 or more copies or retail value of $2,500 or more within a 6 month period.
Libertas in infinitum
Actually it isnt always a crime. It is usually a tort until it reaches the threshold of willful infringment for commercial advantage or private financial gain by the sale of 10 or more copies or retail value of $2,500 or more within a 6 month period.
Torts are usually civil, whereas crimes are obviously criminal.
Libertas in infinitum
So what if the RIAA can only intimidate 99% of their victims, instead of 100%?
The effect of the frivilous lawsuit machine is just the same.
Actually that isn't a legal defense.
There is no theft, just an infringment on the copyright holders exclusive right of distribution. That is a tort which is civil until it reaches the following threshold:
"Willful infringment for commercial advantage or private financial gain by the sale of 10 or more copies or retail value of $2,500 or more within a 6 month period."
Libertas in infinitum
Kill the whore instead.
Actually this isn't a crime against real or personal property. It is a tort (civil) against intellectual property.
A crime against personal property is if I shoplift it from the store.
Libertas in infinitum
You are right. It is usually a tort which is civil. These cases I dont beleive are criminal in nature. But copyright infringment can be considered criminal if it reaches a given threshold:
- Willful infringment for commercial advantage or private financial gain by the sale of 10 or more copies or retail value of $2,500 or more within a 6 month period.
Libertas in infinitum
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
The copyright act of 1976 provides for the level of the infringment be elevated to criminal if the threshold of the infringment:
"Is willful infringment for commercial advantage or private financial gain by the sale of 10 or more copies or retail value of $2,500 or more within a 6 month period."
Libertas in infinitum
how can you "take" a copy, if it's still there afterwards?
in order for something to be stealing, it has to completely removed, either tangible or non. though people in general tend to take tangible more seriously.
to make a copy, by definition isn't stealing. it's copying. the original is still there.
hence the legal system has called this kind of illegal activity COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
What the hell are you talking about? How ignorant you are. The media in general is a waste. Where do you think your media gets its footage? You hippocrite. Europeans all but allow genocide to happen in your back yards. Your sad excuse for an "economic union" has failed because you couldn't agree enough to ratify a constitution. The Russian and French Revolutions were violent...and they didn't happen in America, they happened in Europe. I'm American and am no fan of the media, the RIAA, or any of the other corporate dirt bags that exist. But when global warming does happen and the precious gulf stream no longer gives you cold weather, I'd happily laugh because apparently you know how to handle this type of thing. Go sit in your own filth. I lived for three years in Europe after three years in Japan. I've seen my share of society from around the world. I loved Europe, but Europeans are without a doubt the most racist people on the planet. Always have been. And another thing, We feel obligated to do the decent thing is a total lie. Europeans have historically not done the decent thing. Take World War I for example. The treaty of Versailles was a miserable failure. And the reason? Because it penalized an already shot Germany and the Europeans took NO INITIATIVE WHATSOEVER! I am no fan of Bush, but at least in the USA we have balls. Europeans run around shooting their mouthes off about how Americans are so outrageious. Fortunately our founding fathers were much more visionary than yours. And consider this as well: the US government has survived longer than any in mainland Europe. Our country is young, just approaching a 400th anniversary of the British settling in America. But when we felt our rights were violated, we revolted and fought and died for what we believed. The French fought and died because they hated an oppressive aristocracy. The Russians fought and died for what they believed was right, although it was definitely misguided and definitely brutal. Communists failed because you can't impose vision on people, no matter what the circumstances. Who saved Europe's ass after World War II? America and the UK. France can do its part and host invasions for all I care. Or perhaps sell weapons to brutal dictators. Or perhaps raise pander about a stupid union that will never amount to anything but a trade bloc. European economy is rotten. America has the best economy and best military in the world. Sorry, folks, you lose. Should have repealed the Stamp Act earlier. I'd like to let you know as well from when I lived in Europe that the footballers were the most violent people I've ever seen. Our sports fans are nothing like those in Europe. And our government doesn't control the media. Learn to think objectively, not hypocritically. Your racism is showing. Africa colonization, Asian colonization, holocaust, and then genocide in the balkans. This is outrageous that you are lecturing us about "the decent thing." Go sit in your own filth.
...too soon. For God's Sake, would everyone please stop bringing up the "McDonald's Coffee Incident". It is crap! Everyone has their opinion about it. I have never seen anyone swayed one way or another. Personally, I WANT F---IN' HOT COFFEE...AND, I HOPE I'M NOT TOO STUPID TO SPILL IT ON MY PENIS (OR VAGINA...OR WHATEVER). I also know people who feel the exact opposite. I have no idea why. To me they are F---IN' INSANE!!!! But, that doesn't matter. The point is, the whole story is pointless because, like the abortion "debate" you're on one side or you're on the other. There is no convincing anyone one way or the other. PLEASE, FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, NEVER MENTION THIS CRAP AGAIN!!!!!!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Who the fuck are you, besides a fucking asshole. Go shove your NAZI BULLSHIT up your OWN FUCKING ASS. It should be big enough--just open your OWN FUCKING MOUTH, ASSHOLE!
That is correct, but people rarely use the chapters when citing to title 17. (compare with title 11 -- bankruptcy -- where people often refer to chapters 7, 11, and 13)
A better looking informal citation would be something like 17 U.S.C. 106.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Artists enslave themselves by signing poor contracts. There are many smaller labels that are giving artists really good fucking deals. Koch Records is one of them. I know a couple of artists signed there, and they get shitty marketing budgets but a 50/50 split on revenue. sweet.
Prices that the market will bear (especially considering that free music has been shared for like ten years) are probably not considered inflated. I'd charge the highest price my consumers are willing to pay. This isn't stealing, as you put it, but common sense and good busines practice.
Attempting to protect their "property" from being stolen or pirated is their right as a corporation. You would protect your property from being stolen, or actively work to prevent your manner of generating capital from being illegally undermined; you might resort to some measures others would disagree with. This is your right.
I'm not flaming or trolling... just trying to put forth the other side of the argument.
The RIAA has an archaic business model. This is a given. They still have the right to defend their current revenue model until someone puts them out of business. The issue here is that everyone gripes about the RIAA and old-school music practices, but a new-school model has yet to arise. I'm not convinced a decentralized model is the way. It's just not how humans are wired.
ITUNES definitely isn't the way. I'm not sure what is though.
un burrito me trampeó.
Well, there is a difference between sending someone a C&D letter and suing them. If there is a lawsuit, however, Rule 11 requires the lawyer involved to make certain certifications, including that there is factual support for the suit, or that it is likely to be discovered once the suit begins. I doubt that it would be appropriate to just rely on the filename, and so, there might be sanctions if the case is filed against someone who is not a wrongdoer.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
And you aren't the only one who has quit buying CDs and doesn't download, either. RIAA's products ARE crap.
Very interesting from the article is that no one has ever been convicted in court, they've all caved, unlike the RIAA's claims. Imagine that, something less than honesty from the RIAA.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
..you shouldn't take legal advice on slashdot, or from the moderators. The only place the real truth matters is whether you go to heaven or hell or how your karma reflects on your next life. Lots of guilty people go free, and a few innocents are convicted. None the less, it is the best we have to go by. You may know the truth in your heart, but to everyone else you are simply trying to escape justice. If you are convicted, pay up and accept that it is an imperfect world. The only promise is a fair and impartial trial, not that the Truth will prevail.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Thank you, someone who actually gets it. Now back to outlining for my property class...
anyone will tell you that the reasonable retail price for a CD should more likely be around $9, max
Yet a song on iTunes = $1. That is flatly ridiculous. I don't get artwork, liner notes or anything else - I get the song. It's also not a high-quality version of the recording. My guess, that's worth $0.50 at the very most.
Price is not determined by production costs; price is determined by supply and demand.
For instance, when someone puts his house on the market, he don't set the price by calculating how much it cost to build his house and adding some "reasonable" markup. Rather, he tries to figure out how much money he can GET for his house. Why should music be any different?
If people are willing to pay $100 per CD, then $100 is the "fair" price. Don't like it? Go write your own music. What gives you the right to copy someone else's hard work for free?
later updates to said article indiciate that microsoft's specs require "hollywood studio approval" of any major hardware enhancements which would involve a pc with windows vista installed.
Steve jobs would scoff at this, and linus torvalds would punch out anyone who brought such a thing up to his face. But bill and the boys seem to have no trouble.
This is not about defending apple, this is about pointing out the largest threat on the map so to speak.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
It was a McGodwin, they lost.
I Love You
Well, there is a difference between sending someone a C&D letter and suing them. If there is a lawsuit, however, Rule 11 requires the lawyer involved to make certain certifications, including that there is factual support for the suit, or that it is likely to be discovered once the suit begins. I doubt that it would be appropriate to just rely on the filename, and so, there might be sanctions if the case is filed against someone who is not a wrongdoer.
This is why some of these suits need to go to trial-- to determine to what extent they are actually doing due dilligance against the thousands of defendants. Personally I find this unlikely but I would like to see this settled in court.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
So, I say, we sidestep the whole issue, and just start enjoying media that artists release under Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/ licensing. That is, tell the RIAA, in your face! There is LOTS of good music (and other work) out there that can be had freely. Sure, it's not the bubblegum stuff you're hearing on KRAP radio, but lots of it is really worth listening to.
The more we adopt alternate methods, the more the power will slip away from the current abusers. It's not a total solution, but it's a place to start.
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer, my spouse, my children, or my cats.
Actually for me, I find it convenient:
1) Just whistling or humming the tunes I like.
2) When I get desperate to hear a real instrument playing, I use my PVC flute.
3) If I want to hear the real thing, I can stand by the road side and listen to my music from those loud window-shattering, earth-shaking speakers that people put in their cars.
That way I can avoid putting in a single cent into the RIAA/MPAA/Whatever-AA's fat pockets and yet steer clear of being sued.
"Now, McDonalds sold their coffee far hotter than is generally accepted"
Generally accepted by who? You?
Look. Coffee is hot. Very hot. So hot it can scald you.
This woman took coffee.
Hot coffee.
Stuck it between her legs in the car.
The top came off.
She was burned.
This does not prove the coffee was too hot.
It proves that she was a moron. It a shame it didn't kill her before she spawned.
I don't care for McDonalds. But I hate people defending this stupid woman. McDonald shouldn't have paid her a dime. They should have smacked her in the face for being a f*cking moron for putting hot coffee between her legs and then blaming McDonalds.
Are you really that dense? Or do you hate McDonalds so much that you defend moron-ism? I don't get why people defend this case.
Go to the website below and enter your zip code to find the contact information of your representative. Then send him/her a letter about stopping the RIAA and maybe about the desperate patent situation, too. http://www.house.gov/ And while you are at it, the EFF has provided an extremely easy way to contact your rep with this online form involving current RIAA lobbying. http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=157 Please, please fill out that simple form to help make a difference.
http://83p.unitedti.org/
The legal term for theft/stealing/robbery is larceny, defined by Miriam-Webster as "the unlawful taking of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it permanently". The Wikipedia article goes into more detail. The key part of those definitions is the word "deprive." Illegitimate file sharing does not deprive the copyright holder of any property (compensation isn't mentioned anywhere here), so larceny and its related words (theft, stealing, etc) aren't suitable.
Copyright infringement really is the pertinent term. The record label (copyright holder, whoever) owns the exclusive right to reproduce the works it creates, and to license and control those rights. The United States Code itself calls the violation of copyright "copyright infringement," not theft or larceny.
I think the main reason that copyright infringement cannot be simplified to theft is that theft implies that the owner no longer has something that is his. Downloading a song or movie illicitly does not deprive the copyright holder of anything. (It does not deprive them of profit, as downloading has nothing to do with whether or not one has or may purchase the work legitimately, nor do they have the currency you owe them in the first place to be stolen)
I do not claim that file sharing is legal, proper, or the like, but it is not theft, stealing, or larceny. It is copyright infringement, no more, no less.
On Apple Input Peripherals: They're okay, I guess, but I was really hoping for a one-key keyboard and a 109-button mouse
The "intellectual property" is the copyright, which they still have even if you infringe it.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
The Bush regime makes fewer attempts to hide this behavior and as an American I find that unacceptable.
At least Clinton knew there was a rest of the world and tried to make things look, for lack of a better word, democratic.
Bush started a likely unjust war, emptied the government coffers and seem likely to have lied, mislead and let down a large part of the American public. Clinton got a blow-job.
Maybe some of the 'fucktards' are a little angry and vent.
Quack, quack.
"Ensuring that CD's remained in a $17 - $22 price range from [literally, no joke] 1983 to the present,"
You're half right. CDs were about $18 in the mid-80s. If CD prices had stayed the same, that $18 CD you bought in 1983 would cost about $35 today. Instead, CD prices have been freefalling -- they were down to $13.29 in 2004.
"despite the fact that literally anyone will tell you that the reasonable retail price for a CD should more likely be around $9, max."
Hmmm... the free market disagrees with you. I don't dispute for one second that you and all of your friends think that CDs are worth about $9, but the free market has deemed that CDs are worth about $13.29 and online tracks are worth about $0.99. Whether they'd sell more at $9 to make up for the lost margin is one of those classical supply/demand curve analysis issues (and you can bet that the record industry has hired smart people to do that analysis) but keep in mind that the record industry nets about 20% on physical CD sales (although I suspect it's much higher on downloads). There's not much more to shave off.
"LP's and Cassettes were priced around the $7-$9 range range when CD's were introduced (1982)."
Also correct -- I was buying LPs around then as well. $9 in 1985 dollars is about $17 today. While unfortunately it's not the case with gas or property, at least we pay less for music today than we did in the 80's. This is not due to the kindness of the record executive's hearts, but because it's a much more competitive market today Record companies need to compete with all other sorts of entertainment -- and they need to compete with piracy, too. Record companies are slaves to the laws of supply and demand just as everybody else is.
"Even with inflation there is literally ZERO reason for a CD to be "on sale" at $16 or so."
As mentioned above, the average price of new CDs is down to about $13 and change. Some CDs may be more (two-disc sets, audiophile versions, and so on), but that's because the record industry gets to reap the same benefits of supply and demand that other industries do. Logitech could sell that mouse for $20, but they sell it for $50 because they know people will pay for it. It might cost Kenneth Cole $10 to make a shirt, but they'll charge $100 because they people will want it at that price. And so it goes, in virtually any industry you can name. So if a record company thinks they can create an audiophile special edition version of a CD and sell it for $16, and people buy it because they think it's worth the few extra bucks, then God bless 'em.
Bringing supply and demand home, if you've made the efforts to get the education and training that allows you to compete for jobs (say, as an IT manager or a development lead) that pay $80K - $100K, but your cost of living is such that you could scrape by on $40K, you'll still gladly take that $80K job if somebody's willing to pay you. There's nothing illegal or even immoral about that.
"Ensuring that their artists - even the ones who pull in the lion's share of profits for a label - only earn a maximum of $0.70 per cd sold (and not returned), yet making sure that that same artist is the one responsible for paying for the $100,000+ video they just made which will be played precisely one (1) time on your alleged music video station of choice."
Eh, mechanicals alone can run up more than $0.70. Royalties typically run $1 - $2 per CD. Not sure where you got your figures on video plays, either.
"Failing to offer any consumer, anywhere, any sort of online alternative that actually makes financial sense. People know that digital files to not require things like packaging or shipping costs. Yet a song on iTunes = $1. That is flatly ridiculous. I don't get artwork, liner notes or anything else - I get the song. It's also not a high-quality version of the recording. My guess, that's worth $0.50 at
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Lawmakers are increasingly trying to put as much power over our lives into fewer and fewer hands, substituting big government and Soviet style central control with small government and control by monopolies. Both systems call themselves democratic and both stink.
Anyway.
Let's try it really simple, step-by-step:
If you sell a product, let's say a table, there is intended use and non-intended use. Non-intendet use of a table is cracking your skull open by falling onto a sharp corner.
So what will you request next? Everybody who sells tables with sharp corners to get sued?
PS - Take a deep breath, count to 10, then hit your screen with a hammer.
Wow, dude, you need to take a step back and breathe in between offending entire continents. I love the USA too, but I think the sentiment the parent post was getting at is that there are many people here fed up with the way our country does its business. Or rather how businesses are doing our country. They are going to loot stores if they feel the government left them in the path of destruction and they're going to loot the RIAA's member catalogues if they feel that copyright law has been raped. Two different classes of people, but one feeling. It's a feeling of powerlessness that drives all that anger. So the parent might have been a little misguided, but not just trolling with talk about revolution.
OK, I read the pretrial transcript where it said they'd meet again on July 8, and I'd like to read what happened on that day... Can anyone point me to a transcript of the July 8 meeting? I have no idea if it's even public record, (I'd imagine that it would be) or where to start looking (Google does nothing).
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
It is possible to spoof IP addresses, e-mail addresss and even MAC addresses, so how does the RIAA know who was really doing the downloading? There is also the problem of the large numbers of zombie or 'bot nets of hijacked computers. According to a BBC article there are over one million computers on the Internet which have been hijacked to pump out spam and viruses. If any of these mothers have computers which are zombies, then who knows who is really controlling their computers and doing the downloading?
Today many homes also have 802.11b wireless networks and in about 50% of the home networks they have not enabled the optional security features. Those home networks are wide open. A wardriver or neighbor with a laptop could use their network to access the Internet and download or upload files.
Average mothers like these are probably clueless about computer security. Do they download all the latest security patches. Do they use a firewall and know how to properly configure it? Do they go to the "Shields up" section of grc.com to test their firewall afterwards. If they are using a Windows computer do they know to be careful about clicking on attachments? Do they download the latest virus signatures and scan for viruses regularly? Do they regularly scan for spyware using something like Ad-Aware or Spybot Search and Destroy? Do they use hard to guess passwords? If they are using Windows XP did they install Service Pack 2?
I don't see how the RIAA can reasonably assume that an inexperienced Windows user's computer is not actually a Zombie computer being operated at times by some hacker. I have never used P2P networks and do not actually know much about them. But, it seems to me that problems like zombies, spoofed IP addresses and spoofed Mac addresses would cause many innocent mothers to be targeted.
Sounds like the War on Drugs to me....
I agree with everything, but: And our government doesn't control the media It tries. :)
obviously give my opinion on this mainly on yours since you have the biggest post that has some inaccuracies or omissions or just plain got it all wrongs that i wish to correct.
First yes i agree about the media point i won't comment on the hypocrisy at this point as for the genocide thoughs outside of Germany didn't know about the genocide taking place in Germany at the time or at least thoughs outside of certain governments didn't so slamming on this is just wrong.
Nice point on the inability to ratify a constitution.
Though the French and Russian revolutions didn't happen in America the American revolution and civil war did and were both just as bloody if not more so so this is a bad observation to make given our own past.
Good to hear you're no fan of the RIAA or corporate dirtbags they don't need any more encouragement in fact they need less as well as less hold over the government.
(Now here's one of main rubs) The problem with global warming and Europe is not that it will no longer give them cold weather in fact just the opposite it will give them to much cold weather. The problem is that ice melting off the arctic, Greenland and some glaciers from Canada will introduce allot of fresh water into the Atlantic shutting down the great Atlantic track according to climate models and theories (Three things are needed to keep the Atlantic track going salt, water and heat from the sun near the equator) and this will cause the Atlantic track to shut down no longer transferring warmth from the equator to the arctic causing warmer weather along the equator (maybe leading to more rainforests or to desserts who knows) and lack of warming currents going to the arctic and thereby preventing winds blowing across the Atlantic from helping to warm Europe which has been theorized could lead to at least a mini iceage in Europe lasting perhaps 150 years or more according to some. In fact because of warmer currents which ride along the surface of the ocean would no longer be moving it would lead to a buildup of colder oceans which would cause the air currents to transfer their warmth to the oceans while picking up more (For lack of a better thought) coldness being transferred to the air currents causing more cooler air to blow across the continent. I don't know how this would effect the Americas as i don't know how the air currents blow across the US ( i think they come from the pacific but I'm not sure ). It could lead to warmer weather in the US or to the same cooling effect as Europe is theorized to face, though judging by previous iceages it would more than likely cause the same thing here so the better place to be would be in the south.
So i wouldn't go laughing what effects one part of the world in one way or another effects the rest possibly in the same way or maybe in the opposite. I won't comment on the next as cheap shots like that aren't even worth it.
Good to see you're well traveled and got to know the people their. I however haven't so i can't comment on that other than to say i have seen plenty of racists here in the states so weather Europeans are the most or not it's still nothing to brag on.
True Europe has had it's own failings as far as doing the decent or moral thing but then so has the US. Taking WWI for example the people of the US choose not to get involved for most of that war for pretty much the same reasons we choose not to get involved in the start and for a good time afterwards and then we were in no small way also negligent in allowing hitler to become strong enough to run roughshod over Europe by pulling our forces out of thoughs zones that had been setup as a buffer against Germany despite the protests and please of the French who were right in the path of any future German force coming through the prior buffer zone. And not doing anything about it when hitler moved armed troops into thoughs zones in clear violation of said Versailles treaty as well as in WWII because we didn't want to get involved in what the people saw as the problems of
Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
Sorry i accidently cut off part of my post during editing i meant start out saying i saw some inaccuracies in both posts and i decided to set the record straight more or less.
Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
And when I bought that new Mini Cooper, they threw in a free FM radio. So, now and then I just go ahead and turn the damn thing on. It's free. Why not?
Of course, if I had to pay for it, I'd be doing exactly as you say.
IANAL and from the UK, so this could be way off ... but isn't copyright infringement a tort?
..) and not against the state (in the first instance). So whilst the state has a duty to uphold the general consensus of copyright law - in accordance with international agreements like the "Berne Convention" - the act of infringement is against a person. Hence it is normally handled as a civil matter.
n t
The damage is considered to be against the individual entity (person, company,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringeme
If I'd looked there first, the second wiki link states that in the US it's a "strict liability tort". The first link has the right version of what a tort is!!
HTH!
In the 80's, I bought approximately 500 cassettes and cassingles. Most of them stopped playnig by the mid 90's. Some of the cassingles didn't even last a year.
90% of those tapes contained one or two songs that the artist had obviously put some thougth into. The other songs on the tapes are, for the most part, awful.
So since the music industry sold me a lot of low quality content recorded on low quality media, I would like to sue someone too.
Oh, and by the way, none of my 8 tracks work either.
And my records on flimsy vinyl are all warped. The rest sound like snap, crackle, pop.
So maybe it would be nice if the courts took into account the long history of price gouging, low quality products, and marketing adult content to children before awarding these ridiculous lawsuits to the RIAA.
But wait, since the courts obviously think that it's appropriate for old women and children to be sued for thousands of dollars, does this mean that the courts probably don't care about all of the money the music industry screwed me out of as a kid?
The only defense we have as consumers is to stop buying this crap, or stop complaining. As long as we continue to buy music, the RIAA will continue to sue us, price gouge us, and sell us low quality products.
Do I buy music and movies? Sure I do. Does it bother me that I buy the music from scumbags? Sure it does. Will this ever change? Hell no.
Reproduction is easy, and is not a service to society.
ADEQUATELY RAISING CHILDREN TO ADULTS WHO CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY is a service to society. If you raise a kid who ends up in prison, you did society a disservice. If you gave birth to a crack baby, you did society a service. If your child ends up in foster care because the sheriff found a meth lab in your kitchen, you did socieity a disservice.
This doesn't mean the RIAA should run around suing people because they perform an antiquated economic function that now requires lawsuits to support, but the assumption that merely reproducing is inherently valuable is wrong.
paintball
This is why I don't buy music. If you buy it and don't like the CD you can't take it back. If you download music you get sued. If someone other than you downloads....you get sued! Can't wait for thier customer appreciation day....
I think what the RIAA is experiencing is the inevitable backlash of randomly suing people for any reason or no reason at all. And let's be clear, randomly suing people is merely a business angle, another revenue stream. It has nothing at all to do with so called rights. That of course is laughable.
No what the recording industry is experimenting with is suing their customer base randomly as a new source of revenue in and of itself. It's like local police departments that periodically grind out thousands of traffic tickets. Fair? Of course not. Business as usual? Sure.
About 50 percent of all home and business wireless networks do not use the optional security features like encryption or MAC address filtering. Furthermore, for years now, Windows has had serious security problems with viruses, spam, e-mail attachments and other problems. Despite these unaccepatble security problems, most people have continued to use Windows even though more secure choices such as MAC OS X and Linux exist. According to on BBC article there are over 1 million Zombie computers spewing out spam and viruses or being used for other illegal activities. Should most of those over 1 million people be considered to be criminals because as you say "ignorance is not a valid defence?"
Most computer users are not knowledgable about computer security and use an insecure operating system. So if ignorance is not a valid defence then should I assume that most Windows users are potentially guilty of allowing their computers to be used for crimes? I use Linux by the way and am not a lawyer but, it seems a little harsh to hold unlucky ordinary average ignorant Windows users guilty by saying "ignorance is not a valid defence."
By the way, I am not saying that Linux or Mac OS X security is perfect but they are nearly immune to viruses, worms and e-mail attachemnts. However Linux users still need to use a firewall and download the latest security updates.
Mothers I'd Like to Fund.
They sue some single mothers, poor people on the rim of society and what do they do: They sue the pants out of them. Why I'll explain you
They do not have good lawyers and so or cannot affor d them. So, what happens is that RIAA does have precedence in court that they have ruled for RIAA so they can sue the middle-rich people too much easier.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Good Advice. The Hit the screen with a Hammer Part. Best advice I've heard in months. LOL.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
But rather than rubber stamping this comment, let me add that Katrina, 9/11, and the current laws which penalize music sharing, gay marriage, and a woman's right to choose demonstrate a critical and tragic reality of our age. While Leviathan and the Social Contract made perfect sense in Hobbes' time, population density and socioeconomic dynamics of our age have rendered the Social Contract a dinosaur.
The Sovereign Entity to whom we have surrendered our liberties in return for protection against threats both inside and out has proven itself unable and unwilling to protect its own subjects. In bizarre and costly shambles like the wars on Terrorism and Drugs, the government has squandered billions of dollars pursuing the wrong targets, missing the right ones, and neglecting those whom the money could help more effectively.
What's the answer? is it Anarchy? Is it socialism? Is it a more tightly controlled Republic like Ireland? I don't presume to know, but I do know our system is broken and it's going to get a lot worse before we recognize the need and the means to fix it. Getting rid of Bush won't simply solve the problem, nor will four more years of whatever passes for his legacy.
I wish the Senate would question Roberts about RIAA and intellectual property, in addition to the other questions, because I feel certain we'll see these questions come up quite often before the High Court in the near future.
If virtue is its own reward, jsut imagine what vice offers!
I don't care about the RIAA (other than that they are assholes who bribe the government - that annoys me).
This is my stab at a pro-piracy argument. I don't know if you'll buy it, but what the hell - as you pointed out, it has to be said.
1) Music piracy is good because most people can get away with it most of the time. If I can do it, I'm right. After all, the US can make statements like "we don't want this country to have this, or that, or we say they are `evil' so we'll bomb them". This is bullshit. It's disrespect of international law (such as it is). But it works. And the US gets away with it. So should we.
2) The music industry, like any business pirates from the people. Inspiration for music is, variously, human suffering, and the 12-tone scale. Those things are not `owned'. They are common to humanity, and they give rise to artistic expression - which the music industry makes money from. They steal from the people - we steal back.
3) As a business, it is a corporation's purpose to make money. Period. As much of it as they can get away with. If they could somehow find a legal way to just transfer 1 cent a day from every bank account/credit card of every person on the planet, the RIAA would do it in a heartbeat, so long as there was some legal loophole to allow it. Hell, they'd sell blank CD's for the $20 and say that it was "blank music" - like blank verse, but less content. They would probably simply have you march into the store, plunk down $20 and ask you to leave. Just like that. They would even come to your house and threaten to take your money. If they could get away with it. Thankfully, they can't yet. But they can get away with lots of other shit. We should therefore get away with as much as we can.
4) Don't give me that "starving artist" bullshit line. If there's one social group universally screwed by the RIAA, it's the artists themselves. Google for it. People have written about this.
5) I feel no moral guilt about "stealing", or "pirating" music. There. Even if it is taking food from the hungry mouths of the starving children of the rock artists. I like it - I take it. And you know why? Cause we got democracy and guns, that's why, and you can't ***** stop me.
6) Finally. You use "piracy" like it's a bad thing. For god's sakes, why? Boys and girls - big clue here: Capitalism is NOT about social justice. It's not about justice, period. It's about individual profit. That's the bottom line. I'm sorry, but appeals to morality are fundamentally misplaced. Capitalism is not about "fairness", or "right". Stop whining about that crap. There are economic systems that are dedicated to social justice. Unfortunately, they've been shown to fail rather spectacularly at times. (Big hint for those of you who don't know it: socialism and communism talk about "To everyone according to need...". Social justice. Yes, it didn't work in the USSR, but that's not the point). So please, stop appealing to our better nature. We're capitalists. We've got none.
7) Finally, your totally bullshit point - the slashdot crowd's appeal to copyright law. That's right, we do. Why? Because we don't make money off of it. This is something that people *are* doing out of the goodness of their hearts. And they are doing it internationally, so US specific references don't apply. It's some people's attempts to genuinely do something good. No money is involved. Hence, that should be protected. Also, people who actually *contribute* to OSS are fairly rare, versus the people who use it. Comparing that to the RIAA is completely invalid, since it's a music *industry*. It makes *money*. Therefore, being, at least in the US, we should steal as much of it as we can - if they could, they'd steal from us. They do anyway, so stop feeling guilty.
There - they do whatever they get away with, and so should we. Case for piracy. That wasn't very hard, was it?
Wow, I never knew the guy who took my wallet was committing Copyright Infringement on my identity, he apparantly just made a "copy" of me!
that's worth $0.50 at the very most
Agreed. And of which $0.49 should go directly to the artist(s). Now if they had a FLAC/WAV version of the song then that "might" be worth $0.90 (assuming a 12 track CD)
After all there's no packaging, the distribution costs are near zero, so why does the record comapnay deserve anything ?
Even better the Artist(s) could host their online store themselves and get rid of the record company altogether. Oh dear the RIAA won't like that idea one bit...
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
But maybe not for the reasons you think. Ayn Rand once wrote, "It's difficult to rule a society of honest men. So if there aren't enough criminals, we will simply write more laws."
Is this a law that is meant to stop you from downloading music or is it meant to be broken so that the people whom it "protects" can have some power over you?
If you steal music, via internet or at the store, you're still stealing. The choice you make, the chance you take, the price you pay. Its simple.
In the US at least, the founders had the forsight to incorporate copyright law in the Constitution. In other words the law is what Congress says it is. So just remember that twelve year old whose mother you jailed today will be electing your Representive tomorrow.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Where they have this odd notion that the loser do not pay trial costs. Which they do in most of the world.
So a big company won't just throw a frivolous lawsuit at you, because if they loose they have to pay (and if you loose you were probably guilty)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I believe Merriam Webster may disagree with you
Regardless of what MW says its not relevant, they are not a legal dictionary.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
So where are the "significant damage" here?
Isn't that the big question?
Since the RIAA isn't going after downloaders here, but people sharing, a theoretical cap on damages could be the cost of the album (one lost sale) multipled by the number of people that downloaded the song.
But US copyright law gives the RIAA the option of pursuing statutory damages instead: anywhere from $200 to $150,000 per title, depending on whether the infringer knew it was infringing, etc.
Plus the infringer has their own attorneys fees to deal with (and possibly RIAA's if the court agrees). That's why settlement is more desirable than taking it to trial. Consider the number of songs the average sharer actually shares, and multiply it by the $200 minimum, and it's quickly apparent that you're at their mercy.
Is all of this right? Is it just? I won't comment on that.
One day, go online and attempt to make sense of your state's law. Look up something random, like traffic laws or such - something you would think would be simple and straightforward - and prepared to be amazed...or horrified.
The fact is, the way the law is set up (and I doubt this is an American-only problem - I bet it is a human-centric problem) - no one person can hope to understand it in its entirety, yet all of us are expected to follow and know it all (ignorance is not an excuse). Interestingly enough, despite this oft-quoted maxim, we have a plurality of specialist lawyers, and nowhere near as many general practice lawyers - simply because no one lawyer can know all of the law (federal, state, county, city - and all the interactions and exceptions) and how it works for thier geographic area of practice. If you go to a lawyer who specializes in accidental injury law, and ask him about trademark issues, he will look at you with a blank. You might get a referral to a friend or someone he knows, but most likely you will be shown the door. Judges are no better. More than a few have stated that they don't understand all of the law, but instead rely on the lawyers to help them understand. Unfortunately, the lawyers don't understand, do they? If the lawyers and judges don't understand, how can the people begin to understand? How can the members of law enforcement understand? How can the legislature (who supposedly writes all of this law) understand?
If know one understands, then how can "ignorance of the law" not be an excuse? What kind of fucked up logic is this?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Should King's Quest I be tied up until 2078?
This is actually a great example for me. Neither I, nor a lot of the people who use P2P I'm guessing, have many cases to download very old music. On the other hand, for games and software, to be old takes a much shorted time period than music.
Frankly, the only place I can find these games are... P2P and websites. I actually spent a few days trying to track down a legal copy of Monolith Software's "Blood." After jumping around websites and even emailing Monolith (which is now owned by Atari I believe, and nobody seems to know much about the old game), I had to give up on getting a legal copy. The best I could come up with was to get transfusion from sourceforge for deathmatch...
Don't think that just because the RIAA is the primary source of these form of lawsuits that they couldn't branch into other industries. Greed is contagious, after all.
Paying these settlements is sometimes an admission that you can't afford the freaking cost of missing work for court, hiring a lawyer, and being dragged through the mud by a giant megacorporation
If you think that winning in court is always about being innocent in this day-and-age, you're very wrong. Besides, even if you win in court, you can still suffer financial ruination by the associated costs.
Well, it's about damn time someone realized that us P2P file sharers are not the "hardened criminals" that the recording industry would like to believe. Look at the average downloader. Who is it? Sure not some felon on a prison computer. They're the typical college student going to Harvard or Stanford or Yale, who can't AFFORD to pad the pockets of the "big name artists" yet who still want to hear the music! It's annoying as hell to think that the RIAA is going to come after me, why? Simply because I dont feel like wasting 20 bucks of MY hard-earned money on a piece-of-shit album with 2 good songs and the rest shit on it. It's happened more times than I care to count. But does the RIAA care? No. All they care about is the damn profits. Well, I've got news for you! Your precious money-making "bands" won't be makin SQUAT without the money WE feel WILLING to pay to them. If you make a shit product you're not gonna have many takers. Enough on that rant. Nice to see someone finally standing up to these jackasses.
While I've not had quite this experience with KP, how about when you download a file that turns out to be something terribly different. It's not uncommon for files to be misnamed on P2P networks, and I have had instances where download a DIVX copy (sad when that's sometimes easier than ripping my own damn discs) gave me some nasty fecal-porn or just a completely different flic.
So here's the question: If I own "Dogma", download the rip so that I have a copy to tag around on my notebook, and end up with "Saving Private Ryan" (which I don't own)... am I legally culpible as I have now downloaded something I don't have rights to. How about if the file turned out to be KP or something equally illegal? I could see some inexperienced or even veteran P2P users getting snared in such a trap.
Should not the RIAA go after the friend who installed Kaaza, since it was she that caused the computer to ''perform illegal activities'' ?
WTF? This automatically implies that P2P is illegal. The installation of Kazaa is not in itself an illegal activity. Indeed, if malware was installed that interacted with P2P to download illegal files automatically (I've not seen Kazaa actually download anything without being told so, but then I haven't used actual Kazaa in years), should not the author of the software be then held liable.
Kazaa is not illegal. It is not illegal to install kazaa. Only when a program is installed and then used for illegal purposes does it break the law... and the accusations of the RIAA et al that such have happened are in many cases somewhat dubious.
In addition, this is not even a case of 'ignorance of the law.'
In most places, there are no laws requiring you to secure a wireless device. Indeed if there were, most makers of WiFi appliances would probably look more at shipping them with WEP enabled.
I'm not liable if somebody steals my car and mows down a pedestrian due to the fact that it didn't come with an immobilizer or other device. By the same token, neither should I be liable if somebody hijacks my unsecured WEP (not that I advocate going WEPless, but in reality there are plenty of scripts/tricks to hack WEP anyhow, I find not broadcasting an ESSID helps a bit there).
If it were written by one of those, maybe it would go something like this:
"Harry took the wang. He felt a sudden warmth in his fingers. He raised the wang above his head, brought it swishing down through the dusty air and a stream of red and gold sparks shot from the end like a firework, throwing dancing spots of light on to the walls"
CD's
... then soon will have.
DVD's
Cinema
Show the RIAA are a disgusting lot, hit the nerve where it hurts most.
Spot the artists, indy or otherwise, that are not pro-RIAA and support them instead.
To sue 12-year olds is just fucking pure evil.
Yes, I have downloaded the odd song or clip in the past, and always bought CDs thereafter. A sort of homage to the artist or whatever.
Tis been 3+ years now that I purposely refrain from supporting these greedy coke-riddled wankers.
Idiots they never had a point, but if more and more boycott and buy stuff from that Korean that regularly offer pirate DVDs at collect.
RIAA = Idiots, well done driving away good customers!
(Fuck my Amazon CD's DVD's collection alone topped $400 in the past)
That's a good point. Anyone accepting your cash should have certain restrictions placed on how they use it. It is only fair . . . after all, no one's making them accept your money. Just put the cash user agreement somewhere on your website so an interested party can look it up, and it's all nice and above-board.
I am not a crackpot.
1) Patents
2) Copyrights
3) Trademarks
4) Trade Secrets
Amongst our types of "Intellectual Properties" are such diverse elements as . . . Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, Trade Secrets, and an almost fanatical devotion to Hilary Rosen.
I am not a crackpot.
Investors are not freeloaders. They provide something that the truly productive people may not have: Capital. Without cash, the works those people create may never see the light of day.
Price is not determined by production costs; price is determined by supply and demand.
Yes, but with digital copies you are talking about a literally infinite supply to meet a limited demand.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
(* Both George Orwell and Douglas Adams have written about making tea, stressing this point -- the latter suggesting that the reason most Americans prefer coffee is that they've never had a good cup of tea, for this very reason!)
My own favourite, in case anyone's still reading, is chai, a spicy Indian tea. Here is one good place to find it. (Disclaim, disclaim.)
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
I WANT TO KNOW HOW WHAT OVERLY CRITCAL GUY CONSTANTLY SAYS HERE ON SLASHDOT IS ANY DIFFERENT FROM THE FOLLOWING TROLL POST (NO DOUBT WRITTEN BY HIM ORIGINALLY), REPRODUCED HERE FOR YOUR BROWSING PLEASURE:
If you agree with any of this, feel free to repost it in the future.
Song of the piracy apologist:
(1) I don't personally believe in copying CDs illegally-- but I think we should avoid using unkind words like "piracy" to describe those that do -- instead, we should describe it as an "infringement", much like a parking infringement.
(2) I don't believe in the record companies emotively abusing the word "theft," but I do believe in emotively abusing words like "information," "sharing," and "Copyright Enforcement Militia."
(3) I believe that piracy is driven by "overpriced CDs" even though CDs have dropped in price over the years.
(4) I believe that piracy is driven by overly long copyright duration, even though most pirated works are recent releases.
(5) I believe that illegitimately downloading music is giving the author "free advertising". I don't buy any of the music I download, of course--but lots of other people probably do.
(6) I believe that ripping off the artists is wrong. The record companies always rip off the artists. Artists support P2P, except the ones that don't (like Metallica), and they don't agree with me, hence they're greedy or their opinion doesn't count or something.
(7) I believe that selling CDs is not a business model, but giving away things for free on the internet is.
(8) I believe that artists should be compensated for their work -- preferably by someone else. I mean, they can sell concert tickets (which someone else can buy) or sell t-shirts (to someone else) or something. As long as someone else subsidises my free ride, I'm coooooool with it.
(9) I believe in capitalism but only support music business models which involve giving away the fruits of ones labor for free.
(10) I believe that copying someone elses music, and redistributing it to my 1,000,000 "best friends" on the internet is sharing. Music is made for sharing. It's my right.
(11) I believe that record companies cracking down on piracy is "greed", but a mob demanding free entertainment is not.
(12) I believe that it's not really "piracy" unless you charge money for it, because, receiving money is wrong, but taking a free ride is fine.
(13) I believe that disallowing copying and redistributing music over Napster is the same as humming my favourite song in public. Because when I hum my favourite song in public, everyone likes it so much that they run home, get out their tape recorders and once they've got a recording of it, they aren't interested in hearing the original any more.
(14) I believe that when illegal behaviour destroys a business, it's "free enterprise at work".
(15) I believe piracy is simply "free advertising." Even though that's what radio is, but with the legal permission of the copyright holder. Basically, what I really want is to be able to choose the songs I want, listen to them whenever I want, but I don't want to have to pay for it. Essentially, I want the whole thing for free with no strings attached.
(16) I believe artists "deserve their money" only in cases in which the RIAA is the bad guy. But in piracy situations, I'm fully justified in ripping them off.
What I find amusing is that the pirates seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between creative activity and brainless copying.
Since a lot of the people here are GPL/OSS advocates: the "OSS way" applied to this domain is to learn how to play an instrument. Or how to sing or whatever. Then get together with a bunch of other people who can also play music, and make some noise.
One of the unfortunate things that has happened to the OSS movement is that a lot of the loudmouth advocates for it don't understand what it's really about. They
1) Sue your ISP.
2) Get them to back down and have the finding say that the logs cannot be proven to be you (eg: they claim that they don't want to fight you in count over it, get them to pay you damages - $100 plus court costs or something very small). [You'll need to have a nice ISP to do this for you.]
3) Deny RIAA the right to take you to court since the ISP has already invalidated the logs.
4) Profit!
Why won't this work?
CDs aren't $18-20. They've gone down to $12-15.
Maybe old/budget releases at Walmart, where the entire selection represents perhaps 10% of all the music available for purchase on CD at any given moment, and everything is censored into indecipherable backmasks. But when I go to the music store in the nearest mall here in central Pennsylvania, all of the new releases (by "new" I'm talking within the past year or so) are easily in the $18-$20 range, some as high as $24.99. (And I live in a fairly low-cost-of-living area, where it's still 50 cents for a can of Pepsi and a pack of cigarettes is around four bucks.)
You are certainly as entitled to your opinion as anyone else, and have the right to say it, but please don't distort facts to support it.
Yet they actually drop suits left and right to keep a judge from ruling against them when the truth about the supposed infringement comes out. They even refuse to examine the equipment supposedly involved because they'd have to share their findings with the defense. If they found that there was a program, virus or other malware covertly sharing files without the owners knowledge, the owner would probably get off, so the RIAA doesn't even want to look at the equipment for fear or finding it.
That is why one needs good countersuits to prevent them from running. IANAL, though, and I am not the one being sued.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Overly Critical Guy writes: .99 each now and albums are as low as eight bucks.
For pete's sake, songs are
It would be wonderful if we could buy the right to play a song for $0.99! Some of us have purchased the same songs over and over on different formats (8-track, tape, CD, AAC, etc.), and we still have a low probability of being able to legally play them on future systems.
What we really get for $0.99 is about 10% (AAC encoding) of a DRM restricted song that we can only play until the next major upgrade.