Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Suit Rejected With Prejudice
yfarren writes "According to cdfreaks.com the RIAA has lost the case against the mother of a 13 year old girl accused of file-sharing violations." From the article: "The case was dismissed with prejudice, which prevents the case from being advanced against the defendant. Finally, the RIAA tried asking the Judge to amend the judgment in order to allow them to sue the child through a Guardian Ad Litem. However the court denied [the] RIAA's request."
RIAA beaten by 13 year old girl.
Could it be? The first spark of intelligence to come out of a courtroom in regards to all this *IAA crap?
-GenTimJS
Mwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha heeee heeeeeee wheeeeeee. *SNORT* Bah ha ha ha ha *wheeeeeze!* *snicker*
In principal I agree that music theft is bad and in all honesty, none of my music is pirated, but you gotta realize that stuff like this just makes you guys look bad. Bad as in $#!theads, not bad as in cool.
Karma goes around and it comes around, so i'd say this is due.
Oh and Edgar Bronfman Jr: You say you want to hold the cheapest songs on iTunes to
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
...I for one welcome our new bullshit-lawsuit-quashing overlords.
They shouldn't have let it go to the court.
But good news for everyone else.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Losers. Dismissed with prejudice.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The good guys can't win, can they? I thought the RIAA had all these judges in their pocket!
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
Going after 13 year olds... it's like some sort of electronic pedophilia.
My ZooLoo
While I feel this court ruling is fair, the opinions in the article are a bit off...
In my opinion, the RIAA should not be allowed to target young minors with lawsuits, especially since most cannot afford to purchase music as it is, let alone have a credit / debit card to use legal services.
So if a child steals from a store that they go to without a parent, it should be OK because the minor can't afford to purchase the item?
more reasonable approach would be first send a warning to their parents about what is going on, since in many cases the parents don't understand what's going on.
And when the parents are unaware of their child, it is bad parenting. Sometimes a warning isn't enough.
I agree that the RIAA's suit was unfounded, in this case. I also believe the RIAA has lost their battles and will only be wasting time and money on additional lawsuits (that will cost them, in the long run, far more than they will 'save' or 'gain' in judgements).
I'm not even sure that the RIAA can afford so many lawsuits. Sure, they're a multi-billion dollar "co-op" organization "defending" artists, but each lawsuit costs them something. Even with in-house legal staff, there are still filing fees, follow-up costs, and the like. I'm assuming their return-on-investment is calculated by how many people they assume will stop pirating their music out of fear of lawsuits? So they're assuming that they'll be seeing a return from people buying more albums because they are afraid to pirate because the RIAA sues pirates? Confusing.
The reality, though, is that they likely won't stop suing, and if they even win 1 out of 10 cases, it will likely cause them to fail even more.
So I say, sue away, RIAA.
13 year old girls - 1
The **AA - 3247923874932749782365926323
We're catching up!
Seriously though, I hope these rulings keep coming. Although it is wrong to pirate music and other media, you shouldn't have to pay thousands of dollars in fines.
The case was dismissed, but the defendant still had to pay legal fees! Aargh! So, basically they still got screwed.
...that such a strong dismissal would also include this part:
"While the case was dismissed, the mother had to pay legal fees as the Judge refused to award her attorneys fees. The reason is that the plaintiffs' lawyers had taken the appropriate steps in trying to prosecute the mother and that the mother used tactics to obstruct the Plaintiff to efficiently prosecute her."
So it's dismissed, but she still owes somewhere between a couple thousand and a hundred thousand dollars? She's fucked regardless.
RIAA's still making it's message heard: Either roll over early, or we'll fuck you for life.
Not sure about intelligence, but sanity, certainly.
Everybody, cross your fingers and hope this sparks a trend - it should at least set some sort of precidence that other's can use to their advantage.
The OED cites a law dictionary from 1959: "A guardian ad litem is a person appointed to defend an action or other proceeding on behalf of an infant.. or a lunatic or idiot not so found.. who is defendant or respondent to a proceeding in the court."
I think I speak for us all when I say "What The Fuck".
What company wants to sue children? We were all kids once, we probably commited minor crimes (stole a chocolate bar or whatever). But you never hear a shop keeper going "lets sue the little kid! He's a right fucker him!", they slap them on the wrist, tell their parents and keep a closer eye on them.
I didn't like the RIAA before, but when they start to sue children.. you've crossed a line no adult should even think of crossing.
I like muppets.
While the case was dismissed, the mother had to pay legal fees as the Judge refused to award her attorneys fees. The reason is that the plaintiffs' lawyers had taken the appropriate steps in trying to prosecute the mother and that the mother used tactics to obstruct the Plaintiff to efficiently prosecute her.
The lesson learned: the RIAA needs to drag the cases out longer to overwhelm the accused with legal fees.
I think I speak for the rest of Humanity when I say "Fucking excelant!"
If i steal something from a store that store loses an item of value. If i take pictures of your car and create a decently accurate replica you still have your car, and it's perfectly legal. Enough with that old straw man, he wasn't an accurate argument in the first place, and it's time he was cremated.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Now if only we can get the judges to terminate with extreme prejudice these RIAA bullies...
... with a rendition of "I fought the RIAA and the law won."
Finally the RIAA are getting what they deserve, trying to pressure people to get money that they dont deserve. Its not a matter of if the child knew what they were doing is wrong, its that there filing lawsuits on the wrong people, then pressuring them to settle so they wont go to court. Its scare tactics, and its downright unlawfull, which i am glad the courts are finally going against them somewhat.
This is also not 'stealing', while it may be stealing in essence, its not a physical product and its not being stolen from anywhere. Its beening downloaded, this is why we need digital laws that differ from our regular laws.
Your honor, you can clearly see that it was my 2 year old using eMule and me. Thus I must be innocent. This is just awesome, all you have to do now is blame it on your son, daughter, hell even your dog!!!
Practically speaking, is there much difference between suing the 13 yr old vs suing the parent? Let's say the RIAA successfully sues the girl and pins her with a $1,000,000 settlement -- who's liable? It's not like the girl has any assets they can seize. Can they then go after the parent's assets? If so, is there really much difference in whether they sue the mom or the girl?
In my opinion, the RIAA should not be allowed to target young minors with lawsuits, especially since most cannot afford to purchase music as it is, let alone have a credit / debit card to use legal services.
What? Is anyone forgetting the lady who got a credit card for her dog? [sarcasm]EVERYBODY has a card nowadays, and the court should recognize this.[/sarcasm]
Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
If a child makes a photocopy of a book he/she can't afford, then I think the described leniency should apply.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
IANAL, but does this mean soccer moms have nothing to worry about from RIAA pressure tactics or does this mean EVERYONE has nothing to worry about?
;-)
if i get an extortion letter form the RIAA for $36,000 because i downloaded Kelly Clarkson, can i play stupid in court and win?
"honest your honor, i didn't know that anyone could connect to my WiFi connection and use teh intarweb"
"honest your honor, i didn't know what my dumb cousin vinny was doing on the computer all night"
"honest your honor, i didn't know that that program is for illegal music"
do clueless soccer moms get off scott free? or anyone who challenges the RIAA and plays stupid?
serious question: can anyone plead ignorance in court and win against the RIAA extortions now?
i personally think that would be wonderful if true, because you can say what you want about the immorality of downloading pirated music, but the extortion the RIAA is pulling against average folks of limited financial and legal means is a greater form of immoral behavior
someone who is a lawyer speak up: has the RIAA's extortion mill been effectively shut down now?
please say yes
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
She still had to pay her defence costs in this case - hardly unusual, but very much a threat against those who don't want to settle. Yes, they can use this case as precident, but the costs of any court case just won't be acceptable to most of the people here in the U.S., who are living in a constant state of debt. This leaves the threat of bankruptcy as a legitimate tool of terror in the hands of the content distribution organizations, and any other corporations that decide that preying on the weak to settle is a legitimate financial strategy.
We need some corporate anti-terror legislation to stop corporations from acting to terrorize citizens. We already have too much historic and current legislation running the other way around. Of course, we used to just call it organized crime when applied to corporations, but terror as a political label is in fashion these days.
Ryan Fenton
Now, with prejudice in the bankruptcy world only means they can't refile for a 160 day period. I am wondering if the same thing applies here? Does the record industry merely have to wait in order to get another crack at it? I'm not up to snuff on my legal code for law suits.
Help me, help you. - Jerry McGuire
So far, it's been pretty cheap (I wonder if they're actually making money at it) for the RIAA to threaten potential infringers with lawsuit since virtually every one (all?) of their suits has been settled. Cost equation is something like: Cost of searching for infringers + lawyer time to right a boilerplate letter=big settlement and no court time. If more people were to fight these cases I think this approach would end real quick, or there would be a big landmark case where they sue an individual for a hojillion dollars. At that point, I think people on both sides of the issue might need to reevaluate what they're doing.
I mean, if the RIAA were to actually take one of these big cases to court and win all the money the law says they're entitled to against someone with multiple thousands of "illegally" shared files, they could be looking at a several million dollars. Regardless of whether or not the defendant could afford it, that might actually make other people scared. However, clearly they can't support the court fees of suing as many people as they are currently threatening, so I'm just wondering what the actual deterring effect would be...
'the Internet is right.'
The RIAA is using a Kansas City, MO based firm to sue individuals nationwide. That firm is Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. http://www.shb.com/ Everyday, this firm files many suits in various federal courts against average joes (And sometimes the average joes based on alleged copyright infringement of little kids). If you want to make your opinion known to the big law firm representing RIAA on this crap, here is the e-mail of the manager of the IP department there: mgross@shb.com Let your voice be heard!
that's it. just happy to see those fukers get what's coming to them. they steal our culture from us, so we steal it back.
Just because your innocent does not make it all right for you to not obey the law to the full. It is something an awfull lot of people seem to forget and it is a judges job to remind them.
Pity the article does not make clear exactly what she did. but the message still remains clear, obey the law. You have some leeway and big company's can't just steamroll you but neither can you steamroll the law.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Repeat after me:
/. should make a point of not linking to sites that are just that shitty. Maybe the site owners will get the point.
Never, ever, ever link to a site with that level of popups.
I really think
And when the hell is Firefox going to get functionality to block flash-based popups?
Do you see the sig? Do you have it in your sights? Why yes, Miss Moneypenny...
The RIAA should be slammed for emotional abuse.
If I take a picture of the Ford instructions on how to build the new Mustang and build my own Mustang from those instructions to give to my friend who wants one, Ford may have lost some money. Especially if I make 10,000 cars from these instructions and give them to 10,000 friends or random people I don't know. That isn't perfectly legal and neither is stealing music.
I think the prices are too high and very few people would steal if the prices were about $2.00 per CD or less... Kinda like this site is selling them at.
I keep hearing this argument repeated, and it's false. If I have a one-of-a-kind car and you go and create and sell replicas of it without permission, it certainly does take something away from me since it reduces the value of my car. The same thing with pirated music: if you copy and distribute a song without permission, it reduces the value of the authorized distribution channel for that song. Not everything needs to be physical to be stolen, see "identity theft" for a really nasty example.
I can't think of an example where suing children was a long-term successful strategy. I could be wrong, but perhaps it's time they reconsidered how they go about running their business.
That might have been the worst analogy ever constructed by a human being.
The parents' of this kid aren't fit because they won't let the RIAA sue her? They want a new legal guardian (again, only for legal matters pertaining to this case) appointed purely for the purpose of suing a child the parents' prevented you from suing?
These people are INSANE.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
...they tried asking the Judge to amend the judgment in order to allow them to roll over the child's cute,fuzzy puppy with a hella gnarly steamroller, which the judge granted.
File sharing is theft, IMHO. But I do believe that the current market for music and movies is dying and that the RIAA and MPAA need to find ways to convert P2P into a new motivation tool for artists and consumers. I don't have a good solution, and I don't think lowering prices will really decrease P2P that much. I know that I buy more music and movies because of P2P, but I don't actually pirate music or movies, just trailers and samples.
On the other hand, what if the RIAA (and MPAA) required that every consumer of a CD or DVD signed a contract saying "I agree that I am borrowing this medium for $9.99, and that any data contained on this medium is priviledged and I am not able to disclose or copy the data to any individual, network, corporation, or entity under penalty of law" and you had to sign the contract in order to get the CD or DVD? Would that be acceptable? Is this an option where the **AA organizations only allow specific companies to push their product?
When I buy a CD or DVD, I understand that I am buying a license to listen/view/use the data in the privacy of my home for just myself and my family. I know I don't own the music or the movie, just the physical medium that the data is carried on. That's fine. If I want to own a song or movie, I'm sure I'd be happy to pay whatever it costs to create it so that I can distribute it.
FYI, I don't agree with the RIAA or MPAA tactics or system. I do believe information wants to be free, and I am more than willing to switch to a "direct to the artist" payment system.
Excuse my ignorance of US law, but if the RIAA tries again against a child represented by a Guardian Ad Litem and it wins then who pays the damages? Is the parent then liable anyway? Presumably the child has no significant assets? Can a child be declared bankrupt and what would it mean if they were? Do they have to pay the damages once they are old enough to do so? Have there been any cases before the advent of the internet where minors have been sued by corporate entities and if so, what happened?
the RIAA's strategy.
/.'ers dislike are strongly reinforced. What's worse is a dissenting view can easily be positioned as at least disreputable behavior if not outright criminal activity.
1. Entertainment mega-corps still win big because they strike fear into the hearts of consumers. The message is simple, "don't steal our music." The underlying assumptions that many
2. It looks to me like they lost on procedure, not so much on the theft issue. The woman's got to pay anyway and that works out great for the RIAA.
3. No one cares that they are going after minors. The US has a criminal courts system for them too. Again, the underlying assumptions about the control of the music are not even on the table.
I really don't see how anything positive comes out of this story.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
the needs to come where the cost of defending your rights in court isn't trumpted by the fact you can't afford it. you can bet your ass if the RIAA found a multi millionare on limewire swapping music the won't proceed, since he won't just fold.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Watch out for popups from the linked site/article...
And can someone please post a link to the same information sans the popups crap, then send a note to the editor... I would, but I'm getting the hell outta work and going home right now.
And I agree with a comment on the listed site, this is great, but what we really need is a clear judgement based on the facts, not technical wrangling (the RIAA will just amend other suits).
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
Placing people on a different level is asking for trouble.
Consider us the darkside you may, bring a balance to the force we do.
Stopping us, you will not.
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
And so do I. I think you're really on to something deep here.
Perhaps after you study the RICO statues, you'll be able to
differentiate between businesses and the mafia. If you want to
pay protection money you be my guest.
One cannot sue a minor, or insane person for Tort?
The case was dismissed aginst the mother with prejudice but they're still free to refile and sue the child if they want.
From what I can make out with my legal knowledge (which is more then person that wrote the summary I'd say but I'm not a lawyer) here's what really happend.
They sued the mom, who had the ISP account.
They found out that it was really the daugther who was the sharer.
They asked for the case to be dismissed aginst the mom.
They then asked for the case to be changed to the daugher after the judge issued his judgment.
The judge said nope and did what they asked and dismissed the case.
So basicly I think this was a mistake on the lawyers part for asking the case to be dismissed before they got the defendent changed.
This is more of a technicality win then a real win aginst the RIAA
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
Last time I checked, music pirates primarily used Windows only tools like Kazaa, most probably running on pirated copies of Windows. People who earn their livings using Linux, every single copy legitimately licensed I might add, are much MUCH less likely to participate in music and software piracy. Besides, if you're looking for anti-intellectual property types, look in the BSD camp. Last time I checked, my GPLd software did not grant me ownership of any of the itellectual property within the codebase.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
She still is out for her attorney fees, which are probably in the thousands of dollars; the judge refused to award her those.
Which only goes to prove what I have always wrote about these big corporations that decide to use the civil lawsuit to punish those that they even remotely suspect of infringing on their copyrights:
* There is one exception. The only person who doesn't lose is he who is judgement-proof. That is a person that lives paycheck-to-paycheck and has no property (house/car). You can't get blood from a turnip, and there is no debtor's prison in the US. However, live the American Dream and you are a valid target.
P2P + the internet - greed = someone is going to come up with something eventually that will make artists more money, still provide the same level of services & distribution and there will be no need for the RIAA.
As an artist, I decide how I want to whore my creations -- not you.
Bullshit1 If you don't want people "stealing" it, then don't publish. Keep it to yourself and get all the pleasure that gives you from it.
Society generously gives you certain limited rights to encourage you to share it with us. the "uniqueness" is just selfishness. A piece of art can be shared with the world for virtually no cost. It's still the same piece of art whether one person or a million people have it.
Awwwwww the big bad RIAA can't sue a 13 year old girl. Where is the justice for them? I'm gonna buy 10x as many cd's as I usually do this month, to help them make up for the leagal fees they lost. Don't worry RIAA. I got your back!
I want to see the parent and the kid both sue the RIAA for pain suffered during the trial.
So much for artists doing what they do for the sake of creating something amazing. It seems like your only concern is artificially increasing the price of your "art" so you can make a buck. I'm not sure whats more offensive, your whoring of artistry or thinking that your products should be above the laws of supply and demand.
At what point does the RIAA become so seemingly repugnant by trying to sue 13 year old girls, that the very piracy they were trying to discourage becomes a common form of political dissent and protest?
Letter To Iran
No idea why this isn't set by default, but here's how to disable flash popups in Firefox:
1. Type about:config into the Firefox location bar.
2. Right-click on the page and select New and then Integer.
3. Name it privacy.popups.disable_from_plugins
4. Set the value to 2.
The possible values are:
* 0: Allow all popups from plugins.
* 1: Allow popups, but limit them to dom.popup_maximum.
* 2: Block popups from plugins.
* 3: Block popups from plugins, even on
whitelisted sites.
Great idea. These lawyers helping the RIAA should be admonished for taking the representing, because it is a sleazy way to make money. By that I mean suing kids and indigent people just so you can make a buck from the RIAA is pathetic.
I have no problems with big law firms, but can't this firm simply get regular "big law firm" business where their clients are the ones being sued and they have to defend, instead of helping the RIAA GO AFTER little kids????
You can't directly sue a minor. If you sue anyone, it is the parent or guardian who is supposed to control the behavior of the child and is responsible for the child's actions. To successfully sue someone, you have to prove that they should have been able to predict the outcome of their actions. If it wasn't obvious that their actions would harm you, then you can't win the suit. In that light, it wasn't obvious to the mother that her daughter was doing anything wrong.
The nonsense of appointing a guardian and suing the child through them is a complete travesty. Children are protected from criminal prosecution because they lack the understanding necessary to be held responsible for their actions. This is just the RIAA proving once again that they are true slimeballs. Hear that guys, you are real pigs!
Unfortunately, this case won't help most of us. A massive boycott might though. If they keep this up, they might just provoke enough public anger to make such a thing happen.
Without jobs, people wouldn't be able to buy the from the outstanding selction of works from people represented by the RIAA
You're right. We want to buy from the outstanding selection of works from people NOT represented by the RIAA.
Let me make this clear: The RIAA is 1) outdated, 2) unnecessary, and 3) evil. What we need is small-scale music publishers to replace the big monster.
I'm a Guardian ad Litem, and at least in Florida I'm not allowed to do anything except observe. I cannot recommend, suggest or direct any child or adult. What I can and do is give recommendations to the judge.
The judge I work for told me that if anyone gives me a hard time, they are giving HIM a hard time and to let him know immediately. In other words he's not at least interested in having anyone mess with his GAL's. I can see why the judge did not grant it.
Indeed a GAL is protected from lawsuits at least in Florida.
The RIAA is one hapless bunch who will run themselves out of business as soon as any viable solutions comes up.
I keep hearing this argument repeated, and it's false. If I have a one-of-a-kind car and you go and create and sell replicas of it without permission, it certainly does take something away from me since it reduces the value of my car. ...because they only produce ONE copy of a CD or DVD, right?
Well, it took me some time to understand that sentence. At first I thought these BSD guys/girls were anti-intellectual, and had a lot of property. How odd.
So dose that mean we now get out childern to download our music for us?
maybe that will be the RIAA's new litmus test for extortion potential: downloader technophile profiling
riaa tech: "this IP address downloaded kelly clarkson, hilary duff and the black eyed peas"
lawyer: "clearly a soccer mom's kid: they will cry in court and we'll be sued for lawyer fees... skip them"
riaa tech: "this ip address downloaded radiohead, the chemical brothers, and audioslave"
lawyer: "clearly a technologically sophisticated listener of upper middle class means... sue their damn ass off"
riaa tech: "wait, that's my ip address..."
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
you can't mix selling with distributing for free. two totally different things
Guys, I thought of an idea. How about donating to a special fund for "Victims of the RIAA" so the we can pay for the defendants' attorney fees? Something like "music taxes", but instead of paying the corporate monster, we'd help support the innocent victims of a corrupted system. This way, when a mother is told: "Pay us thousands of dollars, or see you in court!", we can tell her: "Don't settle! We'll pay for the legal expenses!"
Is there already such site?
you're just pissed that your "art" sucks too bad for anyone to even waste time downloading... soret of like blade trinity
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
The thing is, if you had perfect competition, which is optimal, the would be no copyright monopoly.
Yeah booooyyyyyiiiiii!!!!!
The article links to this article with all the same content (sans the pointless opinions of the author).
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/blog/211
The attorney in this case made some interesting comments on this site (posted earlier in this thread):
"Although my comments in this regard are speculative, I am reading between the lines. I have had several other similar cases in front of the same judge. Off the record, my read is that the judge was silently applauding my efforts (pro bono) to defend the innocent, but was not going to let me turn this into a cottage industry to make thousands in legal fees. "
Why must the riaa (diliberate) sue for this... I currently have mp3s of Foo Fighters In Your Honor. I am deciding A.) Weather or Not I can afford the CDs yet. B.) Weather or Not my mom will approve. and C.) Weather or Not I support the theamatic elements of the music. If I find that A or B is against me, I will get it later... If C is against me... Ill keep what i want because 4 songs arent worth $20.00 But hey what do I know... Im only a 16yo with a lawyer for an aunt.
IT Specialist - Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians
(Btw, I feel this judge is totally wrong to have not granted all legal expenses to the defendent as he dismissed her case. In my mind he has ended up punishing her as badly as the RIAA tried to do.)
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
IANAL but I'm pretty sure that a minor may not legally enter into a contract of any sort, not may they own property. If a 18yo buys a car it has to be registered in their parent's or guardian's name. So, can someone under 18 even be sued in civil court?
I am not sure that I understand why so many in this forum are so down on the RIAA. It's a bit like blaming the gun when someone gets shot. The RIAA is acting on behalf of the record companies (they're euphemistically called "artists"), so why don't we recognize *them* as the Great Satan here? Make no mistake, recording companies are some of the greediest bastards you will ever see. They steal all the money they can from both you *and* the real artists who perform the music (so much so that artists often end up *owing* record companies after they cut an album). I feel a bit sorry for the RIAA, actually -- well, not really. ;)
It's wonderful to see these cases finally being decided in a sane manner. Hopefully this is just the start of a long string. Although I agree that artists should be compensated for their work, I don't think that trying to make an example of a 13 year old girl is the way to go about garnering public support for copyright enforcement.
This issue is now somewhat cloudy for me, from a consumer's point of view it is wonderful to get free content; from a producer's point of view it is wonderful to sell content. We can't really have both situations at the same time, so I agree that the content providers should have to actually produce a good product in order to make consumers want to pay for it, but I also don't think that someone should be stealing a Brittany Spears album despite its not being worth $16. Then again, I do agree that consumers should be able to download music to have a listen before they buy; perhaps someone needs to form an association similar to the RIAA, but that embraces the concept of worthwhile content that can be used without restriction. Maybe just a recording studio that does it?
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
I start buying music again when three conditions are met.
1: *aa disbanded.
2: price returns to nine bucks a cd or so.
3: content returns to artistic expression.
Seems pretty basic, no?
^..^
Sounds like the voice of reason is sticking to RIAA
You can tell I'm an aries because of my ram.
Ho... ly... shit. The revolution WILL be TELEVISED!
Notwithstanding that the party of the first part (the submitter), of the second part (/. editors) and of the third part (all y'all) can't read, the PLAINTIFF in this case was the RIAA, and their motion was GRANTED. Further the defendant's request to award costs against the RIAA was DENIED. Further, the RIAA can always sue the little girl, which they didn't do in the first place. All y'all can quit pickin' and grinnin' now, and go back to diddlin' yer sheep.
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
I wish the website wasn't blown off the net by being slashdotted.
In PA, where I practice, a GAL is appointed to be an "interested adult" in instances where a child doesn't have a parent or guardian, where the parent may have an adverse interest to the child, or where the Court determines that a GAL is necessary (such as when two parents are fighting over custody).
GAL stands for Guardian ad litem, which basically means, "guardian for the particular matter at hand". So a GAL appointed for custody can't represent a child for a civil action.
In some cases, such as when a child is dependent (i.e., without proper parental care or control) a lawyer is appointed as both the attorney for the child and the GAL. In other matters, such as juvenile deliquency (i.e. minors charged with criminal offenses), a GAL may be appointed as an "interested adult" while the Public Defender or another attorney represents the minor.
In all cases, however, the GAL is there to look out for the minor, not help them get sued by an abusive organization.
Wikileaks, no DNS
No. If I want to give it out under certain conditions -- the condition being that you own only the copy I sold you or that I authorized for sale. You give me money, I give you a song. Its as simple as that. You have no rights beyond owning a specific item that I gave you.
You own the physical medium, nothing else. Sell the CD. I don't care. Hell, every so often I look to see if anything I've been a part of is at a used cd store...it doesn't offend me. Doctrine of first sale, however, doesn't extend to taking my work and trading the content without the physical media.
Fuck. I don't even care if you burn a few copies for friends. A few dozen copies even. Once you are giving it away to people you don't even know via P2P and using it as 'bait' to gather other songs, its then being used as a currency for your own profit and not mine. Again, trade the physical medium along with it and I could give a fuck one way or the other (so long as you abandon all duplicates of your own). Sure, there are inconsistancies and hypocracies in this, but if its my work, its my work.
And thats what you noncreative types don't realize. Its my work, not yours. Its not like writing music or painting is rocket science. If you think you can do equal or better, do so.
Your post would have been better if you knew the difference between theft and copyright infringement—the RIAA threatens and pursues copyright infringement lawsuits. Judges and RIAA lawyers know the difference, but the RIAA public affairs uses the wrong language.
Digital Citizen
In a very short summary:
RIAA: this woman shared our files on p2p
MOM: no I did not, it was somebody else, maybe one of my children.
MOM: yes it was Brittany, not me.
RIAA: Ok, get the Dumb cow off the list
MOM: No, I want my legal costs paid.
Judge: nope, you should have turned in your kid sooner, so no money for you. But RIAA wants you off the list, so there you go, it has been decided.
Now what was so funny about that judgement?
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Please tell that to Carroll Shelby. His name is platinum in the auto industry, he isn't a poor man, and I can't recall hearing him complain about the replica industry.
Not everything needs to be physical to be stolen, see "identity theft" for a really nasty example.
Identity theft is a term. They aren't stealing your identity from you unless they wipe your memory. They may be misusing your identity or maybe even posing as you, but you are still you. It's true that you can steal the intangible: download a file off a server you wrongfully gained access to and then delete it, for example.
I'm not arguing that the file sharers were right, but they weren't stealing.
Beyond that it was, in some ways, a bit like the Boston Tea Party. Prices were being wrongfully fixed in a way that was intolerable, it's harder to organize a boycott than it is a free-for-all. What the RIAA is feeling now is that they benefit more from the free-for-all than they do a boycott. For instance, I'm now boycotting them when I was part of the initial free for all. I limited myself to singles and impossible to find tracks, but I also was an avid purchaser of music, including many CDs containing tracks I had previously downloaded. Now I boycott p2p and RIAA purchases. I also don't even listen to music on the radio anymore, I ditched it for talk radio.
In some cases "pirating" increases the value of content. That's the case with It's a Wonderful Life. For the music that I downloaded, it was certainly true. I wouldn't have spent money on those artists without that download. I've spent hundreds just on music that was recommended to me and shared illegally that I ended up liking.
Given the political power they and their friends are amassing, I not only don't agree with you, but I think that the public had better get better organized around what copyright law ought to say and how it should work so that we can better insure our needs.
Digital Citizen
So if a child steals from a store that they go to without a parent, it should be OK because the minor can't afford to purchase the item?
Let's get this straight, copyright violation is not theft. They are legally different and they are obviously different on their face. When stealing from a store the store no-longer has the physical item they have spent money to be able to to sell.
The effect of copyright violation is that it possibly removes a potential customer. It's highly debatable as to how close to stealing that is but what is clear fact is that it is NOT the same thing.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
Here is the link to the court docket PDF file of "RIAA vs. Candy Chan": http://www.theinquirer.net/images/articles/chan.pd f
Sun and Fun
"Defending yourself" against a mega-billion dollar corporations backed by teams of lawyers with no expense limit can be a very costly proposition, even if you are innocent as a baby - the number of legal tricks available you have no clue about is so extensive that you end up losing much more than a regular lawyer fee.
The RIAA's new strategy apparently is
And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be bannana-shaped.
Finally, the RIAA tried asking the Judge to amend the judgment in order to allow them to sue the child through a Guardian Ad Litem. However the court denied [the] RIAA's request. IANAL, but doesn't that mean they can no longer sue the child?
It doesn't mean that at all, all it means is that the mother can't be sued, the Guardian Ad Litem in this case is the mother therefore they can't sue her.
GUARDIAN AD LITEM
FalconPhrase meaning "For the Proceeding" referring to adults who look after the welfare of a child and represent their legal interests; usually volunteers who are also officers of the court. If the GAL is not an attorney, they must hire one for the child, but some states are starting to allow GALs to do the actual legal work. GALs are also responsible for medical care of the child.
Should there be a Law?
The mom was sued as the owner of the ISP account. During discovery, everything points to the daughter so they drop the charges against mom with prejudice. Since they have made a "best effort" to sue the right person, each side pays court costs. I think the judge was a little pissed at the mum for making the court go through formal motions just to establish this, and feels she should have simply informed them of the circumstances.
The other motion was to continue prosecution against her child as the same case. The court basicly said "That's just as much work as starting a new case, you'll need new court reservations, a Guardian Ad Litem = lawyer to represent the child (as the mother and child could have conflicting interests in this case) and so on anyway, and it's not cheaper either". The RIAA wanted to sue a 13yo girl. They will probably refile to sue a 13yo girl, because it was the mother's case that was "dismissed with prejudice". If they are really nasty, they will completely refuse to settle the second case just to make an example out of them. How this is a victory eludes me.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
No, you've just made the common mistake (on Slashdot) of replacing "illegal" with "not illegal".
When you break the law stealing from a store, you're still breaking the law violating copyright. Just like you're breaking the law if you jaywalk, spit on the sidewalk in many New England towns or murder someone.
Your opinion of what ought to be illegal and what ought to not be illegal is, suprising to say, irrelevant, particularly in the eyes of, say, the courts.
While I may agree with you that the RIAA actions are rediculous, they're in fact both perfectly legal and in fact their responsibility -- they are an organization that represents the publishers and by proxy, the artists. Their sole reason for existing is to do precisely this. As such, you can't fault them for that -- fault the members of the RIAA for creating an organization and mandating it protect their assets if you want to fault someone.
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/blog/211/
The defense attorney comments on the case a little ways down.
Is it ironic that the judges, those who the citizens do not directly elect are the ones most on consumers' sides? I thought about it and reallized that judges don't have to worry about huge campaigning bills and therefore can "afford" to be honorable. Even though we know that elected officials could be honorable too. But then the media would have to get off of its fat lazy ass and begin working. I think it has forgotten how to spell "Kosovo."
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the comparison.
*If* I was able to get my hands on the blueprints of a car, not only can I then make copies of it, but I am actually in possession of the 'source' of the car then, which would allow me to make changes, maybe even making it a better car (or worse) when I'm done.
Now when I copy a music track, I do not gain access to the 'source' of the music. All I get is (hopefully) an exact duplicate, with no insight whatsoever into how the track was put together and no option to change anything about the track (yes, there are possible exceptions if you happen to own a studio yourself).
Now I'm not advocating that copying/ripping/downloading music tracks is a good thing if the original CD or such is not your property, and neither is building a car based on copied original blueprints, but I do see some differences in the cases above.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
This has probably been posted/pointed out before - but downloads don't necessarily equal lost sales. This seems to be what all the *IAA's are going on as well "200 million tracks shared illegially, why that's $1bn!" (or something to that effect). If I download some crap, I'm not gonna go out and buy it. If I download a single because I wanted to hear it once or twice, wtf is the difference if I have the file or if I listen to it on radio? Having said that, I just went and bought 3 albums yesterday, these were cds I would never have found without the loveliness of file sharing! So if anything, in my case file sharing creates record company profit!
As I understood it, the lawyer took this case Pro Bono, which means, in effect, that there are no legal fees for the defendant. All this did was prevent the lawyer from charging the RIAA for his time.
"And when the parents are unaware of their child, it is bad parenting."
Opinions given as absolutes are absolutely wrong.
"consumers should be able to download music to have a listen before they buy; perhaps someone needs to form an association similar to the RIAA, but that embraces the concept of worthwhile content that can be used without restriction. Maybe just a recording studio that does it?"
Did you mean something like magnatune?
They have no isue with people downloading their full albums in *high* quality mp3 format so you can make up your mind wether or not its worth buying. Then to boot you get to choose how much you want to pay ($5 minimum). The artist gets HALF of that!
Then there's always allofmp3.com , but you gotta wonder how legitimate they are...
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
They'll stop suing 13 year old girls when the 13 year old girls stop breaking the law.
Which could happen when:
1. Somebody changes the law
2. They DRM everything
3. The 13 year olds are too scared to listen to music
4. The 13 year olds decide that the RIAA music isn't worth listening to in the first place
I dunno which happens first.
No, you don't have to wonder how legitimate allofmp3 is -- the answer is zero. It's no better in either a legal or a moral sense than using P2P except you get to pay for the pleasure.
Then again, sometimes I wonder whether the sun will REALLY come up tomorrow, but there you go.
"You "alternate universe" Linux types can complain and bit-torrent and ogg all you want to. The rest of us have an economy to participate in."
Hey Ayn,
who said business was bad? The universe I've heard is a huge place with lots of room for new ways of doing things. Of course I could be wrong and all forms of economic output might have already been figured out by you personally professor Rand.
Economics can work in different ways if you give it chance. Ask yout buddy Mr. Wales at Wikipedia.
WAKE UP PEOPLE, it will only get worse unless we show them where it hurts. Their pocket book is the only thing affected. (Hell even then they will again blame their poor record sales on more pirating. Some new tech. Rather then half the crap they have been releasing.)
This is nothing more than the RIAA and the music industry trying to bleedpeople dry with their crap. In the beginning it was making us pay for 1 or 2 good songs with 12 to 13 filler songs. The iTunes takes off and now they want apple to raise prices (thank GOD Jobs said screw you) and now they want to rape children of their piggy banks. I have not now nor will I ever buy a single song or recording ever again since they started this ridiculous witch hunt. The radio is free and no matter how much money I have I will never pay for their crap. Indy music is the best anyhow.
actually yes it is perfectly legal to build replicas and give them away, so long as you're not misrepresenting them as real fords, and so long as youre not profiting.
People do this with shelby cobras all the time, and they actually DO sell them.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Not only is he trying to put himself out of business, he's trying to directly oppose the law of supply and demand.
Supply is infinite, remember? This is software we're talking about; supply and demand have nothing to do with it. Ordinarily, with a finite supply, the price is increased when something is in demand and lowered when it isn't. If there are 20 CDs that 50 people want, the price is increased as high as it can be as long as at least 20 people are willing to buy it at that price. If only 10 people want the CDs, the price is lowered to maximize price*num_buyers, assuming the number of buyers increases as the price lowers, and by a greater amount.
Anyway, that's all irrelevant here.
~CGameProgrammer( );
Does anyone have a list of the attorney firms that the **IA are using?
"It's no better in either a legal or a moral sense than using P2P except you get to pay"
.40-.50 a track. If you really like a particular song then you can get the uber quality then you pay .99 or 1.29 or whatever. Give the people some choice and they'll be happy.
Ok, well I guess that answers that. I didn't want to point to it being illegal or not without being 100% (sure it was somewhat obvious that it may not be legal in the US, but how the law applies in the former USSR I was fuzzy on). But more importantly I was also pointing to the business model where you pay a varying fee according to the quality of the download you choose.
I think that's great since you get to choose how much you really like an artist/song based on the quality of the download you choose. If you only mildly like it they you choose crappy 96 kbps and pay
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
Humpf. If you're involved in the art world of today you know that it's far more valuable to be recognized by the self deluded art community than to actually produce profound work if you want to make money. The originality or quality of your pieces is far secondary to how well you can impress the bohemians at the art show. Is that what you're trying to protect here? Because that's not what the article or most of these posters are taking on.
The vast majority of artwork these days is created by legions of uncredited corporate wage slaves, mostly for advertising. Even most of the music on the radio is 'for hire' compositions, leaving the modern artist without any real claim to their own work. These files being shared are a symptom that the profit model of said companies, sucking profits out of uncompensated artists while screwing the affecionado at every opportunity, is no longer maintainable. The technology they used to add as a value, distribution and marketing, is irrelevant in the world of instant download gratification and web buzz.
Don't think that because you're a 'starving artist' you're in the same boat as them. You'll still have your snobby art shows with people buying your overpriced originals becase it makes them look cool. If you're a musician you can now sell your own music directly and make more money with actually PLAYING your stuff rather than suffering the interference of a media company telling you what's marketable and owning your stuff.
We can all do without litigious corporations using lawyers to maintain irrelevant business models that are hurtful to both artist and customer.
As for the rest of your stuff about eminent domain and communists, I'll mostly let it pass since that's obviously just rant to make your post more provocative, and it doesn't make much sense.
is that the same way "downpouring" water from your faucet reduces the value of the "legitmate" distribution channel for water (e.g. evian).
I think you should not be allowed to use your tap.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I think it's important to keep sight of the fact that what is legal is not necessarily ethical (and vice versa). While it is perfectly legal for the RIAA to sue a single mom or her children, it seems rather sketchy in the ethics department.
I don't think that it is ethical to infringe on copyrights, and I doubt most people would disagree. At the same time, I think it's also unethical that an organization like the RIAA can pretend to be acting on behalf of artists that they routinely abuse. I think people are really starting to understand that buying albums doesn't really support the artists ($.01 - $.03 dollars to the artist vs. $12-$25 to the RIAA and retailers). Because so much money goes to this seemingly ethically devoid entity, people have no conscience dilemmas when downloading.
Every artist signing a record deal is gambling: chances are they're going to lose, but every once in a while someone makes it big. I'm much happier as a consumer and music fan when I purchase music directly from an artist. F*ck the RIAA.
Actually, copying equipment designs for your own internal use is common practice in business. You can't sell your copy to anyone, but giving it away may well be legal.
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
Last time I checked, music pirates primarily used Windows only tools like Kazaa, most probably running on pirated copies of Windows. People who earn their livings using Linux, every single copy legitimately licensed I might add, are much MUCH less likely to participate in music and software piracy.
Last time *I* checked, "last time I checked," doesn't validate conjecture and speculation. "Music pirates" (Yarr!) cover a large cross-section of the population, and most filesharing apps have been ported to (gasp!) Linux by now, or have OSS implementations. I also find it unlikely that most Kazaa users would have the knowledge or wherewithal to obtain and install a pirated copy of Windows on what would presumably be a PC they built themselves, since almost every PC sold to consumers has XP preinstalled.
And not everyone has the same rigid interpretation of copyright that you seem to hold. Some people don't see the point in paying money for music that's being broadcast for free. Given the choice, some people won't wait years for a DVD to be released in their region. And some people believe that if they're already paying a cable bill, then how they obtain their TV shows is just a matter of semantics. And other people just don't care, and will download whatever they want. And some people will sneak into a second movie after they watched the first one.
Contrary to the Chicken Littles among us, the world will survive, and the entertainment industry will continue to flourish.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
This is where your idea goes to shit, the RIAA and MPAA are buggy-whip makers, or rather buggy-whip middlemen. There is no place for them in a p2p world as the artists no longer need them.This is their big fear and why they are making a big deal out of this. Steven Soderbergh is about try something new in that he is going to release a new movie, in HiDef Download/DVD/In the Theaters all at the same time... If he finds that he can do this all by himself without any leech-assed fucktards sucking all marrow from his soul, then he no longer sees a reason to pay them to do this. Look, I can go spend $400 and do my own printing and card making etc. or I can go to kinkos for and do it for less, however after 20 trips the computer/printer option starts sounding very advantageous.
This is just the DoDo birds(riaa,mpaa) with their freinds the Dinosaurs(congress et, al) attempting to get sticks to beat back the upright-walking humans. Dood, when soap operas started showing up on torrent sites, i knew the whole game was over... the cat is out of the proverbial bag.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
A big bad organization trying to beat up on _another_ teenage girl.
So much for the image.
I don't think that you can get yourself out of court-imposed debts through bankruptcy. Otherwise you'd have deadbeat dads, drunk drivers, and other scum doing it all the time to avoid paying up. I'm not sure exactly what kind of legal language prevents you from being able to do it, but my recollection is that even if you declare bankruptcy, that satisfies only PRIVATE debts -- as soon as you start making money again, the courts will garnish your wages to pay off the PUBLIC ones.
OT: The other interesting place they'll do this is if you owe a financial debt to the Military, e.g. for college tuition, and then skip out without paying or render yourself unable to serve. You can go bankrupt for as long as you want, but the second you start making any real money they'll come and take it to start paying off your debt. I don't know if it works this way for government-backed standard school loans or not, but I'm positive that it's this way with military scholarships.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Bullshit1 If you don't want people "stealing" it, then don't publish. Keep it to yourself and get all the pleasure that gives you from it.
Thats an interesting point of view. If I understand you, you don't believe that a creator should have any say in how his work is redistributed. Once it's published and you have legally attained a copy, you think the creator should have no say in how or if you copy and redistribute it?
I assume then, you would be OK with me using modified GPL'd code in a closed source app, without making the source code available? After all, if they didn't want it stolen, they shouldn't have published it, right?
"I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
Girls can be quite fearsome.r c.html
Even the french ones.
http://members.aol.com/hywwebsite/private/joanofa
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
Oh give me a break. People who use Linux download music just like everyone else.
The RIAA are attempting to contain the uncontainable - and it's their own fault.
No matter what they like to say many, many people do not believe that copyright infringement is the same as theft.
Combine this with a media format that can be copied in seconds and you have a problem.
How did the poor recording industry end up in this mess? Greed and shortsightedness.
They had a format that could not be copied easily. Vinyl was the clearly superior sounding format of the day. For music lovers a tape copy simply would not do. People could not afford to create their own records. Even the inferior tape copies could only be created from the vinyl in actual time. So people bought the original. They weren't buying the "rights to the song", they were buying the media!
Enter the CD. Better sound quality but people did not have the capability to copy it perfectly - at first. The CD came out at a price that was a PREMIUM over vinyl. Why? Because the format was BETTER QUALITY, we were told. The recording industry was happy to be selling "media format" when it suited them. We the consumers were told that the price would drop as the production costs of CDs came down. Well, I can produce a CD for about 25 cents in my house now. So why am I paying at least 50 times the price that I could produce the thing for? Where is the price reduction that was promised? It never came.
So now the RIAA have a problem. The media is now worth squat and we can make our own perfect copies for virtually nothing. Plan B - copyright violation and suing 13 year olds.
Great idea guys, sue your user base. Worse still, sue the user base who couldn't afford to buy the stuff now anyway but may be inclined to in the future IF you hadn't completely soured their musical experience when they were young by taking them to court for listening to Jay-Z.
Get a clue. Reduce your prices. Encourage artists to make money from concerts (wow, imagine, performers, performing!). Find a superior format again and make it worth buying. You are trying to contain a product that can be perfectly reproduced in seconds, from anywhere in the world, to anywhere in the world, for free. People find it hard to believe it's stealing. Good luck with your business.
Justice defending the weakest? That's outrageous! Where is this civilisation going?!?
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
I had recently written a little essay about digital thievery. You can check it out at:
a tch-a-thief/
http://sonicron.solaristudios.com/2005/09/23/to-c
(Please, if you are pissed because you think I'm leeching, I'd rather you just copy+paste the essay into a reply than bitch about it. Thanks.)
Digital Sailor
RIAA sues Mother Nature for destroying evidence of actual files on people's computers who were flooded by Hurricane Kartina and Rita to recouperate losses in potential lawsuits.
With this decision, we see that we have at least one court / judge with their head screwed on straight. One, and hopefully more, in a cauldron of otherwise corrupted devils....
Real evolutionists get their morals from their biology textbooks.
I take it that you do not consider Richard Dawkins an "evolutionist" then? I am sure he'll be glad. It's a rather crappy and misguided neologism.:P
"There is no inconsistency in favouring Darwinism as an academic scientist while opposing it as a human being; any more than there is inconsistency in explaining cancer as an academic doctor while fighting it as a practising one."
- Richard Dawkins | Rebelling against our selfish genes
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
"Last time I checked, my GPLd software did not grant me ownership of any of the itellectual property within the codebase."
That's just a technicality and you know it.
The only reason that you can't own that intellectual property is because they have to pervert copyright law into benfitting the public good, and it's only a means to an end, not some kind of endorsement of intellectual property law.
Just to play devil's advocate: what's wrong with that point of view? What gives the creator of a work a say in the distribution of that work? Copyright does. What is copyright? An agreement between society and a creator that gives a creator extra rights over their work for a limited time, in exchange for which the creator shares that work with society.
I had an interesting conversation with an author once on this topic. He believed that he had a natural right to own what he wrote. Unfortunately, we didn't get the chance to explore why that was.
Richard M. Stallman eloquently addressed this precise situation in an interview discussed here a few days ago. He said, paraphrased, that we should obey copyright laws because they are the law, but we should obey the GPL because it is the morally correct thing to do.
I have to wonder how the RIAA expects the 13 year old girl to a. pay for a lawyer, and b. pay the exorbitant amounts that they try to sue for.
If they sue the girl are they going to take her allowance?, sick a collection agent on a 13 year old? maybe force her into bankruptcy?
Could they force the parents to pay off the suit in any way?
I'm really confused as to what they expect to gain from a 13 year old.
1) donate many PCs with P2P preinstalled to orphanages and terminally illed children's home around US
2) have Steve Jobs donate iPod to orphanage and terminally illed children's home, get Woz on it, too
3) provide cheap DSL to them with IP registered to a not-for-profit holding LLC
3) let 18 and younger children use P2P
4) have RIAA catch them using P2P
5) go to press and publisize the court hearing
6) rub hands and smirk devilishly on a leather chair in front of fireplace in a dark room
7) put hands on a glob and shout "RIAA is mine! Mhaa-ha-ha-ha"
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
that the mother can't be sued, the Guardian Ad Litem implies that neither can the Girl as the child's GAL is her mother, and it would be a loop.
RIAA sues girl, GAL is mother, mother has immunity due to Dismissed with prejudice. Lawsuit against the girl is a defacto lawsuit against the mother. The Judge chopped that one off with an axe. There was much gnashing of teeth at RIAA HQ.
Worse yet, since the kid is under 18 they can't wait it out. Actions under the age of 18 are except in certain extreme circumstances, deleted at age 18.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Not quite right. I pay (or rather, my apartment management pays and includes the charge in my rent) for water service from the city water system. I've bought that water from my tap. Sure, if the tap water quality's high enough having it available from the city makes it harder for Evian to sell their water, but I don't recall where Evian ever obtained an exclusive right to provide water in my city so that's just one of the risks of doing business for them. The owners of the music being pirated, by comparison, do have an exclusive right to determine how they'll distribute it. You may not like how they're doing it, but it's their right to do it and it's their right to be stupid about it and ignore what their customers want if they so choose.
NB: the exclusive right to distribute doesn't IMHO extend to a right to conrol use after first sale, but everyone arguing "We haven't taken anything from them!" is always demanding to go beyond use and into making and distributing copies to people who don't already own the song so I've no sympathy for 'em there.
But doing the same thing with the new Volkswagen Beetles is no perfectly legal, because Volkswagen got a trademark on the design of the Beetle.
That doesn't change the correctness of your response, just thought I would point that out.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
http://thrumusic.net/
It's only a matter of time
You may want to read the judge's ruling. He clearly states that the RIAA can certainly sue the daughter. Also, the guardian ad litem is not necessarily the mother - the court appoints that person - but even if she is appointed by the court, it doesn't matter that her case was dismissed. Mom's not the one being sued.
-h-
Extending copyright is closer to stealing than copying.
When copyright terms are extended or copyright laws are made more restrictive, many things would no longer come under public domain or fair use. As such arguably the public suffers a loss - loss of access to material that would otherwise be public domain or fair use.
Thus, extending the scope and reach of copyrights is closer to stealing than copyright infringement, especially if dubious things were done in order to get laws passed.
Even more so if it's retroactive - e.g. things in public domain suddenly become copyrighted back again.
Amongst all of your fence strattling and waffling you have going on in your post you state this:
"We can't really have both situations at the same time, so I agree that the content providers should have to actually produce a good product in order to make consumers want to pay for it, but I also don't think that someone should be stealing a Brittany Spears album despite its not being worth $16."
I hate to point it out to you that most people don't download the whole album but instead only get those songs they like and leave the "fluff" (read shit) songs behind. That is the crux of the problem. The RIAA (and the artists for that matter) want you to buy the whole thing, not peices. Ask yourself this, when was the last time you were able to buy a "single" at Walmart? That went out with the 45 phonograph!
B.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Hunting plays a role, but the main reason for the declining number of caribou is habitat loss. Caribou rely on old growth forests for their food supply (lichens and mosses) so as logging increases, their food supply goes down. Also, building logging roads into such areas and performing limited logging bring in moose - attracted by the new growth forests. The wolves follow the moose and with the help of the logging roads can travel long distances quickly. Caribou, with their wide snowshoe like hooves, can escape wolves in the snow but not if the wolves have these great roads to travel along. So the caribou like to stay in the old growth forests where they have food and are safe but with current logging practices, only pockets of these forests remain. Without proper forest management techniques the caribou are isolated in these pockets with no way to interbreed with other caribou herds. Then it is just a matter of time before the herd dies out.
The only legimate purpose of government is to protect private property and it seriously negelects its duty by not cracking down on ongoing violations.
It is only possible for a government to protect private property if a suffucient majority of the people governed allows it to do so.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Clear, concise, complete... and no popups !
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
Stealing money is still theft, right?
While some who infringe songs would buy them otherwise, in most cases, I doubt it. Think of those who have 1000s of songs. Think they'd have bought all of those songs otherwise? Not likely. And surely not likely for the younger ones.
Remember, these people downloaded just what they wanted. Most people I know grew weary of putting out 16.99 or 17.99 for a CD just for the hit song which 6 months later they didn't like.
So I'd bet, if there was 100% piracy prevention, many of the songs that would have been traded would not be bought.
That said, I expect there are a lot of sales of CDs to people who stumbled upon the groups through sampling from downloaded songs.
Honestly, if 100% piracy prevention came into existance, I bet the increase in sales of top40 fluff and classics would be more than offset by the loss of sales of less known bands whose work would no longer be shared and experimented with.
Then again, I hang around people who think for themselves with regards to what they like as far as music goes, as well as as far as politics goes. Judging by them, I could have expected Bush to lose last election by a landslide. Apparently, I don't run in a representative cross-section of US society.
well, you said you don't agree with their assertions of control via DRM. they don't agree with people pirating their stuff on the internet. Thus i say things are equal at the moment, and reighteously so.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Thanks to BAPCA I'm an ex "debt relief agent" :p, but the provision you quote only applies to judgments for securities fraud. This stems from the S&L crash days.
Butfor the exceptions noted one post above, judgments can in fact be discharged. Until Oct 17th, and then all the new shit hits the fan.
If they do sue the little girl, then it will be time to stop playing softball. Mitch Bainwol, Cary Sherman and all involved will need to made to sleep with the fishes.
How ya like dat?
the trademark only allows for prosecution if they try to claim the actual make/model VW/Beetle. If they advertise it as the "completely fake beetle replica" it would not be illegal. as far as patents go, so long as it's not a part for part copy.. e.g. if they use a different engine configuration, size, fuel injection system, brakes, etc it would be hard to violate patents vw holds. the copies of the songs are imperfect and lossy, so my example would be a lossy/imperfect copy of a beetle.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
You have no rights beyond owning a specific item that I gave you.
You completely *missed* his point that the author only has the ability to have "rights" because society grants those rights (typically in order to encourage authors to create works and share them with society).
There is no intrinsic right to an idea, the posession of which does not affect the ability for others to posses it.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
I'd love to see an American version of allofmp3.com. Granted the prices would be higher than the Russian version, but as long as they were reasonable I would be willing to try it out. Charge per MB and let the customer choose the format -- just keep DRM out of it. Unfortunately, I doubt this will happen, at least with the current buttheads in charge of the RIAA.
This decision is a breath of fresh air -- I still think that this bullshiat will continue until the RIAA sues and DRMs themselves out of business, but perhaps there is hope yet...we shall see.
Beware of Sleestak
If I understand you, you don't believe that a creator should have any say in how his work is redistributed.
He didn't say that, he pointed out that creators' having such a say is a *privilege* granted unto them by society. It is not a right intrinsic to the 'property' concerned.
You can't steal an idea, it's just a fundamental fact with respect to ideas. That creators' have *some* recourse against the most egregious redistributors of "their" idea is only possible because of a construction of civil law, further it can not prevent such distribution.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
>What if a child walked into a store, sat in the home theatre demo >section and watched a whole Disney movie they hadn't seen before.
>Is that OK? Is it theft then too?
No it's not theft. Because it's a bullshit example. This child doesn't walk away with a pristine 100% loseless copy of the movie, unlike the child (assuming he/she rips to flacc or raw wav) in the previous example.
If you are going to make a good counter-argument, don't avoid the points the other poster brought up.
And let me put it this way: If you were a DVD shop owner and some kid comes in to rip movies, then replaces them neatly back in to the boxes and even re-shrinkwraps them, would you be ok with this?
Yes? Really? Even if a thousand kids come in and do the same everyday, and then start passing copies of the copies they made from your merchandise, right outside your doorstep?
You would be ok with this? Really?
-- humberthumbert, who is too lazy to log in.
Private property is the only force that holds USA together. As soon as you start to erode private property, America will break apart. RIAA is rightfully defending the private property of artists and publishing companies. No matter if a child or a mother, if one erodes private property, that one is the enemy of America.
In a time of great terror and evil regimes all over the world, America needs to be strong and mighty to rule the insane world. Strenght is a matter of money, because money is the only three thing needed for war. Every downloaded MP3 file pulls a dollar out of the economy, which in turn takes away one shot from the magazine of an M16 of a GI who is defending YOU. As soon as his clip is empty, the islamic fanatics can kill him easily. Who will protect you then? You can listen to the MP3 of "Final Countdown" while sheik Osama spreads WMD all over America.
Better pay for music and video. Remember the taleban banned all music and movies in Afghanistan. "Free" music download inevitably leads to the destruction of all music.
So, what do penguin testicles taste like?
See Psychopathy.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
With both sides being partially correct the major problem comes in that neither side is willing to give a little up. Now that there are avenues from which to purchase individual songs(ITunes Music store, et al) there is no reason to still be pirating music, but people are still downloading without paying. The original defense for the pirating of music was that the content was lacking, that the albums only contained one or two good songs, that we'd pay for the songs that we like. If this were really the case, no one would be pirating music any more, but people still are.
As I said before, it's a really strange situation; from the outside one can see the merits of both side's arguments, but once you align yourself with either side you become almost blind.
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
I don't know where they found it, but someone pulled up the transcript of the court records, showing the judge ripping the RIAA's lawyer a new asshole. This was my favorite part...
13 THE COURT: If you are here, you are here as an
14 officer of the court. You're taking up my time and cluttering
15 up my calendar, so you will do it in the context of the Court.
16 Maybe it will be with a magistrate judge, but you will be
17 representing your client, not some conference center. And if
18 your people want things to be done through the conference
19 center, tell them not to bring lawsuits.
-jls
Techno-pagan
According to their last press release regarding the lawsuits these happy people will field your calls
e +NW,+Washington,+DC+20036&spn=0.017100,0.030088&hl =en
Jonathan Lamy <jlamy@riaa.com>
Jenni Engebretsen <jengebretsen@riaa.com>
Amanda Hunter <ahunter@riaa.com>
Recording Industry Association Of America -
1330 Connecticut Ave NW Ste 300
Washington, DC 20036
fax: 202-775-7253
well i recollect the days when music was free
you could tape from the radio, burn a CD
now the RIAA wants to know about me
my address, my number, my ISP
yo, bitches, ain't we still got privacy?
why the president be lettin' you spy on me
how many tricks they gonna be lettin you try on me?
trying to be spying on my MP3s
but you protect YOUR corporate privacy
keep your phone number hidden from the bourgeoisie
your customers have to play hide and seek
so here's the number to call if you disagree
775-0101
775-0101
775-0101
202-775-0101
"775-0101
775-0101
775-0101
202-775-0101
202 is the area code and we're dialin'
775 and then we be smilin'
0101-1-cary sherman
well isn't this fun it's ZUG.com
"
Mad props to our nizzles colorblind and Kevin A Crider
202-775-0101
If you happen to be in the DC area please stop by and let them know it's really not OK to sue 13 year old children.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=1330+Connecticut+Av
Bullshit1 If you don't want people "stealing" it, then don't publish. Keep it to yourself and get all the pleasure that gives you from it.
If you don't want people "stealing" your physical property, then don't make it accessible to them.
The trees your table was made from grew by themselves so should they belong to you?
They were on your land? Did you make the land? Did the people you inherited/bought it from make the land or acquire it (indirectly) by standards that would hold up today?
Read on, I'm just raising these questions to make a point...
Society generously gives you certain limited rights to encourage you to share it with us.
Society generously gives you certain "rights" w.r.t. physical property because it's ultimately beneficial to everyone involved. When it comes to the crunch, all physical artifacts are simply the grabbing, or processing of existing stuff. So why the heck should they "belong" to you?
Well, physical property is more "animal" in nature (similar to territory); intellectual property more "abstract". That's why people are more comfortable with physical property "rights". Both involve work, however, so is this justification for an artificial distinction?
Of course, the laws governing the two will have to be different to reflect the practical nature of the work involved, and (moreso than with physical property), limits will have to be placed on it to avoid Disney-esque eternal copyright.
But I don't accept the principle that intellectual work/property shouldn't be subject to protections in the same way that physical work/property is.
the "uniqueness" is just selfishness.
So? You think all artists should starve and do everything out of the goodness of their hearts? Why shouldn't they be self-interested, let alone selfish?
It's their work. If you don't like their terms, don't buy it, but don't rip it off either.
A piece of art can be shared with the world for virtually no cost.
And the artist doesn't get paid.
It's still the same piece of art whether one person or a million people have it.
Let's accept that as true. (I'm not even going to get into a debate over whether having been widely viewed affects something's artistic status, as that's really just an "Ahh.... but is it *art*?" endless argument).
It still affects the monetary value of that piece of *work* to the creator. Remember that not only is much art created for *commercial* purposes, not all intellectual property is "art" either.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
So? You think all artists should starve and do everything out of the goodness of their hearts? Why shouldn't they be self-interested, let alone selfish?
That's not really what I was getting at. I have no problem with them getting rewarded for their work. I just have an issue with the implication that they should have such absolute control. For example, I want a copy of an out of print book. I can't get it. Who is benefitting from it's unavailability? Not me. Not the author. People who bought copies when it was in print might get value from its perceived uniqueness, but why is their right to uniqueness greater than my right to enjoyment?
Even if it's the author who wants to keep it to himself and not share it. How is it hurting him if it is shared? He's only lost this "uniqueness". I simply don't see any reason why he should expect this as a right. I think that society granting him rights gives him an obligation to share it.
I feel pity for the RIAA. They are trying *with some success* to paint themselves as the victim. Why is it so difficult to understand that this is not the way to win your user base. The problem is exaggarated by the media also. It makes it sound like everyone in the world is pirating stuff. There are lots and lots of people that refuse to use a pirated copy and would much rather pay for stuff. When will they learn
How the Hell does Ronny (Bushes mate) get away with enron stealing billions from hard earning folk?
Maybe the best way to 'cheat debts' is to setup a corporate, and have it fund everything for you, then when it dies
you are free. Though cant be a director of a company again.
Or just get a dual national passport and leave USAofCriminalA to Europe and live your free happy life in freedom there.
Or afrika if you want it cheap - escapeartist.com
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Well, since you would be a criminal, you might not be able to draw welfare (actually, is there still any such things as welfare? I thought the neo-cons put an end to that?).
No, I think that since the RIAA are demanding the criminalization of file sharing behavior, the file sharers should oblige them - deal with the RIAA in terms they can understand: Gang fo thugz to gang of thugz.
E.g. Form an IP Theft Crime Syndicate and respond to each lawsuit with a couple drive-bys at some RIAA member corporate offices. There are more of you than there are of them, and they are highly visible wiht a lot to lose - right out there in the open. Vulnerable.
For the financially disadvantaged (those who can't just dash out and buy a tech 9 or mac 10 or whatever they're called - toss a couple of gasoline bombs thru their plate glass (wait til everyone has gone home if you're squeamish about offing the bastards - but a more useless bunch of dickheads I really have trouble imagining) - show them what "losses" are really all about...
And speaking of fininancially disadvantaged, hasn't anyone noticed that the RIAA/MPAA thugs only pick on middle-to-low income citizens? They seem very careful to avoid going after anyone who has the real financial oomph to give them a real legal fight. This Michigan decision is not too bad, but the war is far from over, and the people are losing.
The RIAA/MPAA will no more be stopped by legal means than any other group of entrenched gangsters.
If the courts and law enforcement won't stand up for the citizens' rights, the citizens have to do it themselves.
This girl's mother could obviously afford a lawyer, and was willing to take the chance - what about all those other one-paycheck-from-the-streets victims who are having to balance next a paying couple months rent in protection money to the RIAA thugs against the possility that if they give a similar amount of money to lawyer they *might* not get stuck with an even larger fine?
I figure if the RIAA/MPAA thugs had their families threatened in the same way - to the same degree - they are threatening the families of their victims they might at least begin to understand what's at stake.
Regardless of what protestations and representations the RIAA/MPAA thugs might make, file sharing as we know it is not illegal. The fact that they have purchased legislattion supporting the pretense of its illegality doesn't change that. To those victims without sufficient funds to purchase legislation to protect themselves from unjust action under the color of Law, force becomes the only possible response.
It's a rigged system. It's ime to shut it down and start over.
"The Internet is made of cats."
Basically, you can't be held liable for someone coming onto your wireless router, and downloading crap, whether it be illegal music, porn, movies, whatever.
I agree with some of what you say, although I'm always wary about people saying "this is for the benefit of the author, so it can't be wrong."
Things are usually more subtle than that; the author may have motives for keeping a book out-of-print (perhaps they're searching for a better publishing deal). Perhaps everyone having an 'unofficial' copy might discourage the book from going back into print? Perhaps they have other motives?..... Most won't, but I think it's somewhat presumptious to assume that we're entitled to copy stuff on this basis.
As I said, there have to be limits to the law; if nothing else, unlimited rights would stifle others' creativity; and what if people had become reliant upon info 'X', which was then withdrawn as a form of blackmail by the author?
And so on... People who bought copies when it was in print might get value from its perceived uniqueness, but why is their right to uniqueness greater than my right to enjoyment?
It's not; unless they agreed something with the author, that's really a red herring.
Even if it's the author who wants to keep it to himself and not share it. How is it hurting him if it is shared? He's only lost this "uniqueness".
See previous post; perhaps he wants to increase its value by withholding it temporarily. OTOH, there are limits that the law should be expected to protect people to if people don't want to distribute their work.
Anyhow, privileges and "rights" are not as clearly-defined as some would like to believe...
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
I missed no fucking right.
I complete recognized his flawed idea that because society granted rights, I have them.
This is the same excuse communist gov't give for taking away possessions. They can take them away because I only had the right to possess these physical objects for a specific amount of time before my rights went away. Why are physical objects different than intellectual ones?
There is not intrinsic right to owning any property, the possession of which does not affect you by not owning it because allowing others to posses it will enrich you far more than keeping it.
Just because you can put it into a sentence does not make it correct. You are no more communist than I am and I can guarentee this. You, however, are like any capitalist and will expect only that which you own and value to be protected, where as anything by someone else should be given away for free. I sir am not going to give away my rights wholesale just because you want me to live in poverty whilst you want to do meanial labour (and most code jobs are just that...I'm glad I'm management and design apps and have keyboard jockies that code them for me) and get paid big bucks because its hard work actually having to use your body as opposed to someone like me that works smarter as opposed to harder.
So fuck you. And fuck your condescending attitude that I completely '*missed*' his arguement.
>from which to purchase individual songs(ITunes Music store, et al) there is no reason to still be pirating music,
Their is still no way to purchase a individual song, and play it directly on my mp3 player. (by mp3, I of course meen it plays mp3's not the DRM stuff sold)
I realize some allow you to burn a cd in windows, then rip that to a mp3... well it's still easier to just download the mp3, and it works (even if you do use windows.)
Thanks to BAPCA I'm an ex "debt relief agent" :p, but the provision you quote only applies to judgments for securities fraud. This stems from the S&L crash days. Butfor the exceptions noted one post above, judgments can in fact be discharged.
Very informative! I found it very hard to fathom that normal civil judgments couldn't be dischargeable. What would be the point of even having Bankruptcy laws then?
Until Oct 17th, and then all the new shit hits the fan.
I don't even think the BAPCA would change this. It doesn't modify Chapter 7 too much -- just makes it a little bit harder to qualify for one. In this case I think a 13 year old girl with no income wouldn't have a hard time qualifying.
The means test part of BAPCA doesn't really do anything anyway. If you make less then the median income in your state you are automatically assumed to be able to file Chapter 7. If you make more then that you need to justify your expenses. This was all going on anyway -- most Trustees would convert your case to a Chapter 13 if you had so much disposable income anyway.
There's also some sections of the BAPCA that will provide a benefit to smart consumers. The way they calculate your wages for the means test (six month average) would give an advantage to somebody who was unemployed and recently returned to work. Factor in the fact that secured debts always take priority (think: your house) and the credit card companies still wind up getting screwed for the most part.
The bad parts (from the consumer perspective anyway) of BAPCA are the parts that place more liability on your lawyer -- which means he is going to have to charge you more money for your case and there will doubtless be more paperwork. There's also the requirement for debt counseling -- which I find rather odd since most debt counseling agencies work for the credit card companies. In any case the bottom line is that it will cost more to file bankruptcy under the new laws -- but the end result for most people will be the same.
Going really OT here I would say that the real solution to the perceived bankruptcy problem (like the credit card companies are really hurting that badly) would be for the credit industry to stop issuing as much credit and encouraging the culture of living beyond your means that has invaded this country on every level (look at the Federal budget). As it stands right now they will continue to issue you credit until you owe so much money that you'll be paying the interest for the rest of your life. It's legalized loan sharking and that's the real source of the problem.
But that's just my humble opinion.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
This is the same excuse communist gov't give for taking away possessions.
:).
:).
Rubbish.
"Intellectual Property" is not a possesion. Indeed only the *existence* of a government (or at least, a cohesive civil society) is what allows you to think that you have some rights on your ideas that are vaguely akin to property rights. Without a government/civil society you simply would *not have* any way to control what is done with your ideas (other than being very strict about how you divulge them).
Why are physical objects different than intellectual ones?
Because they are not objects. Why do you think they *are* the same? Can you hold an idea? Can you forcibly take an idea from me and prevent me "having it"? No you can't, cause an idea simply is just that, an idea - ephemereal and without substance.
It used to be with music and other media that at least, even if the idea was ephemereal that it still required substantial fixed substances, time and human labout and expertise to reproduce. But that has changed too, such that music, software, literature and other forms of expressive works are now as ephemereal and easy to reproduce and share as all other ideas.
Like it or not, this simply changes a lot of things
You are no more communist than I am and I can guarentee this.
I'm definitely not a communist.
I sir am not going to give away my rights wholesale just because you want me to live in poverty whilst you want to do meanial labour
I'm not asking you to give your rights away, I'm just pointing out where you got those rights from.
(and most code jobs are just that...I'm glad I'm management and design apps and have keyboard jockies that code them for me) and get paid big bucks because its hard work actually having to use your body as opposed to someone like me that works smarter as opposed to harder.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. However, I did *not* say anything about what kind of job I want you to do. However, times change and so do the jobs people do. Does technology sometimes wipe out whole classes of jobs and industries? Sure. Should we have stopped the printing press because it put skilled scribes out of work? eg, look at the likes of the Book of Kells and all the other hand-copied and beautifully enscribed bibles from back them - compare it to a printed bible even, and the painstaking hand-copied version is far better and wrote on materials which will last far far longer (vellum). Yet we have no scribes anymore today, they were wiped out. However, we have *far* more books today. Same thing for the weaving industry - find me a crofter today.
You better start swimmin', Or you'll sink like a stone, For the times they are a-changin'..
That's how it is, that is how it has always been and always will be. You can't be a scribe forever.
And fuck your condescending attitude that I completely '*missed*' his arguement.
Well you did, sorry
--paulj
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Besides, if you're looking for anti-intellectual property types, look in the BSD camp.
What makes you think this? Those who like the BSD license aren't dissimilar to those who like the GPL or standard copyright law. They had desires and requirements, and found a license which supported it. I'm personally in favour of the BSD license since it has fewer restrictions to the developer than standard copyright or the GPL. There may be situations where I would prefer to exercise those restrictions, and if the situation arises, I will.
Oh, and the BSD doesn't give you ownership of any of the intellectual property it covers, either. What it gives you is pretty much unlimited use, including within your own licensed products. That distinction is critical.
I think the mistake you're making is in assuming that people from any cross-section of society can't be hypocrites.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Obviously you are right: if you are guilty and are trying to get away with it, you'd better hire the best lawyer support you can afford. But I was speaking in more general terms - not having a lawyer means having to do everything yourself and in anything bigger than a small claims lawsuit it will eventually jeopardize your bank account, your job, your family. I would say it is a very risky propositon.
Of course, the RIAA will probably try and sue someone over that as well...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I would take your statement even further and state....
It is only "private property" if a sufficient majority of the people allow for that definition to hold sway.
Otherwise--I live and work on this planet therefore it is MY private property.
Greedy people like to spend a great deal of effort convincing every one else of all sorts of natural, supernatural timeless rights. They need to get over the fact they were born naked into this world and naked they shall leave. What is equitable during that time inbetween is defined by the terms we individually agree upon.
"Treat the Earth not as if it was given to you by your parents, but as if it was lent to you by your children." - Kenyan Proverb
Am I the only one who has boycotted the entire music industry? Yes, I mean doanloads and all. Haven't paid for or downloaded an album in over five years. If you're "band" is involved in the industry, I don't want to hear it. I'd rather hum.
F*ck the RIAA. Not getting my money eitherway.
"Going really OT here I would say that the real solution to the perceived bankruptcy problem (like the credit card companies are really hurting that badly) would be for the credit industry to stop issuing as much credit and encouraging the culture of living beyond your means that has invaded this country on every level (look at the Federal budget). As it stands right now they will continue to issue you credit until you owe so much money that you'll be paying the interest for the rest of your life. It's legalized loan sharking and that's the real source of the problem. But that's just my humble opinion" And I agree :)
I do think means testing will cause pretty big changes, at least in my district. That 6 month average is tempered (to a sharp edge) by the way they track income even after discharge; you get a raise, or just a job, and you get thrown back in, and probably in a five year Ch 13.
NB: the exclusive right to distribute doesn't IMHO extend to a right to conrol use after first sale, but everyone arguing "We haven't taken anything from them!" is always demanding to go beyond use and into making and distributing copies to people who don't already own the song so I've no sympathy for 'em there. You don't own the song. In a perfect world, the artist owns the song. more often, the RIAA Owns the song. All you own is a little plastic disk with a coded burn mark. you are granted a license to decode that mark for purpose of playing back the encoded song, but you are not granted any other rights to said song.
The lawyer was acting Pro Bono Publico (For the public good). The only money he gets is public donations or any costs awarded by the court. A lot of people said they were donating a few dollars to the fund (I hope they did). So its not mom who is screwed - its her lawyer who seems like a Good Guy (so when the revolution comes don't shoot all the lawyers - let this one live).
Remember Heinlein - Laws exist to protect children and pregnant mothers, eberythin else is window dressing
ah!! my eyes!! they burn!!!!
I do think means testing will cause pretty big changes, at least in my district. That 6 month average is tempered (to a sharp edge) by the way they track income even after discharge; you get a raise, or just a job, and you get thrown back in, and probably in a five year Ch 13.
Hmm, I didn't know they'd be tracking it after discharge. My lawyer said the biggest change under the new laws would be the six month average -- which in certain scenarios would actually be to the consumers benefit (unemployed and just got a job -- six month average used to calcuate your Ch 13 payment).
I wonder if your spending plan will be more looked at as well? I know single people that have filed Ch 13 with $300 a month food budgets and bills twice as high as they really are. They would up paying something like 15% of their debts.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You're parroting the same falsehood as the RIAA. No, I don't own the song. I do, however, own that copy of the song. Same as a book: I don't own the book, but I do own my copy of the book. And no, I don't own a license, I own the copy. See the Uniform Commercial Code for the relevant contract of sale (which applies if no other terms are agreed to at or before the time of sale). If the RIAA wants the transaction to not be a sale under the UCC, then they need to either have an appropriate agreement made or make the transaction not have the form and appearance of a sale.
thanks for the clarification. I was always led to believe that it was equivalent to a software license. But as you said. I don't have to sign any type of contract, or accept a eula, therefore, it can't be equivalent.
"But that's just my humble opinion." Mine is different. In my humble opinion, we should keep that thing up there! I like the cool pictures. Maybe some day it will discover aliens and we then send them our picture! Damn George and his Mars plans...
LIEUTENANT: I think we can handle one little girl. I sent two units. They're bringing her down now.
AGENT SMITH: No, Lieutenant, your men are already dead.
Seriously folks, let's boycott the members of the RIAA. Enough is enough. There are plenty of independent labels out there which aren't members of the RIAA.
If it was not clear before, RIAA and cronies are now literally child molesters (see www.m-w.com). Act accordingly.