RIAA Sues a Child

This sort of thing... by CdBee · 2005-10-05 21:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

..only reinforces my determination not to pay for content.

Am I a thief? yes. but it sits easier with my conscience than paying an industry which shows so readily all the worst tendencies of big business

--
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU

Re:This sort of thing... by KiloByte · 2005-10-05 21:58 · Score: 5, Informative

Am I a thief? yes.

Tell me again, since when copyright infringement became theft?

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Re:This sort of thing... by mad+flyer · 2005-10-05 22:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

Bah... the usual problem, when people repeat something false often enought it subconciously become true, in an hypnotic way...

See WMD, video games consoles are all sold at loss, Apple is dying, BSD too and others that I have forgotten...

Life is getting soooo boring...
Re:This sort of thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-05 22:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're not a thief for downloading music, whatever the RIAAs PR says.

Theft is a criminal offence and copyright violation is a civil one - HUGE difference.
Re:This sort of thing... by aussie_a · 2005-10-05 22:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Am I a thief? yes. but it sits easier with my conscience than paying an industry which shows so readily all the worst tendencies of big business

I personally don't believe you and do strongly believe that you would come up with another justification to be a thief if the RIAA stopped suing people tomorrow. I don't know you, but I have this opinion of all thieves. Could you be different? Sure. But I simply don't believe you, and won't no matter what.

If you stopped stealing their content AND buying their content, I would applaud you for your morality. The RIAA doesn't own all music out there, go look for indie stuff, I'm sure you'll be surprised by what you find.

At the moment all you are is a thief with (IMO) a piss-weak justification.
Re:This sort of thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-05 22:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

That generally involves people claiming others' work as their own, which is not something any of these music "thieves" have been doing.
Re:This sort of thing... by DaveV1.0 · 2005-10-05 22:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Since infringing on copyright deprived the copyright holder of income through the unauthorized distribution of said holder's copyrighted works.

Copyrighted works have value and, in the case of music, it is demostrated value (people pay for it). Because people are obtaining the music without paying for it, against the wishes of the copyright holder, when they would have had to pay for it, copyright holders are deprived of that income.

Unless you can prove that all the people who downloaded the work would never have paid for it, arguing that downloaders would not have bought the music does not stand.

Any other questions?

Side note: I am amazed at the hypocrisy I see when this issue appears. Many people who post they want the GPL upheld using copyright law, turn around and want to deprive others of their rights under copyright law.

--
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Re:This sort of thing... by Freexe · 2005-10-05 22:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Remember, Nintendo is on its last legs and can't compete in the video games market

--
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
Re:This sort of thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-05 22:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

Several mistakes:

1. The copyright holder is only deprived of *potential* income. As neither of us knows if a specific person would have paid for the crap he downloaded and never listened to, you can't say that he was deprived of any real income. He only lost something he never had.

2. No matter if he would pay or not, the correct term is still "copyright infringement". The word "theft" covers *removing* something from a person, and to remove something, he had to have it in the first place.

3. Disagreeing with using the word "theft" is not the same as agreeing with illegal copying. Personally I would be happy if illegal copying didn't exist at all, but that doesn't mean that I want the RIAA and their fans (that includes you, apparently) to pollute the language by using the wrong words to deliberately confuse the case. In the normal usage of words, it is not theft, it's copying. In the legal sense, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. It's only theft in your fantasy, and the fantasy of the RIAA.

4. Two people disagreeing is not called a hypocrisy. Slashdot is not a person, it's a message board with lots of different people who have different oppinions, and who post on different topics. The GPL fans who don't care about the RIAA-topics have one oppinion, and the Kazaa-fans who don't care about the GPL-topics have a different oppinion.

5. In conclusion, how about learning the language before you post? Let me just list the words you have confused in your post:

Income vs Potential income.
Theft vs Copyright infringement.
Hypocrisis vs Different oppinions.

Please learn the differences. Then you'd be able to sound like an intelligent person and not just an RIAA marketing guy.
Re:This sort of thing... by damieng · 2005-10-05 22:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

A friend of mine asked my opinion on a DVD he was about to purchase. At my suggestion he came to my house and watched it. He subsequently decided it wasn't worth purchase.

So in effect I have deprived artists and studios of potential income too.

As does every reviewer who dissuades a potential purchaser.

If we are saying it is perfectly acceptable to sue anyone who takes potential income from you then society would be in a lot of trouble. The lottery would have to go, as would interviewing for jobs....

--
[)amien
Re:This sort of thing... by geminidomino · 2005-10-05 22:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Music thieves" are admitting the work is not theirs. They are giving away a product that is not theirs to give away.

That's still not theft.

And, in the processes, depriving the copyright holders of income.

I'm doing the same thing by not buying their pap. Contrary to coprorate belief, that's NOT EVEN ILLEGAL.
Re:This sort of thing... by oirtemed · 2005-10-05 23:04 · Score: 4, Informative

Once again, you, like many before you, seem under informed both in the history of copyright and its current implementation. For a nice examination of the history and the current state of affairs, go read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture. The book, if you don't want to buy it, is also available for free as a PDF released under the creative commons license.
Until then, I'd really suggest you not make blanket statements for which you are not logically equipped to back up.
Copyrighted works have value and, in the case of music, it is demostrated value (people pay for it). Because people are obtaining the music without paying for it, against the wishes of the copyright holder, when they would have had to pay for it
Used music purchases are often against the "wishes" of the copyright holder, do not benefit the copyright holder, and deprive the copyright holder 'income'. Copyright law wasn't about protecting holder's incomes, in fact it was really the opposite. Copyright law was designed to force things into the public domain, as the common law at the time allowed for the argument of perpetual copyright. It isn't until recently that there is all this crying over derivative works, insanely long copyright terms and instant copyright of everything without application and without application for extensions. These benefit the corporations, the holders, and do not benefit the people or public in any way. It undermines the public domain and reduces creative possibilities.
Unless you can prove that all the people who downloaded the work would never have paid for it, arguing that downloaders would not have bought the music does not stand.
Actually it is a valid argument. If those in favor of stringent copyright laws want to argue in favor of "lost sales" without providing any proof to the matter other than made up numbers, then yes, the otherside can say "I wouldn't have bought it anyway."
I'm not against copyright and I do believe that creators deserve protection. But there needs to modifications to take into account current technology, and the lifetime of a copyright needs to be severly reduced to encourage innovation and allow the public domain, and thus the public, to flourish. And, contrary to what people want you to believe, the point of the following line is to LIMIT the term of IP protection: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Re:This sort of thing... by Ihlosi · 2005-10-05 23:05 · Score: 4, Informative

Piracy is the copying of merchandise for distribution ...

No no no. Real piracy involves ships and assorted pirate accessories (for the modern-day pirate, that means small arms, for the more historically-inclined pirate, muskets, swords, cannons, eyepatches and parrots). And usually plenty of violence, keel-hauling and making people walk the plank.
Re:This sort of thing... by Bimo_Dude · 2005-10-05 23:15 · Score: 2, Informative

which is why I put the work "claimant" in the GP. The theory applies to both civil and criminal law, but with slightly different standards for proving guilt (reasonable doubt -vs- preponderance).
I definitely agree with you that the civility if the RIAA's actions is debatable. IMHO, the RIAA and MPAA are nothing more than a bunch of thugs extorting money from people who cannot afford to defend themselves.

--
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
Re:This sort of thing... by geminidomino · 2005-10-05 23:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

This arguement does not stand because once the person downloads the song, the copyright holder is deprived of the income the downloader would have paid for the song.

This claim does not hold.

Firstly, It has yet to be shown that RandomDownloaderX would have paid for it, rather than just never hearing it at all. RIAA propaganda, nothing more.

Secondly, unless the money or something tangible was IN their possession already, it is not theft (see below). They are not providing "services." By their own propaganda, they are selling "licenses to listen to music." Doing something without a license may be illegal, but is not theft.

Income is a thing. Theft also incompasses services. If you wish to play with strict interpretation: The original poster wished to know when he became a thief. A thief is one who steals (To take (the property of another) without right or permission) and as you said, it is intellectual property.

"Intellectual property" is a term invented by the people you're shilling for. It's not a real thing that can be removed from someone's posession, thus is not a valid target for "theft." "Income" is only such AFTER it is in the hands of the one earning it. Until that point, GP is right, it is "*potential* income," so unless the downloaders are reaching into the RIAA's pockets and pulling out wads of cash, they aren't committing "theft" there either.
Re:This sort of thing... by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · 2005-10-05 23:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

At the moment all you are is a thief with (IMO) a piss-weak justification.

You want to wake up, son. These coke sniffing, hooker humping, lawyer loving, backhander taking, oozing cankers on the arse of humanity are threatening to take away a woman's child because she downloaded some MP3s. I don't know what you would call a strong justification. Maybe they should ritually defile her while chanting verses of the copyright law?

If these wee shites want to play hardball, I suggest that we return the favour. Hire a private detective or five to take pictures of them on their weekends. Track down the mistresses, the drug connections, the dirty laundry. Filter through their trash. Compile a tasty dossier on each and every one of them, and the record company execs, too. It can't be that hard. And then, well, downloaded music will be the very least of their worries.

--
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Re:This sort of thing... by NigelJohnstone · 2005-10-05 23:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

"1. the copyright holder is deprived of the income the downloader would have paid for the song."

*Potential* income, and I would potentially own a Ferrari, if it wasn't for these meddling kids.

"2)Income is a thing...A thief is one who steals (To take (the property of another) without right or permission) and as you said, it is intellectual property".

When your copyright expires has the public domain stolen your intellectual property?
"Intellectual property" the phrase is just a soundbite designed to confuse the legal constructs of patent, copyright and trademark with that of possession.

"Repeatedly, the same individuals will decry violations of the GPL ( copyright infringement), then decry a group of people enforcing their copyright."

This infringment is by a legal minor, a legal minor is a legal minor because children are not considered capable of making clear rational decisions. GPL violations are not done by legal minors because legal minors can't enter into the GPL contract. Even if it was the same person, the situations are clearly not the same.
Re:This sort of thing... by CdBee · 2005-10-05 23:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you're making a case that my actions are immoral, unethical, and weakly justified. fair comment. They are.

I'm not motivated by ethics. I'm motivated by annoyance at the recording industry. I like depriving them of profit by downloading files for my use and that of my friends.

The decision to "reject and not consume" is the choice of a digital media freedom fighter. Moral and worthless to the bigger fight. I prefer the actions of a digital media terrorist. Sending USB hard drives and DVD-Rs packed with files around the country by DHL

--
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Re:This sort of thing... by ortholattice · 2005-10-05 23:38 · Score: 4, Informative

theft includes not only property but also theft of services
This still doesn't cover copyright infringement.
Theft of services means you agreed to have someone perform a service for you, like a doctor's examination, and that person expended their time and labor fulfilling that agreement. When you skip out on paying them, that is theft of service.
In the case of theft of service, the doctor has expended time and physical labor performing the service specifically for you, and there is external, independent evidence that that's the case. You have interacted with the person performing the service.
In the case of copyright infringement, there isn't necessarily any interaction with the copyright owner. The copyright owner has no way of even knowing about the infringement without snooping into your private life to uncover it.
Here's yet another way to look at it: service is a limited, finite resource. The doctor has limited time. The theatre you sneak into has limited seats. Like physical property, theft of service is taking away something the provider had (time, physical space to rent, etc.) and no longer has as a result of the theft. Copyright infringement, on the other hand, involves an infinite, unlimited resource. In and of itself, the act of making a copy has absolutely no effect on the copyright owner and deprives the copyright owner of nothing that the owner had before the infringement took place.
So, theft is truely the wrong word for this act and very misleading. That isn't to say that, because of its constant use in the wrong sense, it will not come to acquire that meaning (since language ultimately depends on common usage), but currently it is a biased and purposely misleading word when used to describe copyright infringement.
All of the above, by the way, has nothing to do with the ethics or legality of copyright infringement. That is an entirely different issue. But it is important to distinguish it from theft before such discussions even begin, if those discussions are going to be rational.
Re:This sort of thing... by EvilMole · 2005-10-05 23:41 · Score: 3, Informative

And there are other - perfectly legal - ways of doing this. For example, you can use Yahoo's streamed music to sample as much new music as you like, for $5 a month. When you find something you like, you can buy it - either as a CD (if you want DRM-free digital copies) or as a WM file (if you don't), or as AAC if you want digital plus an iPod.

$5 a month. You get to try out as much music as you like, legally. Isn't that a price worth paying?
Re:This sort of thing... by pomo+monster · 2005-10-05 23:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's theft in the same way that declining to pay for, say, your haircut, is theft of services; and it is indeed illegal. Check section 2319 here, the bit titled "Criminal infringement of copyright."
Re:This sort of thing... by PhilHibbs · 2005-10-05 23:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

So we should assume for simplicity that your arguement is relevant when it isn't? No thanks.
Re:This sort of thing... by bentcd · 2005-10-05 23:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

When someone cuts your hair, there is an actual person spending his own time attending to you specifically. When you run off, his time was spent for naught. This is why such an example might be called theft. When it comes to copyright infringement, it is usually you spending your time to make a copy onto your storage media. Noone has spent any of their time or resources on you specifically and so not paying them is nowhere near what can be called theft. The word is only used in an attempt to evoke an emotional response in the audience.

--
sigs are hazardous to your health
Re:This sort of thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-06 00:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

Bah... the usual problem, when people repeat something false often enought it subconciously become true, in an hypnotic way... See WMD, video games consoles are all sold at loss, Apple is dying, BSD too and others that I have forgotten..
Yeah, and also add "downloading stuff without paying for it is OK because the product sucks and I wouldn't buy anyway."
But if it sucks so bad, why are people downloading it in the first place.
Re:This sort of thing... by pomo+monster · 2005-10-06 00:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

So by that same token, theft of services isn't theft unless the service was rendered for you, and you alone as an individual? That's so weak. Suppose your barber works for a chain and gets paid by the hour. He's not cutting your hair for "you specifically," and since he's paid either way, your running off doesn't mean "his time was spent for naught." But your running off without paying is still theft.

Now suppose a musician, a producer, a team of sound engineers, cover artists, a couple talent scouts, and the management to put them all together each contribute a little bit towards a great new album they expect you to pay for, but then you go and download it for free with LimeWire. How is that not theft, too?

Can I ask, unrelatedly, about your feelings toward the term "identity theft"?
Re:This sort of thing... by sjwaste · 2005-10-06 00:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

in IT you are tought truth. in the legal profession you are tought to lie your ass off at every chance you get. and who drives these legal suits against people? Lawyers. do the world a favor, vote to have all lawyers killed today!

I'm a law student, and let me tell you, we're not taught to lie. And in the end, its the RIAA management that drives this first, then the lawyers involved. The bottom line is there'd be no litigation if RIAA management didn't want it. Besides, the lawyers here are working for the RIAA to stop people from downloading music they didn't pay for. The RIAA may be all that is soulless and wrong in how it operates, but you can't sit here and tell me that their desire to have people pay for their music is wrong. Suing a kid might be wrong, but the parent should've taken responsibility long ago.

Would I personally choose to plead this case? Absolutely not, I don't think its right to sue a family into oblivion for this. That would be economic waste, in my opinion. So while I disagree with their method of action, I don't disagree with them trying to prevent filesharing of their copyrighted works. If I were the RIAA's counsel, my advice to them would be not to sue, but to get with the times and update their business model. It's quite outdated, and that's what's driving this.
Re:This sort of thing... by SillyNickName4me · 2005-10-06 00:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

That is all cool and well, but in no way changes the fact that your previous statement is false.

Many people (I am not going to argue if it is the majority or not) who download stuff illegally, also buy music, and will even buy the exact music they downloaded. The consequence is that arguing that illegal downloads (see, I do call them illegal) always result in loss of income for record companies is wrong, and there are in fact signs that the opposite is true.

Stop confusing the issue by just dragging in new and unrelated things, the fact that a legal service exists that allows this in no way changes the consequences of illegal downloads, it merely gives an alternative for those who can use it.

Oh, and give me a break, I have to pay for record companies doing their promotion? I thought that that promotion is what they claim they need al this money for, so a sampling service that actually costs money is bullshot.
Re:This sort of thing... by Dashing+Leech · 2005-10-06 00:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

"And, in the processes, depriving the copyright holders of income."
And this is where this argument always fails for a variety of reasons. Income is only deprived if the person receiving the "free" copy would have paid for it in the first place had they not been able to get the free copy. I would love to see someone argue that a 14 year old kid with $10,000 "worth" of songs would have paid $10,000 for them had they not been able to download.
Also, depriving potential income is not theft. People are deprived of potential income all the time, from the city doing roadwork in front of a store, to boycotts, to simply a new competitor moving in. Deprivation of potential income is not a valid argument because it relies on an invalid assumption of what people would have intended under different circumstances. It's the deprivation of the property from which the income is derived that matters, and that's the difference between theft and copyright infringement. The former deprives the owner of the use of the property. The latter just means you violated their right to decide how something is copied.
One other point. There is no inherent right to earn income from a creative work, and that is not the intention of copyright law. For example, this post I am writing is actually a creative work, and usually something like this is automatically copyrighted under the law. Should you guys pay me? The intent of copyright law is to encourage content creators to share their works publically. The "limited time" (which it isn't really anymore) protection is merely the incentive for sharing the work. It's not a bad concept for promoting cultural development, but has become too distorted and abused to be a useful anymore.
Re:This sort of thing... by mankey+wanker · 2005-10-06 00:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

>Tell me again, since when copyright infringement became theft?
>> Whenever it deals with something under the GPL being infringed.

No, violation of the GPL is not theft - it is violation of a gentleperson's agreement to give back what you take. Mainly, it is commercial and closed-source exploitation of ideas that belong to everyone that has given to the project in question. So people get angry because their work is being used counter to an agreement while simultaneously being denied access to closed source information based on their collective work. That's exactly why Stallman wanted the GPL in the first place. You have to play nice.

Bringing up the GPL specifically raises the issues of commercial versus non-commercial exploitation of ideas, and I think it's useful to think about those things.

When congress created copyrights in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, they did so with the following limitations: "the Congress shall have power . . .to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" The First Congress implemented this copyright provision with The Copyright Act of 1790. It granted authors the right to print, re-print, or publish their work for a period of fourteen years, renewable for another fourteen years. The law was meant to provide an incentive to authors, artists, and scientists to create original works by providing creators with a monopoly. At the same time, the monopoly was limited in order to stimulate creativity and the advancement of "science and the useful arts" through wide public access to works in the "public domain." http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html

Okay, so let's get this nice and tidy.
1. The idea of copyrights doesn't exist by itself, separate from the legal entity that creates it - in our case copyrights are very closely linked to certain ideas in the U.S. Constitution, ideas like the "public domain" and the promotion of science and the useful arts.
2. Copyrights were originally intended to secure monopolistic commercial rights to a given work for 14 years, at which time it could be renewed (presumably if the copyright was understood to still be commercially useful) for another 14 years.
3. When a copyright lapsed, the work in question entered the public domain so that the ideas that had proven useful could stimulate creativity and advancements in science and the "useful arts."

We are living in a world where this careful balancing act of competing ideas and needs as originally intended has utterly collapsed in favor of meeting the needs of the deathless and psychopathic "persons" we call corporations, which now have most of the rights of individuals and some we never dreamed of attaining (like the possibility of virtual immortality as enjoyed by the likes of Lloyd's). It makes sense to a deathless entity like a corporation to want copyrights to be extended nearly forever if it can get those kinds of rights legislated on its behalf - and it turns out that it can. U.S. Congress works for the lootocracy that gets it reelected and not for you and not for the public domain.

But what about the public domain? The sad fact is...

WHEN YOU GRANT COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR,
YOU TAKE FROM THE COMMONS.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163846&cid =13682728

So there are real victims here. We are ALL OF US the victims of corporate control when overweening corporate desires become untenable. When the corporation overreaches with copyrights, it denigrates the well-intentioned purpose behind copyrights and foments disrespect for the law.

THAT'S WHY PEOPLE ARE DOWNLOADING - THEY DON'T RESPECT THE LAWS CONCERNING COPYRIGHTS AS THEY ARE WRITTEN AND ENFORCED RIGHT NO
Re:This sort of thing... by Xugumad · 2005-10-06 00:31 · Score: 2, Informative

Wish I had mod points. People saying "I copy music illegally because the RIAA are evil" drives me nuts; all they're doing is re-inforcing the RIAA's arguments that music piracy is a major problem. If you want to make an actual impact, neither buy nor copy the music. Same goes for people who complain movies/video games/etc are overpriced; stop copying, start going without, you'll make an actual impact.
Re:This sort of thing... by chrismcdirty · 2005-10-06 00:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

So does that mean children under the age of 18 do not have to pay for a haircut, since they legally cannot enter a contract?

--
It's like sex, except I'm having it!
Re:This sort of thing... by xtracto · 2005-10-06 00:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

They make what they create freely available and then demand payment without entering into a contract with anyone.

The fact is that, they do not make it freely available. Lets see, how did that Britney Spears album got to Piratebay?, well, somebody surely bought it, so, he entered into a contract with the copyright holders where they allowed him to use the INTELECTUAL PROPERTY (not the "hardware" or plastic) for his own personal use.

Thus, he VIOLATED the contract (infringing the copyright) by uploading and seeding the torrents.

Now, for everyone that downloaded the music, I believe, they were doing anything wrong, BUT if they are uploading at the same time [as in all current p2p sharing protocols] then they are again distributing the Intellectual property.

You should read the small letters on the CD booklet that you bought (if you buy any), they say something like "it is prohibited the partial or total distribution by any means or channels blah blah".

Now, of course according to US laws, it does not matters if the people that downloaded the intelectual property didn't "entered into a contract", they still CAN NOT distribute the Intelectual property, which right to copy [hence it is called copyright] is property of the creator (or the music house).

--
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Re:This sort of thing... by SillyNickName4me · 2005-10-06 00:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm not arguing that it always results in loss of income for the record company, because that's demonstrably false.

Ok, clear.

What I'm arguing is that the value for people who download comes in the fact that it costs them nothing to do so. The moment that it costs them something, it's no longer "worth the money".

For me the value is in being able to judge if you want to spend money on something. Try before you buy etc. That indeed means that the try should not cost. If it does, then you get to another model, which might be as valid, ut whiich I am totally uninterested in.

But it's completely related. The argument that you're putting forward - and it used to be one that I agreed with, totally - was that people were justified in using illegal downloads to sample music, and they then went on to purchase more music. The second half of this argument is true: people who download lots also purchase lots.

I am not arguing that people are justified in 'illegally' downloading things for trying them. I am arguing that the RIAA and the like are makign a bogus claim when saying this is costing them money.

However, there now exists services that, for a minimal fee, let you sample pretty much everything you could possibly want to - and all completely legally. This means that there's no longer any need to use illegal downloads as a method of sampling new music (and if you can't afford $5 a month, you probably can't afford to buy any music anyway). So, the argument that people have to use illegal downloads as ways of sampling new music no longer holds, unless your tastes run to obscure stuff that never shows up on legal services.

Now to clarify something here, in most countries, and definitely where I live, the downloading part is LEGAL, let me repeat it so that it is completely clear, THE DOWNLOADING IS LEGAL.

What may not be legal (and in fact is not legal in most cases) are the sources you are downloading things from.

What this means is that as long as I do not upload things, it is perfectly legal for me to sample things in this way, and indeed Yahoo is just a more expensive alternative, that might not even have everything I am looking for.

This reinforces my point, above: unless the kind of music you're downloading isn't available on the likes of Napster and Yahoo Music, the only reason that you continue to download comes down to cost, and the fact that it's "for free" - NOT because you can sample stuff before buying.

I do not see why I should have to pay so that others can promote their product in the hope that I buy it. If they want my business, that is about as silly as the 'downloading is stealing' argument. Yes, there are cases where it makes sense, but generally it does not. You want my money? then you pay for promoting your business to me, plain and simple.

That there exist people who don't mind paying for such a thing, well, that is fine of course, but I do not see why I should.
Re:This sort of thing... by Twylite · 2005-10-06 01:01 · Score: 3, Informative

Theft or stealing are the words used to describe the common law property tort of conversion, which involves infringing a person's right to a chattel (that is, personal property). The crime of theft involves unauthorised use and the intent to deprive.
In copyright infringement the copyright holder cannot be deprived. His positions before and after the instant of the infringing action are identical, as no damage (that is, real loss) has been suffered. In Dowling v United States the US Supreme Court found that "the rights of a copyright holder are 'different' from the rights of owners of other kinds of property". In other words, copyright infringement is not theft. This is one of the reasons that the phrase "intellectual property" is a misnomer.

Direct copyright infringement on the other hand is a strict liability tort. Liabilities that arise are the responsibility of the person who performed the act, irrespective of where the fault (culpability) lies. Strict liability does not necessarily make an action a crime.

So simply having an unlicensed copy of a work is sufficient to demonstrate the tort of strict liability, but possession of stolen property is insufficient to demonstrate theft.

The problem is determining what the liability is. In some countries the liability for copyright is determined by statute, and this is part of the problem behind the RIAA's actions.

First, there is a huge distinction between income and potential income. If person X copies a song, this is not evidence that person X would have bought the song in the absence of the option to copy it. Even if we assumed that it was, the actual damage to the copyright holder is limited to the net profit that would have been made off the purchase of one license (not the retail value of an album, as the RIAA would have you believe). Furthermore, noone other than the copyright holder has a claim -- retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers and publishers may not have benefitted from an album sale because of the infringement, but they are not entitled to a strict liability tort.

US law provides for statutory damages of "at least $750" per work. Compare that to the estimated $1 net profit the copyright holder will make per copy sold. It pays the RIAA enormously to claim the infringement of (say) 829 works with associated damages of either $30,000 or $150,000 (depending on how they make the claim) ... compared to the $829 their members would make from legitimate sales of the same works.

--
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
Re:This sort of thing... by walt-sjc · 2005-10-06 01:07 · Score: 2, Informative

Um, your joyride analogy doesn't work.

You HAVE taken something. You took a car for a period of time. The fact that you returned it is irrelevant. You were physically in posession of the stolen merchandise. It's irrelevant that the owner didn't need to use the car at that point in time.

Copying something can not be equated with physically taking an object. Ever. It's just not the same thing which is why the laws are written the way they are.
Re:This sort of thing... by thebdj · 2005-10-06 01:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just a few quick definitions before my response:
Intellectual Propert - A product of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes.

Theft - The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.

Stealing - To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

Add them up, you have your theft of intellectual property. While the lawyers of the world probably use infringement more often then anything else, theft is something the lowly masses actually understand and don't always need to have explained to them. BTW, all these definitions brought to you by. dictionary.com.

"Intellectual property" is a term invented by the people you're shilling for.

Actually not really. Intellectual property is a term used by a great many people to cover well, all of intellectual property. This include patents. It should be noted the legal system does treat patents, which fall under the IP category, at the same weight as physical property. So since, Copyrights are also intellectual property are they not allowed to carry the same weight? Am I not allowed to own the rights and ideas behind what I invent and/or write.

It's not a real thing that can be removed from someone's posession, thus is not a valid target for "theft."

Once again another one of those great fallacies. It can be removed from someone's possession. It can be sold outright from one person to another. It can be inherited through an estate and it can be stolen everytime the patent or copyright is infringed upon. You said that the RIAA propaganda has said that person X who illegally downloads would have paid for content Y. You argue that person X just may never hear content Y. Let's look at the ways to possible hear content:
1. CD's and cassettes (if they still exist) that you purchase at the store.
2. Legally Downloaded music from a store like iTunes.
3. Television and Radio with the host of radio stations and the few television radio stations.
4. Illegally downloaded music.

Now if our fictional person X (and more importantly the multitudes of persons X) is downloading music and not listening to the radio or watching MTV (or VH1 or whomever), they are collectively hurting ratings for stations and networks. This costs these individuals ad revenue. Now without having ad revenue they can then effectively go under and cut a source of the income from the RIAA.

We can follow back an almost equally twisted chain back with any of the other money making elements above. However, it items 1-3 money gets back to the RIAA, in element 4 it does not. This means that the RIAA is being deprived of income. Your argument that the RIAA uses propaganda to state that person X would have paid for content Y starts to lose footing. The argument used by many P2P individuals has been contested many times and the "studies" to back it up are typically anything BUT scientific. You know the one. The one that states that downloaders are more likely to purchase a CD.

To be honest, I HATE THE RIAA. I cannot possibly scream that any louder. What I hate equally as much is the people who try to treat this idea of intellectual property theft as fallacy. The reason the RIAA doesn't file criminal charges against these people is because then you wind up sending your user base to prison where they are worthless. You also would be EVEN MORE villified for doing so. If the theft of intellectual property was not considered a crime, the counterfeiters and large piracy individuals (I am talking about the people that get content A, B, C and more to us.) would not be charged with crimes where the penalties are tantamount to actual theft.

So to re-hash, the courts and legal system seem to be against you when it comes to this idea of the actual quality of property t

--
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Re:This sort of thing... by jasen666 · 2005-10-06 01:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't care if it's "theft", piracy, or fucking murder anymore.
Not one more cent is going into the pockets of the industry from me.

And I guess if I photocopy some pages from a book at the library/bookstore, that's theft too?
Since I have it, should have purchased it, but didn't.
Re:This sort of thing... by mzwaterski · 2005-10-06 01:19 · Score: 2, Informative

Irony: 2) Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs
Seems like that definition would suit him nicely.
You'd expect someone complaining about language to use that language correctly and spell words of that language correctly. But, what actually happened, was that he didn't do such things.
Re:This sort of thing... by BVis · 2005-10-06 01:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

One of the defining concepts of current tort law is that anyone can sue anyone for anything. Legally, I can sue my neighbor for mowing his lawn every 10 days instead of every seven (and this has actually happened.) Legally, I can sue my workplace for having beige cubicle walls instead of gray. I could even sue the city for having a name that has too many letters in it. Patently ridiculous, and no lawyer in their right mind (and IANAL) would take that case, but technically I do have the right to a legal forum to address my grievances.

So the RIAA has every right to sue anyone for what they perceive to be damaging to their ability to conduct their business. Whether the suit has merit or not is another matter completely. The RIAA is forcing settlements in these cases not by a preponderance of evidence (as they would in a court of law) but because the defendants cannot afford to mount a defense.

Interestingly, these cases have not been as successful in the UK (by their equivalent to the RIAA) because in their legal system, if you sue someone and lose, you are responsible for the costs incurred by the defendant in mounting a defense. Tends to curtail lawsuits to cases that actually have merit.

And seriously, "potential income," wtf is that. The RIAA is omnipotent now? They have a crystal ball that can predict the future? It is possible that they are losing sales to piracy. It's also possible that nobody would ever buy a CD ever again, for whatever reason. (It's also possible that monkeys would fly out of my butt. Improbable != impossible.) Their profits are contingent on sales. Sales can't be predicted to a certianty sufficient to stand up in court; it would follow logically that sales to a particular subset of the general population (in this case, people who download digital copies of copyrighted works) cannot be predicted either.

--
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Re:This sort of thing... by dwandy · 2005-10-06 01:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's theft in the same way that declining to pay for, say, your haircut, is theft of services; and it is indeed illegal. Check section 2319 here, the bit titled "Criminal infringement of copyright."
Since the link points to law relating to counterfeit of gov't seals, I can only assume you've given up, and live the United Republic of the Recording Industry.
Long live the Republic!

--
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Re:This sort of thing... by KDR_11k · 2005-10-06 01:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Modern piracy laws allow for planes as well (both as the attacker and the victim). So parking your missile cruiser in international waters and shooting down 767s is piracy though it'll most likely be considered an act of war.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:This sort of thing... by JesseMcDonald · 2005-10-06 02:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

The RIAA may be all that is soulless and wrong in how it operates, but you can't sit here and tell me that their desire to have people pay for their music is wrong.

Actually, while I would agree that a desire to be compensated for the opportunity cost of creating or performing music is perfectly normal, the desire to make people pay to listen to music is a fairly new concept, and still quite controversial. Not that long ago, the only way to listen to music was to pay someone else to perform it, or to perform it oneself. Without the ability to record the sound, each performance required separate compensation. However, that is no longer the case. Current technology allows a single performance to be heard by an arbitrarily large number of people, at nearly the same total cost as just one listener would incur. It is the composition, songwriting, and performance that are important now, not the distribution.

In a sense, we have improved upon the concert hall to the point where it can hold a nearly infinite number of people at once without additional cost, every one of whom can hear the music as well as if they were in the front row. The cost of the performance (including the composition of the music and the writing of the lyrics) is constant regardless of the number of listeners. Therefore, the price of a ticket should approach zero as the number of listeners increases. Even under the copyright system, a CD price of $10 (or less) should provide more than sufficient compensation for a typical band selling 10**6 or more "records" (which would be more likely with the lower price). That's about $10**6 per person, assuming no more than ten people in the band. That's more than a typical band actually makes even before expenses. Where are the extra several million dollars going? The RIAA, perhaps? "Promotional expenses" that the Internet renders unnecessary? There is far too much wasted effort in the current system, waste that copyright encourages due to its monopolistic nature.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:This sort of thing... by RichardX · 2005-10-06 02:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

what exactly do I get when I spend the $15 for the CD?

A pretty plastic disc, and the limited right to enjoy the music contained on it subject to a hefty list of conditions, restrictions, and the random whim of the content owner.

Or, to put it another way, they get to have their cake AND anally rape you.

--
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
Re:This sort of thing... by networkBoy · 2005-10-06 02:26 · Score: 2, Informative

Capitulating that you have not taken anything from them (we'll stay away from the whole lost sale thing) you have still violated copyright and that is wrong. While I am not one to excuse the ??AA's actions, I also attempt to follow the law of the land to a reasonable extent. If you really feel that way, buy your format of choice from allofmp3 and really piss them off. As I recall allofmp3 does, in fact, pay for the songs you download, it's just not as much as the ??AA would like to get, thus pissing them off more.
-nB

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Re:This sort of thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-06 02:58 · Score: 2, Informative

From Wikipedia:
It is sometimes said that a phrase such as 'a quantum leap in technology' is inappropriate, because 'quantum' supposedly means 'small' in quantum mechanics, so a 'quantum leap' would be a 'small advance'. However, 'quantum' does not actually mean 'small' in quantum mechanics; it means 'indivisible' or 'all-at-once'; but that indivisible logically implies smallest-possible. A quantum leap is an advance that happens all at once, rather than gradually over time. If advances are classified as either evolutionary or revolutionary, then a quantum leap would be the latter.
Re:This sort of thing... by SilverspurG · 2005-10-06 03:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

you have still violated copyright and that is wrong.
If copyright law were even remotely close to what was indicated in the Constitution I'd agree with you. Since copyright law is a complete laughingstock of morality and ethics, though, I'm going to say that violating current copyright law is a patriotic duty.

--
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Re:This sort of thing... by WhiplashII · 2005-10-06 03:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

you have still violated copyright and that is wrong

I believe that is the key issue - and while I personally agree with you, I can see the other position. Government is by the people, for the people, and of the people - and it is legitimate (albiet dangerous) to disobey laws that you consider immoral. I would definately consider using laws to prop up an entity that sue children immoral - but I think the lesser of two evils is still to maintain copyright laws (not the DMCA, mind you) and civil order.

But I guess to some people, music is more important than an ordered society - mainly young people! (Ah, youth!)

--
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Re:This sort of thing... by KagatoLNX · 2005-10-06 03:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ummm, violating copyright is not "wrong". It is simply illegal.

Don't confuse morality with legality. Their separation is at the core of our legal system's methods for making itself fair and impartial--the rule of law evaluated by balanced minds.

That said, I don't think the existing copyright regime is morally justifiable either.

My copying of another's work costs them nothing, it's not like stealing their car. You do not have a right to be reimbursed by what you percieve to be an opportunity cost. Simply put, the opportunity wasn't there. Legislating to create value where there is otherwise none is an abuse of law and government, plain and simple. This is obviously not "theft".

Once you make something public, you lose control over it. Copyright used to balance the public's interests with yours by giving you limited protection. As usual it seems people have extrapolated this to mean that it's a "right", that they're "entitled to", that duplicating "intellectual property" is theft, and basically missing that loss of control of published works is a fact of life.

Current law extends some copyrights to the author's lifetime plus ninety years. Current law protects "work for hire" more than work you do for yourself. Current law doesn't limit copyright protection once the work is no longer owned by its creator. It is not balanced and blatantly designed to turn information into a commodity.

This has nothing to do with your rights. This has everything to do with Disney keeping their mouse. Just face that in the world of modern publishing, the original terms of copyright might actually be too long. If you can't make your money off of your work in five to ten years, I don't find anything that compels me to keep it out of the public domain. I think that this has benefits beyond compilations of Back Street Boys songs and old women trading cookbooks. How different would your world be if Microsoft Windows 95 had just gone into the public domain in 2005 (not necessarily the source, just the binary even)? We're increasingly giving people (and unfortunately corporations) more control over one another when we should be doing the opposite.

--
I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
Re:This sort of thing... by FLEB · 2005-10-06 03:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not one more cent is going into the pockets of the industry from me.

Which would be fine, if you'd actually be willing to back up your "principles" with some actual sacrifice. Otherwise, you're just an overpriveliged whiner who's trying to rationalize grabbing something valuable without paying.

If you want to fight it, fight it, but I'd put fair money down that your exasperated tone is more a product of consistently defending and rationalizing your illegal downloading (be it theft, theft of services, infringement, whatever) than the weariness that comes from championing your cause legitimately.

--
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Re:This sort of thing... by cpt+kangarooski · 2005-10-06 05:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Activist judges are the ones who think that lawyers writing recording contracts and conglomerate organizations like the RIAA/MPAA qualify as authors and inventors with respect to the work in question.

This might have been a fair point prior to the 1909 Act, but since then Congress has been codifying the work for hire doctrine, and you can't be an activist judge when you're upholding statutory law.

Incidentally, lawyers are known to claim copyrights on their work product. The degree to which they can enforce them is often limited by other concerns, at least against most people who would care, and they're likely weak given the merger doctrine, but I've heard of it happening.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:This sort of thing... by cpt+kangarooski · 2005-10-06 05:57 · Score: 2, Informative

Parents are almost never, if at all, responsible for the torts of their children. If the child has infringed and owes damages, then the plaintiff cannot force the parent to pay up. They'll have to collect them from the child. This is why people usually don't bother suing children.

the GPL is not a contract, it's a license.

I really don't know where this meme came from. I assure you, there's no difference. The GPL has an offer, a means of acceptance, and consideration. It functions perfectly fine as a contract, which is what a license is.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:This sort of thing... by frost22 · 2005-10-06 07:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

leaving a lack of copyright that may be just as dangerous as the current overbearing copyright.

I disagree. Erasing Copyright completeley from the books is maybe the only thing that could bring those gangsters tho their knees.

Once the content industry understands - and that means realizes deep down in their heart as true - that we the people are perfectly willing to remove them from the face of the earth and bury them all if they continue their current behaviour - only then can they be persuaded to play nicely and socially acceptable in the future.

--
...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
Re:This sort of thing... by hkmwbz · 2005-10-06 09:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

"In the last CherryOS article when everyone here, editor included, was referring to "stolen GPL code.""
Actually, you are incorrect again. As you can plainly see, there are often heated discussions about definitions (theft/copyright infringement) on Slashdot. Some call it theft, others point out that it isn't theft.
You seem to repeat this an awful lot - that everyone on Slashdot does and says so and so. As if Slashdotters were a single entity. They aren't. They are different people with different opinions.
Apologies if I have shattered your illusions yet again :)

--
Clever signature text goes here.
Re:This sort of thing... by loose_cannon_gamer · 2005-10-06 09:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

I agree with much of the parent's comments, but have a few counterpoints to make.
Income is only deprived if the person receiving the "free" copy would have paid for it in the first place had they not been able to get the free copy. I would love to see someone argue that a 14 year old kid with $10,000 "worth" of songs would have paid $10,000 for them had they not been able to download.
I can't find a real argument in here anywhere. Consider the set of songs valued at $10000. Obviously, the 14 year old kid values the music somewhat, or they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of downloading it in the first place. Therefore, the kid acquired the songs for free, when the kid thought that they had inherent worth (even if it might be as low as a small fraction of a cent for the lot of them). Just because the kid believes the songs are horribly overpriced is no good reason to take them without paying (common theft). If the kid has no sufficient funds to acquire them at the current prices, that is still no good reason to take them (see common theft again -- we aren't talking life/death here). We are therefore left with the logical conclusion that the kid believes that the songs have some real fiscal value, but has circumvented the owner / distributor rights and acquired them for nothing. I see no way to ethically justify this.
Clearly arguing that the kid would have paid $10K for the songs if they weren't available for download is unlikely to succeed, but that's just an argument against the cost of the owner/distributor's sale prices relative to the likely fiscal resources of the 14 year old -- I argue that the kid feels that having those songs is worth $Q, and by downloading them freely, they have defrauded the owners of the media out of at least that value.
There is no inherent right to earn income from a creative work, and that is not the intention of copyright law. For example, this post I am writing is actually a creative work, and usually something like this is automatically copyrighted under the law. Should you guys pay me?
I am no copyright law expert, so I appeal to what I believe is a universal human concept -- that if someone invests personal resources (time / money / something else) to produce something, they deserve (at least partial) ownership and control of that which is produced, probably in some rational proportion to their own investment. The point of this entire debate is not whether or not we should pay you to read your postings, but rather, if you insisted that we did pay you to read your post, and we read it anyway without your permission, that you have lost something that common sentiment is you were reasonably entitled to. Just because it is easy to replicate your efforts doesn't mean that you deserve to lose control over them, unless you voluntarily give up those rights (as you do when posting to slashdot, according to the terms of use for the site).
I recognize I have committed a cardinal sin in mixing common sense and law, but I hope I can someday be forgiven.

--
In Soviet Russia, us are belong to all your base.

Next on the list by Edunikki · 2005-10-05 21:56 · Score: 5, Funny

And, should that fail, against her goldfish for listening to the alleged pirated files . . .

Re:Next on the list by gowen · 2005-10-05 23:37 · Score: 4, Funny

Yeah, but goldfish have 5 second memory spans, which makes them even reliable as witnesses than Ronald Reagan at the Iran-Contra hearings...

Lawyer : Did you download songs from the internet?
Goldfish : I don't remember
Lawyer : Did you discuss downloading songs with the defendant?
Goldfish : I have no recollection of that.
Lawyer : Did you install the Kazaa "filesharing" software
Goldfish : I don't remember.
Lawyer : Do you authorise illegal shipments of arms to Iran, in exchange for money to covertly fund the Contra rebels in Nicaragua?
Goldfish : Jesus, even I know that that was Ronald Reagan.

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.

Wont... by squoozer · 2005-10-05 21:57 · Score: 4, Funny

...somebody think of the children!

--
I used to have a better sig but it broke.

Re:Wont... by moranar · 2005-10-05 23:46 · Score: 2, Funny

Uhhh.. I thought the RIAA already did.

--
"I think it would be a good idea!"
Gandhi, about Internet Security

And this surprising how? by WindBourne · 2005-10-05 21:57 · Score: 4, Funny

I expect that RIAA will soon sue FUTURE offsprings. Worse, congress will pass laws that will allow it, and the supremes will back it.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:And this surprising how? by KiloByte · 2005-10-05 22:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

Well, we already had a precedent for this.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Re:And this surprising how? by iapetus · 2005-10-05 22:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

There are more recent precedents, in fact. In the UK, a letter threatening an ASBO (Anti Social Behaviour Order) was sent regarding Dominic Brown's abuse of his motor scooter. Which came as a surprise to his mother, because he wasn't due to be born until September.

The full story.

--
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Re:And this surprising how? by (H)olyGeekboy · 2005-10-06 04:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

The full story. [ananova.com]

Just as a heads up, Ananova has about the same accuracy record in "weird news" stories as, say, the "Weekly World News." (Now with twice the Bat Boy!)

In other words, most 17 year olds write more believable fiction.

Contradiction? by DrEldarion · 2005-10-05 21:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

Wait a sec, the other article says "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.".

What gives?

Re:Contradiction? by DaveV1.0 · 2005-10-05 22:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, at a glance, I would say the article in this post is FUD if the judge denied the request.

--
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Re:Contradiction? by xiphoris · 2005-10-05 22:11 · Score: 2, Informative

This only applies to the original motion brought against the mother. The RIAA was not allowed to amend that. Instead, they have to file a new, completely separate motion against the child, with a guardian appointed.

IANAL, obviously, since I am posting to Slashdot, but it seems that since the case against the mother was dismissed with prejudice, she cannot again be named in her daughter's lawsuit as someone liable for the daughter's damages. I guess we'll have to see how this turns out.
Re:Contradiction? by Kjella · 2005-10-05 22:27 · Score: 5, Informative

Well, the last artice on slashdot was gross misinformation. The judge basicly said "Continuing as the same case is more complicated and has no advantages. If you want to do it, file a new case." Which they did.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Conveniently aged by LiquidCoooled · 2005-10-05 21:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

It appears as though all the children getting sued are of the age when internet access is used and their peers are all downloading.

Theres not been many younger kids sued, and we don't hear about the older ones because they are responsable for themselves.

I haven't actually heard about a real suit yet where they were truly wrong about the downloading habits.

The suits themselves are wrong, but their targetting seems spot on.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper

Maybe by Lego-Lad · 2005-10-05 21:59 · Score: 5, Funny

They are hoping she'll be the next Britney Spears, and they can increase their profit margins if the RIAA can get a new guardian.

Let them by centipetalforce · 2005-10-05 21:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

This will show the public how absurd there greed really is if the national media reports on it (big if).

Silly World by davro · 2005-10-05 21:59 · Score: 4, Funny

Child was wearing a "hoody" must be guilty.

Slitting their own throats by echostorm · 2005-10-05 22:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

If they think for a second that the masses are just going to roll over on this one they are crazy - this is the exact type of thing that could get people burning their products in the streets.
The outrage of them suing unwed mothers without computers (not to mention the deceased) is a mouse fart compared to whats going to happen when they start suing children.

Re:Slitting their own throats by swordgeek · 2005-10-05 22:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

I hate to say it, but you're wrong.

The masses WILL roll over on this one--it's what they do best! The only way that the average joe will actually get upset about this is if the mass media tells them to. Collectively, people are sheep and will do whatever their perceived authorities tell them. Worse, once they've gotten used to a bad idea, they'll accept the next evolution of it with a minor whimper. (and the next, and the next...)

If the RIAA's behaviour hasn't led to rioting in the streets yet, this won't make it happen.

--

"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Re:Slitting their own throats by BobSutan · 2005-10-05 22:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

As long as people are buying their products, they'll happily let you burn them. The execs will just laugh all the way to the bank. While the ideology of what you're saying is in the right directions, what you should be truly thinking about is long term boycott of their products (or simply purchasing second hand material).

--
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"

Family torn apart? by RenHoek · 2005-10-05 22:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

So, download MP3's -> lose your mother??

Remember that RIAA public service anouncement where zombie warriors would kill an entire family if you downloaded music from the internet? Is that really how far the RIAA would go in their avarice?

/target RIAA
/spit
/repeat ad infinitum

Re:Family torn apart? by Ihlosi · 2005-10-05 22:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Remember that RIAA public service anouncement where zombie warriors would kill an entire family if you downloaded music from the internet? Is that really how far the RIAA would go in their avarice?

No, they'll do much, much worse things than send zombie warriors.

They send lawyers.

In other news... by dorkygeek · 2005-10-05 22:01 · Score: 5, Funny

In other news, an unborn is sued for cognisance as his mother listened to an illegaly downloaded song.

--
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.

In other news.. by BlackMesaLabs · 2005-10-05 22:04 · Score: 5, Funny

RIAA steals christmas, kills the easter bunny, bombs a hospital, poisons a river and makes a general ass of itself.

Harvest Her Organs by tucay · 2005-10-05 22:04 · Score: 5, Funny

Since Brittany will not be able to pay, the RIAA should be granted the right to harvest Brittany's organs.

Re:Harvest Her Organs by ettlz · 2005-10-05 22:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hey now, hold on, are you comparing the RIAA to an organised crime syndic... ah...

I can see the headlines right now... by Noryungi · 2005-10-05 22:04 · Score: 2, Funny

Giant Greedy Corporation Sues 14 year-old Kid! In 26pt bold font, front page.

Or, as they said in the movie... I love the smell of napalm early in the morning.

Nice work RIAA. With lawyers like these, who needs enemies? Or p.r. people, for that matter?

(Yes, this is funny. Laugh).

--
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)

Re:I can see the headlines right now... by cluke · 2005-10-05 22:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

I admire your optimism. More likely it will be stories about "10 signs that your child is an illegal downloader" and advice about how to turn them in for their own good before it's too late.
As far as the media goes, it's only "won't someone think of the children!" when the kids are at risk of being affected by outside forces. If it is the kids themselves offending, it's "try 'em as adults, and throw away the key."

Mcdonalds by FidelCatsro · 2005-10-05 22:05 · Score: 4, Informative

I did think that the McLibel case was the biggest PR disaster a corporation had ever got involved in ..http://www.mcspotlight.org/
Well done to the RIAA , they have just managed to out do McDonald's PR disaster .
I really did not think they would be that stupid , Even if they win their reputation will be completely destroyed .I do not think any media organisation is going to let up on this one .

--
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though

In other news... by Afecks · 2005-10-05 22:10 · Score: 5, Funny

...the RIAA has filed a lawsuit against the father's testicles for "willful neglect" by spawning copyright infringers. In what could be the most lenient interpretation of the Grokster decision, a judge has allowed the RIAA to pursue further based on claims that the father's testicles were responsible for discoruging the illegal acts commited by their offspring. The announcement came as both a shock and an outrage to the defense team and the defendent who was heard to remark, "I'd give my left nut to get this ruling overturned."

Yea, it's a troll, big whoop, wanna fight about it?

Wait...? by Devistater · 2005-10-05 22:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

Wait, I thought that the kid sued ended up doing pro RIAA tv commercials? Did they decide they still wanted to go after her? Or was that another 12 yo sued by RIAA?

Guardian Ad Litem by Dachannien · 2005-10-05 22:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

I thought the point of the guardian ad litem in the original case was that the RIAA was suing the mother, the mother claimed she didn't do it but her daughter admitted to it, and the RIAA then amended the suit to include the daughter. Since the mother had a conflict of interest in acting as the girl's guardian, a guardian ad litem could be appointed. But the RIAA dismissed the suit against the mother, and so now there is no conflict of interest. Does that mean that there is no longer a conflict of interest, and hence, no need for a guardian ad litem?

Re:Guardian Ad Litem by spiritraveller · 2005-10-05 23:07 · Score: 2, Informative

If the child admitted to the activity at the parent's urging, then the parent would not have been acting in the child's best interest. That would create a clear enough conflict that the court should appoint a GAL.

Even if the parent did not urge the child to take the blame, there is still enough incentive for the parent to do so that the court should appoint a GAL to represent the child's best interest in the case.

The good thing about that is that GALs (in most systems) are lawyers, so it's a little bit like getting a free lawyer. Even a poor person is not normally entitled to a free lawyer in a civil case.

Uhh... who should they target? by JNighthawk · 2005-10-05 22:19 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm reading a ton of comments saying that it's disgusting they're targetting a kid. They tried to sue the kid's parent, but coudln't, so of course they now need to go after the child that was the one that actually downloaded the songs.

Right or wrong, the child is the correct target.

--
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.

Re:Uhh... who should they target? by Maian · 2005-10-05 22:35 · Score: 4, Funny

Re:Uhh... who should they target?
No one :)
Re:Uhh... who should they target? by eMartin · 2005-10-05 22:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

I got caught stealing music when I was that age, except it was CDs from the local music store.

I got a smack in the head from the clerk and was told not to come back. I can't imagine how my parents would have managed to pay for a lawsuit.

Re:Disgusting by commodoresloat · 2005-10-05 22:23 · Score: 4, Funny

More than I hate them, I pity them.

Yeah, poor things. How do they sleep at night?

Oh yeah, I forgot.

On top of a pile of money, with many beautiful ladies.

Good thing I don't live in the States... by dbond · 2005-10-05 22:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

...I'd have to start organising an uprising. When are you guys going to get your act together and lobby your political representatives for an end to intellectual property law? Lazy bastards ;o)

Re:Good thing I don't live in the States... by Capt+James+McCarthy · 2005-10-05 22:45 · Score: 5, Funny

I take strong offense to your.....aw, screw it...ZZZZZZZzzzzz

--
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.

If I couldn't DL music from usenet... by DreadfulGrape · 2005-10-05 22:37 · Score: 4, Funny

...how else would I have known that the new Fiona Apple CD really isn't very good?

--
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...

I like the idea of breaking up families. by gelfling · 2005-10-05 22:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is a wonderful strategy - demand that the court appoint a legal guardian which is usually done to pit the childs interests against those of the parent or guardian, usually as a precursor to reassign parental rights. It is brilliant that now a corporation can sue you and move to take your children away at the same time.

Re:I like the idea of breaking up families. by thaddjuice · 2005-10-06 00:05 · Score: 5, Informative

Wow, talk about spreading FUD! A guardian ad litem is "A guardian appointed to represent the interests of a person with respect to a single action in litigation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_ad_litem.

No one is taking this girl from her mother.

--
Find me in ~/.sig

In other news... Part 2 by squoozer · 2005-10-05 22:54 · Score: 2, Funny

RIAA files suit against God for "willful neglect" in creating man. The suit goes on to describe a number of ways that man is flawed including but not limited to:

Won't always do as it's told.
Refuses to hand over all money and it's eternal soul to RIAA.
Refuses to enjoy modern cra^H^H^H music as much as it should and demands creativity.
Some examples put up a fight when pushed around.

--
I used to have a better sig but it broke.

Is it me, or is the RIAA by Progman3K · 2005-10-05 22:55 · Score: 4, Funny

vying for modern-day bogeyman?

I can see it now.

"Go to bed right now, or the RIAA is going to get you!" *child screams and runs to bed*

--
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J

Stop giving them money by MadMoses · 2005-10-05 22:58 · Score: 5, Informative

If you don't want to support this kind of thing, don't buy any more music from RIAA labels.

Use RIAA Radar to find out if an album is published by an RIAA label. If that's the case, and you want it anyway, don't buy it new, but used (for instance at ebay, amazon marketplace or even a used records store).

Support independant labels and artists by buying their stuff!

If you'd still like to support a band that's signed with an RIAA label, go see them live (and maybe buy a t-shirt there).

--

Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.

Re:Stop giving them money by Dachannien · 2005-10-05 23:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, the law explicitly grants us the right to resell the music we buy. In fact, the law (upon a cursory reading) doesn't appear to discount electronic copies of music (such as music downloaded from iTMS), and the law also states that we are entitled to resell said music, which means that someone might actually have a legal case to force Apple to open up some mechanism for us to resell the music we buy from them.
Re:Stop giving them money by almostmanda · 2005-10-06 01:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

I get the feeling that unless any boycott is very wide-reaching and publicly discussed, the RIAA are going to see any drops in sales as further justification to sue everyone they can. Their skewed studies are going to point to rampant evil piracy as the cause of dropped sales, not repeated PR nightmares, intentional boycotts, bad music, etc etc. I agree with what you're saying--I never buy RIAA cds new either--but it's gonna take a tremendous drop in sales, as well as consumers consciously saying "you are a terrible business and that is why I won't buy your product" to let these guys know that they won't get their sales back up by suing little girls.
Re:Stop giving them money by OneSeventeen · 2005-10-06 02:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

I used to listen to a band called Pillar that posted every single song in full length as MP3 on their website.

Now that they signed with a RIAA label, all of their MP3's were taken down. I still like the band, but I just listen to them on the radio and live now.

Boycotting isn't the solution though, that's like the hippies that hold posters to protest petrolium use in the United States. Why do that when you can start a company that provides an alternative?

What we need is a GNULabel, something that allows the GNU community (which would be increased to include music fans, not just linux fans) to help with advertising and promoting bands. Artwork for posters could be cheap, if not free, and as much money as possible would go to the artists, with a little saved for GNULabel to start producing other bands. But not enough for anyone to get rich, because it should be about good music, not getting rich.

And let me correct myself, I do not mean to start a label, but an association of labels geared towards producing bands that want to make more money, while spreading their music further at the same time. (and yes, we would still charge a decent amount for radio play, TV, and movie spots.)

--
"Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed." -C.S. Lewis
Re:Stop giving them money by MadMoses · 2005-10-06 02:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

I haven't purchased a single cd in almost five years. I'm still waiting to see the effects of my boycott.

"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." -Mahatma Ghandi

At the very least, your money isn't used to pay a lawyer to sue a child.

--

Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
Re:Stop giving them money by Fujisawa+Sensei · 2005-10-06 04:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you don't want to support this kind of thing, don't buy any more music from RIAA labels.

Its not going to do any good.

When people stop buying from RIAA labels, the labels are going to go to the government screaming piracy because they can show what they think the numbers should be they will blaim the loss of revenue from piracy. There will be no consideration of a Boycott. Then congress will start taxing things like burnable CD, digital media players, to make up for the lost revenue due to piracy. They've already tried to have laws passed allowing them to break into people's computers so they can investigate music piracy.

You're indies labels will be forced to start supporting the RIAA as well, because the equipment they use to press the CDs can be used to press pirate CD, the RIAA will demand a tax or surchange there. If they have them pressed overseas they will find a way of getting revenue from that too.

You reall want to stop the RIAA? You need laws like RICO, and Sherman Anti-trust. You need lots of independent lawsuits to bankrupt them. The RIAA and MPAA are predatory cartels, if you want to stop them boycotts aren't going to do squat, you have to sue them into oblivion.

--
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.

When does it end.. by dangerz · 2005-10-05 23:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is one of the problems I think with society today. As much as we are against it, and as much as we preach that they're horrible, not one of us will do anything. We'll just go on our day downloading music. A bunch of us will even still buy their cd's.

I know I haven't done much, but I have refused to purchase / download any RIAA backed music for the last 4 years. It's not much, but I do know that my money isn't funding this piece of shit organization. They're ruthless in getting their money and whether you are downloading or purchasing, you are supporting them. How? You are spreading their work.

The worst part is that no judge has stopped them. What ever happened to the 'for the people' part of this country? The RIAA is for the people? What people? The ones getting sued for thousands when they don't have it or the ones getting the thousands to purchase fuel for their private jet?

I think people need to realize that the RI fucking AA is nothing without us. If we all stop buying their music they will fade away. In order for them to live, we have to continue to feed them. By downloading or purchasing music we are doing just that; feeding the beast. Let it starve and they'll be forced to figure out some other way to distribute their songs or quit while they're ahead.

Of course, this will all fall on deaf ears because as soon as the next article comes out we have to debate that. But hey, at least I tried something right?

--
The greatest experience we can have is the mysterious.
- Albert Einstein

RIAA Sues a Guilty Person by MaestroSartori · 2005-10-05 23:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

That has a less emotive feel to it, doesn't it?

You can argue about the merits of copyright, the merits of lawsuits against minors, the responsibilities of a parent to educate their child about obeying the law, but it sounds like the girl's done exactly what she's been accused of, and her mother is trying to get her off the hook. Fair enough. But next time we see someone rip off a GPL product and claim it as their own, no source available, I expect to see "FSF Sues Man Trying to Feed Family" or something equally 'balanced'... :)

--
Game dev and music blog

Re:RIAA Sues a Guilty Person by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-05 23:30 · Score: 4, Informative

Completely wrong. Guild and innocence only refer to criminal procedings, and is determined at the end of the trial rather than at the start. In civil procedings, the defendant can be found liable or not liable.
Re:RIAA Sues a Guilty Person by Mr.+Underbridge · 2005-10-06 00:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

God, the extent to which the slashdot crowd will resort to pedantry to justify illegal behavior. The defendant in question has committed an illegal act. The defendant will get her trial, and will in all likelihood lose. So why is this wrong again?
Re:RIAA Sues a Guilty Person by Hillgiant · 2005-10-06 01:01 · Score: 2, Funny

All suspects are guilty. Otherwise, they would not be suspect.

--
-
Re:RIAA Sues a Guilty Person by chihowa · 2005-10-06 01:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

But that misses the whole point of this article, in addition to the creepy and disturbing implication of yours that being the subject of a lawsuit automatically means you are guilty. The entire point of this article is that the RIAA is taking deliberate steps to sue a 14 year old girl for an obscene amount of money.
Thankfully, we don't have an article on Slashdot every time the RIAA sues somebody... The point of the article is that it is emotionally charged, albeit in a nauseating 'Won't somebody think of the children!?' sort of way.

--
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.

Valuable lesson by Chrisq · 2005-10-05 23:12 · Score: 4, Funny

This teaches us all a valuable lesson. Make sure your kids know how to connect to your neighbour's wifi network before downloading mp3s...

well at least they can't sue me... by Vidiot3k · 2005-10-05 23:18 · Score: 5, Funny

I only use P2P networks to download porn

The Enemy by Jekler · 2005-10-05 23:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

It seems to me that the RIAA is only the enemy because they are the face of the body which has made it inconvenient to steal music. I think the majority of people who are hopping on the "I Hate The RIAA!" bandwagon are forgetting some crucial information. The RIAA is a trade organization. They represent MEMBERS of that organization. They are suing on behalf of their members, not on behalf of themselves. They're not the top of the chain, they are in the middle of the chain. The artists who join, support, and ask the RIAA to represent them are the ones at the top.

If someone gets sued by the RIAA it's not because the RIAA wants to sue them, it's because the artist they represent wants them to. Because Britney Spears, Metallica, or whoever else has, in essence, asked them to do it. Maybe the artists don't directly demand it in most cases, but they did indirectly demand it at the point they signed with a record company which was a member of the RIAA.

Money speaks louder than words. No matter how many people say they don't like the RIAA, there are still billions of dollars being given to the artists which essentially confirms the artists belief that they joined the right label. That in turn confirms the label's belief that joining the RIAA was the right decision. Everyone out there who is buying music from RIAA members is telling the RIAA that they're doing a great job. The RIAA has been around for over 50 years, and the public has happily given them money hand-over-fist. It's only now that people got a taste of convenient, on-demand, free music that people have a problem with them. 20 years ago, no one was crying foul. Everyone knew that bootleg tapes were illegal, and most people copied tapes for their friends, but if you got into the business of moving massive numbers of bootleg tapes, no one was going to blink twice when you got pinched. But now that people are using the same concept in digital space, it has somehow become the moral highground.

People can quibble all they want about the exact definition of theft. The simple fact is, we all know that when we download an mp3, it's theft. We just cross our fingers and hope that the RIAA is looking at someone else when we do it.

If you were a programmer, and you spent $25,000 of your own money and 6 months to develop an application, you try to sell it and you hear "Great program, I already have that." from 100,000 people, but you've only sold two copies at $20 each, are you going to think "At least they didn't steal it from me"? Of course not, because they DID steal it from you. 100,000 people have the fruits of your labor, and you've got $40 to show for it.

I know it doesn't seem like the same issue when you can tell yourself that the person you took the music from already has plenty of money, because we all know stealing is alright so long as your victim has more than you. Or you can tell yourself you weren't going to buy it anyway. Whatever you need to sleep.

Re:The Enemy by One+Childish+N00b · 2005-10-06 00:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

It seems to me that the RIAA is only the enemy because they are the face of the body which has made it inconvenient to steal music

Lies.

I am one of the most anti-RIAA people you could find, I despise the whole concept of their business model, suing people for downloading music - especially children - for thousands of dollars, literally thousands of times the amount the person would have paid for the content had they bought it, while at the same time overpricing physical content (CDs, etc) and trying to force digital outlets (iTunes, for example) to do the same. Not to mention their attempts to 'sanitize' American radio (boy am I glad I dont live over there) so you can always find 500 different stations playing the same 10 pop tracks in rotation. That is why I hate the RIAA; they are destroying creativity and showing a complete lack of morals or decency. I understand their members have a responsibility to maximise profit for the shareholders, but if they win this case, how much are they going to get? a few thousand? What's that compared to the PR damage caused by suing a 14-year-old girl? If I was a shareholder in an RIAA member company I'd be screaming at them right now to stop making themselves out to be the Devil and go back to suing people who are at an age to know exactly what they're doing (yeah yeah, at 14 some kids do, some kids don't - but at 14 you *should* give them the benefit of the doubt, not sue them for thousands).

I don't hate the RIAA because they make it 'inconvenient to steal music', simply because I have no interest in 'stealing' (I dont care about the supposed definitions, semantics is an argument you can take up with some other poor Slashdotter) any of their music - it's crap, pure and simple, commercial crap. I'm a fan of European EBM, not a particularly profitable genre, especially not for American labels, and so even if I did download the content (I don't, I buy - the artists are generally part-time and need the support, and I feel good giving it if they deserve it) I could do so without RIAA interference - I don't think I've bought an RIAA-member-label CD in the past five years, let alone downloaded any of it.

If you like dark, gothic electronica or metal, try out European EBM - it's electronic stuff, but it's mostly RIAA-free, sounds good and is made by artists not looking for the current breakup-rock dollar, so, you know, you can tell one band from another :) - check out Wumpscut, Wolfsheim, Alec Empire, Panic DHH, VNV Nation and just check it out. There's really some untapped gems in there.

The RIAA members piss me off for a number of reasons,
- Their content is repetitive crud.
- They seem bent on spreading that content to drown out everything else in earshot.
- They overprice their content and try to force distributors to raise prices to increase their cut like record profits aren't good enough for them.
- They sue small children for thousands of dollars for stealing a few songs.

*Not* because they 'make it inconvenient to steal.

I have a new suing model for the RIAA, I wonder what they'd think;
I agree that people should be fined a few hundred dollars or 3 or 4 times the retail cost of what they downloaded, whichever is (get this) higher, but no more. This would hit the serious pirates (sharing thousands of songs/albums) hard and give the minor downloaders a smack on the wrist that, if they kept doing it week after week, would lead to serious expense and make it a lot cheaper for them to just buy the content.

Would they accept that? No, it's far too sensible :)

--
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
Re:The Enemy by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-06 00:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, I have run a company that developed commercial software. And yes, I do know of instances where this was 'pirated'.
In instances where a company used the code in live sites, to make money from it, I requested that they not do that, and could they please stump up the cost of a license.
This was done by polite contact first, and invariably we came to some mutually agreeable solution, without first setting lawyers on them (that would be step two).
I also know of developers who had nabbed the code produced, and run it to see how it worked, and had it on home boxes.
Really, I don't give a rats about the latter.
The money that was made, was made from the people who could afford it in the first place, and the ones who had more than a passing interest.

This is called the art of diplomacy. You keep a tight rein on the areas that you know are going to support your sales, because there is money to support them.
You don't pull a scorched earth tactic, and try and get every penny you can. That way you end up looking like a tight fisted arse. And you tend to drive people away from your product.

I don't download MP3s, I use iTunes. If however, I did download unpurchased music, I would have no doubt I was infringing someone's copyright, which is in the regions of being a tad on the naughty side. Immoral, if you will.
I would not, however consider myself a thief. Because I wouldn't be. Not anymore than you taking an antibiotic makes you a murder for mass killing of a bacterial infection.

Now, if the market behaved as you postulated, where two CDs got sold, and hundreds of thousands of people had the content from it, yes, I would say that there would be a problem. Basically at that point, the industry would suffer, and not be able to afford to produce content.
Which means that there would be a rewind to live performances, and musicians would be in demand again, meaning more exposure for small time bands, and less for the manufactured 'superstars'. The mode of distribution would change: almost free/completely free distribution of the music online from shows, pay at the door for the live shows. More money to the artists in general at that point. More diversity.

However, the music industry, as you can see by looking at their real yearly profits, is doing VERY well indeed. They are in little danger of losing their grip on distribution (unless they make it so that people can't share a little bit, and give a copy to their friends to try, and see if they want to buy the album).
As iTunes and the other legitimate download places show, people, on the whole, actually WANT to pay for what they consume. There's the innate instinct to keep the system as a whole going. Conscious or not, most people know that if you jerk the system around too much, it falls apart.
Large scale infringers (the ones who cut thousands of CDs and sell them for a couple of dollars/polunds/whatever) know this, but don't care. They're the ones industry should chase.
The industry itself seems to forget that if you jerk the system around, it falls apart. They're currently playing the jerk by clamping down too hard. That scares people. And a 'bad feeling' about an industry will lead people away from it (c.f. the sales record of SCO).
This is doubly a bad thing if the product is non-essential, and relies on people 'feeling good' about the product (i.e. entertainment).

In every industry there is the concept of 'acceptable loss'. In bars, this comes into the figures as wastage. Beer spilled.
It takes into account that no system is perfect. You make enough money to cover those losses to keep things working.
In bars where the 'acceptable loss' becomes too low, the good staff leave, the overstressed stay, and the customers no longer come to a place that 'feels good'.
Thus more money is lost than recovered by reduced custom.

P2P is still way in the 'acceptable loss' bracket, because the loss is mainly to those that can't afford the price of much of the volume they have.
Re:The Enemy by tcdk · 2005-10-06 00:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you release a program and a 100.000 people copy it and you only make 40$ of it, you have the wrong bussiness model.

Same with the RIAA members - how about giving away the songs (it's really just an ads for the artist - that's why the record companies are willing to pay radio stations to have their crap played) and then make you money on the concerts and t-shirts?

Trying to stop people from copying something digital is a battle you'll never win....

--
TC - My Photos..
Re:The Enemy by Solandri · 2005-10-06 01:01 · Score: 5, Informative

I think the majority of people who are hopping on the "I Hate The RIAA!" bandwagon are forgetting some crucial information. The RIAA is a trade organization. They represent MEMBERS of that organization. They are suing on behalf of their members, not on behalf of themselves. They're not the top of the chain, they are in the middle of the chain. The artists who join, support, and ask the RIAA to represent them are the ones at the top.
Yes the RIAA is a trade organization, but for the most part they represent the music studios, not the artists. See, the studios got an exception put into Copyright law which says that musical works performed by an artist belong to them, not the artist. Normally copyright is assigned to the creator/author/artist, unless it's a work for hire - I commission you (pay you) to create a piece of text, software, music, and it belongs to me even though you created it. Except the music studios didn't want to pay the artists so they bribe^H^H^H^H^Hlobbied some Congressmen for a change in copyright law which says that audio recordings are a work for hire even if you don't pay the artist. That way they get the copyright, the artist gets "paid" a percentage of the album sales, and the costs of producing the album get taken out of the artist's cut. In other words, the artist pays for making his own album, but the studio gets the copyright.
So yes the RIAA is composed of members, but the members aren't the ones creating the music. They're simply the ones distributing music, and they're scared out of their wits because the Internet drops the cost of distributing music so close to zero that they children they're suing can do it.
Re:The Enemy by Kjella · 2005-10-06 01:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you release a program and a 100.000 people copy it and you only make 40$ of it, you have the wrong bussiness model.

Imagine I operated a convienience store. So many of those that come there shoplift that I'm left with $40 after serving 100.000 customers. Or operating a restaurant, where so many people ran from the bill that you're only left with $40 after serving 100.000 customers. Or you are operating in a very corrupt country, and are only left with $40 after all the pay-offs. Is that a "wrong business model"? In practise, it could be a bad one if you can't fix the problem, but how is it wrong? It's not wrong to expect people to follow the law, it's not wrong to expect people to pay for what they recieve. Yes, the RIAA are bad, overprice, pricefix, DRM restrict and blah blah blah. But unless you pay them, you have no rights to their music at all. No legal right, no moral right, nothing. Going "I would have paid them if their offering was reasonable" only entitles you to not buy from them. Not to do whatever you want with their music because you want to.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:The Enemy by cgenman · 2005-10-06 02:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, your business model could be to put bottles of water out on a table with a collection plate and the words "Water - One Dollar" scrawled on a cardboard sign. From a practical standpoint, it's safe to say that you have the wrong business model.

I should point out that there are many legal ways to get the RIAA's music without them getting a dime. You can buy a second-hand CD. You can time-shift from the radio. A friend can give you a CD. You can play it on a piano yourself. You can listen outside a concert hall without going in. Heck, you can pay the artists and see their concert... the recording companies don't get money from that.

As for moral... I have a deep unnerving dissatisfaction with the idea that fundamental parts of the American and world cultures are permanently owned and restricted ad infinitum. That songs, images, ideas embedded in our heads are not our own, and cannot be freely played with. You can't, for example, create an image of Mickey being shipped off to Iraq without Disney suing you out of existence (whether or not they would win the case is irrelevant). The compromise is that this term is limited, originally to 20 years. Content gets created, and after a certain point we get our freedom to shape our culture back.

Just look at the vibrancy of the underground music culture, where music is mixed and remixed without a thought to the original copyright holders. They can shape, twist, and reimagine our culture, shining lights on what it means. But they can't do it legally, and unlike other underground-to-popular music forms they never will be able to. They're Musical Outlaws, and just the concept of that is greatly distasteful.

Copyright limits freedom. Period. This compromise was made to encourage the creation of the useful arts. But copyright laws have grown significantly more restrictive than that over the years, and has turned from a compromise on freedoms for the public good, to parts of the culture that companies "own." It's that last part that I can't abide by.

It's not their music. It's music. The law is very explicit on this point.

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:The Enemy by gsslay · 2005-10-06 02:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

I despise the whole concept of their business model
You'll have to explain this one for me, since you seem to be a business expert or something. What exactly is wrong with a business model that involves selling your product, not letting people have it for nothing, and using the law to enforce this? What would you suggest? Give it away? Hmmmm, not good business I'd say. Ask people nicely not to copy their product and actually pay for it? Tricky; people, as the discussion here proves, love something for nothing and will jump through endless hoops in order to morally justify it. Use physical violence? Problem with this being illegal, isn't there?
while at the same time overpricing physical content (CDs, etc)
If it was overpriced by definition it would not sell. No-one is forced into purchasing. CDs are not essential to life. The CDs sell, therefore by definition they are not overpriced.
trying to force digital outlets (iTunes, for example) to do the same.
Hold the front page! Commercial company in trying to maximize profits shock!!
Not to mention their attempts to 'sanitize' American radio (boy am I glad I dont live over there) so you can always find 500 different stations playing the same 10 pop tracks in rotation.
What the hell are you on about? Got any evidence for this? If American radio, which is an advertising driven industry, plays pap it's because people like to listen to pap, and advertisers like listeners. If anyone doesn't like the radio stations; don't listen to them.
but if they win this case, how much are they going to get? a few thousand?
No-one believes this is about the money suing this girl will get. No-one believes that this is RIAA's "business model". Like thousands of other legal cases it's about setting an example. You'd have to be a simpleton to think otherwise. This case says if you illegally download other's work without paying for it; you risk being taken to court. Sounds fair and straightforward to me.
I'm a fan of European EBM
How very nice for you. Others aren't. Market evidence suggests many more people are fans of the very music you claim is some sort of paranoid global plot to supress the masses. Grow up and understand that there is no 'good' music and no 'bad' music. There is only different tastes and opinions and your taste in music is no better or of any greater value than anyone elses. The RIAA business usually involves the music with mass appeal, because that's what is usually downloaded most. They aren't making any value judgements over what or who anyone should be listening to.
I agree that people should be fined a few hundred dollars or 3 or 4 times the retail cost of what they downloaded... Would they accept that? No, it's far too sensible :)
What makes you think the RIAA are in a position to hand out fines? The RIAA does not enforce the law. They have the process of suing as a tool to protect their copyrights, just like anyone else. The nature of this means it is a costly process that is not practical to apply to every case. The only sensible way forward is therefore use the legal cases as examples. Unless you are suggesting that the RIAA should be some sort of police force that can hand out spot-fines??? No, didn't think so.
So what genius modded this load of poorly thought-out drivel as 'insightful'?

But... by smackdotcom · 2005-10-05 23:38 · Score: 3, Funny

...will they go after her little dog, too?

--

In a world without walls, there is no need for Windows.

Good! by RAMMS+EIN · 2005-10-05 23:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Can anybody explain to me, again, why I should be all up in arms over the RIAA going after infringers? I was much more upset when the RIAA went after the mother; I think it's kind of unreasonable to expect anyone to control someone's Internet access to the point that no illegal exchange of material can be performed. Much better to go after the infringers themselves.

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.

I don't get it by ErikZ · 2005-10-05 23:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm not a laywer, so what this looks like is:

RIAA wants to sue teenage girl and her Mother.
Mother says you can't sue me, I had nothing to do with it.
RIAA can't sue teenage girl, too young.
RIAA asks court to appoint a fake mother (Guardian) that they can sue?

--
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.

Re:I don't get it by SatanicPuppy · 2005-10-06 01:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, you pretty much hit the nail on the head, though it might be more accurate to call a GAL a "legal representative" rather than a guardian. A GAL is supposed to represent the interests of someone who is incompetent to stand trial...

If you're in a coma, and someone breaks into your house, falls down the stairs, and sues you, they'll appoint a GAL to represent your interests in court. It's more interesting in this sort of case because it becomes challenging to suggest that a person who has committed a civil offense, but is incompetent due to age, should be tried to the same standard as an incapacitated adult.

Were I the judge, I wouldn't touch this case with a 10 foot pole. It's a lose lose situation; either you're going to piss off congress and big business (at this point that grouping is almost redundant), or you're going to piss off everyone else.

--
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.

Obligatory Pink Floyd reference by DarthShader · 2005-10-05 23:57 · Score: 3, Funny

Hey, RIAA leave the kids alone!
All in all it's just another suit on the wall
All in all you're just another suit on the wall

Can I get sued now, for infinging on some songtext copyright?

The Supreme Court disagrees by Mr2001 · 2005-10-05 23:58 · Score: 5, Informative

It's theft in the same way that declining to pay for, say, your haircut, is theft of services; and it is indeed illegal. Check section 2319 here, the bit titled "Criminal infringement of copyright."

Wrong. "Theft of services" is an actual defined crime. "Criminal infringement of copyright" is not theft - see how the word "theft" doesn't appear anywhere in that phrase?

The Supreme Court ruled that copyright infringement is not theft in a 1985 case, Dowling v. United States :

Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud.

--
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.

Re:The Supreme Court disagrees by Delphiki · 2005-10-06 00:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Haha, I love how people will debate to no end whether it's theft or not. As if it's morally okay, as long as nobody is allowed to call it theft.

--
Feel free to mod me "-1 - Angry Jerk".
Re:The Supreme Court disagrees by Kobayashi+Maru · 2005-10-06 01:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have to wonder whether it might just BE morally okay to download music? When you have millions of people that doing something that is clearlly illegal, it generally leads to debate on the subject. I don't want to state whether music should actually be free, but there is room for discussion.

Look at other issue: abortion, prohibition, drug use, speeding, underage drinking, etc. All of the issues are rather actively debated -- whether they should be illegal, to what extent they should be permitted (if any), and what the penalties should be if they are found to be illegal.

I think this is what you're seeing with P2P. There is a system and set of laws in place that is not entirely in sync. with society. Hence we are debating what, if anything needs to be done. Should we revise copyright law? Should we sue the infringers? Is this a new extension of "theft?" Should penalties be reduced? What kinds of alternative distribution exist? And so on.

I think it is a fascinating process to watch, if only because real progress is made through the extremes; the RIAA powergrab, for example, or widespread infringement by college students. Time will tell what the appropriate solutions look like.
Re:The Supreme Court disagrees by Derlum · 2005-10-06 02:28 · Score: 2

OK, so what do you call the category that includes all of copyright infringement, patent infringement, and trademark infringement, as well as theft of services, petty theft, and grand theft; and robbery, burglary, and shoplifting?

Crime.
Re:The Supreme Court disagrees by Matt+Perry · 2005-10-06 03:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Haha, I love how people will debate to no end whether it's theft or not. As if it's morally okay, as long as nobody is allowed to call it theft.
Debating whether you are using the correct terms or not doesn't endorse the behaviour that we're discussing. I can discuss the difference in the legal definition of murder versus manslaughter but it doesn't mean that I endorse either of those. Whether you like the legal definition of "Theft" versus "Infrignement of Copright" is irrelevant. There's an overwhelming amount of case law that makes a distinction. The use of these definitions have been around for longer than most of us on this site have been alive.
You may often say one thing when you meant another but courts and the legal system don't work that way. For some of us this proper usage and understanding of such terminology is important. Copyrights are the primary protection for our free-software and open-source works (BSD license, GPL, etc).

--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Re:The Supreme Court disagrees by camt · 2005-10-06 07:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

And as other posters have pointed out, the morality is completely orthogonal to the legality of the action. It is illegal whether or not it is classified as theft. Since we are talking about a legal issue, we should at least be clear about which law we are referring to! Thus, we should be careful not to say the word "theft" - which is why so many people split hairs over it.

Is copyright infringement even a criminal offense, or is it simply a contract violation?

The Obvious Defense by Gorbag · 2005-10-06 00:05 · Score: 5, Funny

D: Your Honor, Defense introduces exhibits A-ZZZ, the actual sound items defendant is accused of illegally downloading, which we will play for the court now, and introduce into evidence.

[sounds of rap, house, whatever it is that "kids listen to these days"]

D: Are these the sound recordings you are accusing my client of having illegally downloaded?

P: Yes, so stipulated.

D: Your honor, we agree these sound recordings were downloaded, however, no copyright can be held because that's not music and as the court knows, noise cannot be copywritten.

J: So noted. Case dismissed, with prejudice. Get that crap out of my courtroom.

--
-- I speak only for myself

Lawyers and fault by typical · 2005-10-06 00:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm a law student, and let me tell you, we're not taught to lie.

I agree. But you *do* work in a field where it is very beneficial to use loaded rhetoric. This is not your fault -- as long as juries are going to respond to emotional arguments instead of being coolly factual, if you don't do it, the other side is going to do so, and there's no mechanism in the legal system to dissuade lawyers from using loaded rhetoric.

The real complaint (why people tend to transfer a lot of their anger onto lawyers) is that it's fucking hard to build a perfect system for resolving issues between people. Pull juries out of a system, and you establish a class of judges as incredibly powerful. So, given that, it's really hard to take Joe Average and make him intelligent, analytical, and thoughtful to the point where a guy whose professional is to convince Joe Average of one side of a case can't make his point. Now, what's the guy on the *other* side of the case going to do? Be purely factual and keep losing cases? No -- that's an unstable system. He's going to use rhetoric too.

The masses see that something isn't perfect and choose to focus on lawyers, because they're the most visible target. Hence, "Lawyers are Evil". It becomes a common mantra after a while.

If I had to make one suggestion that would improve the quality of our legal system immensely, it would be to change two things (both of which lawyers would oppose, so not likely to happen):

*) Plaintiff never gets punitive damages above a certain (small) amount. Any punitive wins in this class get used by a state-run organization to help avoid future problems of this sort. This eliminates the massive, multi-million dollar "lottery" wins for plaintiffs and lawyers that make abuse of the legal system so profitable.

*) Indirect and direct profits to lawyers in class action suits get capped. Yes, in very extreme cases, this *could* limit the likelihood of some independent law firms going out against some big corporate-backed lawyers with tons of funding, but, for instance, the Big Tobacco lawsuit was absurd. Class actions should not be a lottery system for lawyers.

I'm not against lawyers making a good living -- they work in a highly specialized field and have to be knowledgeable and skilled. They're important to the functioning of society. What I *don't* like is that a select few make phenomenal amounts of money through abusing the legal system. Putting social pressure on lawyers to not do this is useless, because it doesn't matter what the masses of lawyers do; only what the few that cause problems do.

--
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.

Re:Lawyers and fault by typical · 2005-10-06 01:40 · Score: 3, Informative

The fact that the lawsuit *existed* was not a problem. The fact that Big Tobacco is going down in flames is not, per se, a problem.

The fact that it was phenomenally profitable for the lawyers involved (I've seen numbers quoted for up to a sixth of the payout going to lawyers involved, which is insane) *is* a problem. It encourages lawyers to take on class action and other suits for *anything*, which results in companies doing utterly stupid things "to avoid liability". I'm not talking about common sense things like "don't sell addictive, cancer-causing things to people", but things like "No, I can't have an employee drive you to the airport because of *liability*."

--
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.

sell em for 1 by bennini · 2005-10-06 01:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

i don't see how P2P services are much different from a second-hand CD store.

take the following hypothetical situation---

a second hand CD store receives CD's that people no longer want. they then turn around and sell each CD for some value, which could be as little as 1. the person who buys the cd, goes home and copies the music onto their computer, then donates the CD back to the second hand store....repeat

or is a person supposed to delete all copies/duplicates of a cd after they get rid of the original?

This litigation is a RICO act violation by crovira · 2005-10-06 01:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

It is a blatant abuse of the statutes. (And it will continue until we find some unsigned band who distributes their music WITHOUT them over the internet and THEY SUE the RIAA, with our help, of course, for depriving them of their business model. Say a band who distributes their music and collect micro-payments over PayPal.)

Any takers? Any band out there? (Maybe an amateur klesmer band. Or maybe an 'eeffin' jug band?) Something so out of the realm of anybody's top-40s playlist that the RIAA's client list, the ones BEHIND the law suits, the ones behind and part of the payola, the corrupt practices, the disposability of artists, the lack of promotion, the scum under the soap.

Most of these people deserve unemployment. Lets give it to them.

--
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.

I share cleanly by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-06 01:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

I refuse to promote the RIAA's wares by including any of them in my "share folder." Instead, there are hundreds of very good songs by very good bands who desperately WANT their music to be shared.

I also include freeware, shareware, FOSS, etc.

I download anything I damned well please, and thanks to the No Electronic Thieft Act I can download "$2000 worth" of content in a six month period and be perfectly legal.

Note that downloading is illegal in some locales (e.g. UK, Australia).

A friend of mine found a huge box of 70s rock cassettes at a yard sale for five bucks, and it's going to take quite some time to sample them all, so I won't be doing much downloading for a while.

Note that this, too is illegal in some places. I understand that in the UK you can't even make a copy of a CD you have bought for your own use, while in the US you can make as many copies as you want so long as you don't sell them or broadcast them.

When giving something away is "stealing" you know that Orwellian doublespeak is the norm.

(obligatory /. joke: "In the USSA, YUO watch Big Brother!")

Turnabout? by lowe0 · 2005-10-06 01:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

So how would everyone react if a 14-year-old decided to willfully violate the GPL, start their own business based on your code, and then admit to it all?

Time to influence those who can influence by keraneuology · 2005-10-06 01:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

This kind of thing has to stop, but won't stop until people start to care. Pressure needs to be put on the artists, and this development gives arm to something that might actually work:

Metallica certainly doesn't care if RIAA goes after a kid, but Amy Grant and Jewel might. If everybody sent emails to the various artists who might take offense at their RIAA trying to have a guardian appointed for a 14 year old for downloading music (essentially the RIAA is trying to have the mother declared unfit and is trying to make this as painful for her as possible for daring to stand up to them) they might raise a stinking stink stinky enough to make RIAA reconsider.

Some artists who might actually care:

Reba

Jewel

Amy Grant

LeAnn Rimes

Tricia Yearwood

--
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"

Lets get this straight..... by fwarren · 2005-10-06 01:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

We have:

theft...criminal

copyright infringement...civil

So:

Murder = criminal and jail time

Theft = criminal and jail time

Running a protection racket = criminal and jail time

Copyright infringement = civil no jail time

You can not talk about copyright infringement as "theft" because it is not a criminal offense.

--
vi + /etc over regedit any day of the week.

Re:I disagree... by RAMMS+EIN · 2005-10-06 01:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

``If you happen to come across a site that allows you to download music for free without any hassle, it is the same as if you found it on the street.''

If that means that downloading music you found on the web should be legal, I agree with you. So does my government, and many others (I live in the Netherlands). Apparently, the RIAA feels that people who download music are breaking the law, or they wouldn't be suing them. The courts will decide whether the RIAA's cases have any merit. (There is a separate issue of you losing no matter if you win the case, but that's for another time.)

``What the RIAA needs to do is go after the services like they did Napster. What is so damn different about what the RIAA did to Napster that they cannot do to these other services?''

Napster was maintaining a centralized directory of the music that was being shared. Thus, Napster had the ability to detect and prevent the sharing of certain materials. These days, services don't host central directories anymore, which means it's all down to the sharers among themselves. The RIAA has been unsuccessful in convincing courts that these services can be blamed for what users do with them, and thus has to go after the users.

It makes perfect sense to me that the RIAA has to go after the people who share the music. After all, it's those people who are distributing the material, and they are breaking the law if they do so without the consent of the copyright holder. The services are not doing anything illegal (as far as I can see).

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.

Consider this: by Ub3rT3Rr0R1St · 2005-10-06 02:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've been reading through these posts and some of their replies, and I have come up with an interesting little scenario that will hopefully spark some more doubts/arguments as to what can be considered "theft". Note that I am merely a neutral party here, so don't take things out on me. Here we go... You're walking down the street one day, and as you stride past the local pharmacy, you see a bum sitting down next to the entrance. This is no ordinary beggar though, this one is "working" for his earnings. He has a guitar in his hands, and he's strumming a catchy song he wrote, and singing along. Infront of him is his hat which holds a few coins, and a crisp dollar bill. Standing by him, you listen to his playing and tap your foot along, while singing the song in your head. Glancing again at the hat, you shake your pockets and hear the familiar jingling of loose change, but the long walk has left you mighty parched, and you instead decide you'll just go inside the pharmacy and buy yourself a drink. You get your refreshment, walk out, and continue to wherever it is you were heading...Still singing that song the bum was playing. Later that day, you meet up with your friends. You tell them of the bum infront of the pharmacy, and sing to them the song he was playing. They enjoy it as much as you did, and spend the rest of the day singing it to themselves...They tell their friends of the song, and their friends tell their other friends, ect., and they all enjoy the song, but NO ONE ever decides to go to the pharmacy, to the bum, to give him some spare change. Now, based on the definitions of "theft" that I have read here, I ask: Does this count as theft? Keep in mind: 1. The bum is doing this as a form of work. 2. The bum wrote the song himself. I.E. It's original. 3. Everyone enjoyed the song, and continued to enjoy it at their leisure (sp?). 4. Everyone had plenty of spare change.

"Intellectual property" is a confusing term by tepples · 2005-10-06 02:11 · Score: 4, Informative

Intellectual Propert - A product of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes.

You just lumped copyrights, patents, trademarks (which you call "appellations of origins"), and trade secrets (which you call "business methods, and industrial processes") into one category. Those rights are more different than alike, and for this reason, many critics discourage use of the umbrella term "intellectual property" to conflate them.

Intellectual property is a term used by a great many people to cover well, all of intellectual property.

The term "intellectual property" is not used in the United States Code, and for a good reason: the different exclusive rights that make it up have different purposes and raise entirely different sets of public policy issues.

Let's look at the ways to possible hear content:
1. CD's and cassettes (if they still exist) that you purchase at the store.
2. Legally Downloaded music from a store like iTunes.
3. Television and Radio with the host of radio stations and the few television radio stations.
4. Illegally downloaded music.
...
it items 1-3 money gets back to the RIAA, in element 4 it does not. This means that the RIAA is being deprived of income.

You forgot live shows. Do you claim that live shows should be just as unlawful as element 4 because like element 4, they don't result in a lot of revenue going back to the label?

Now if our fictional person X (and more importantly the multitudes of persons X) is downloading music and not listening to the radio or watching MTV (or VH1 or whomever), they are collectively hurting ratings for stations and networks.

No, they are hurting the ratings for Music_Radio_And_Music_TV_In_General. Those services that are full of illicit file-sharing have their own ratings.

So to re-hash, the courts and legal system seem to be against you when it comes to this idea of the actual quality of property that IP has.

But they are against you when it comes to the conflation of different legal traditions into "intellectual property". For instance, the court in Sega v. Accolade ruled that you can't use copyrights or trademarks to simulate a patent, and this was upheld post-DMCA in Lexmark v. Static Control.

sharing music in the P2P manner is ILLEGAL.

Is it still prohibited even if such noncommercial sharing has been authorized by the author using a license such as CC by-nd-nc? Or do you claim that independent authors of musical works do not have the authority to grant such a license because they can't prove that their work is original?

Mass Spoofing (think fake japenese airfields WW2) by Truth_in_Nothingness · 2005-10-06 02:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

Has anyone considered the legal ramifications of civil liability if the RIAA can be proved to have sued over nothing?

Maybe someone can tell me better, but in my limited knowledge dont they just check filenames and number of offending files? I would think this sets up a huge opportunity for a person to set-up this trade group.

First off I checked http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=search&state =31r9fc.1.1

None of the filenames are trademarked so no one needs worry about being sued for trademark infringement.
The Idea:
Ever gone duck hunting, or seen cartoons with it? One of the common ideas is to lure the ducks in by making them think things are as they appear. Perhaps with fake ducks.
Well I'm suggesting making fake ducks. Seeding a college network, or company network with spoof files. Now correct me if I'm wrong but my limited understanding of these share search engines they (RIAA) use is they look for filenames and filesize. Once they determain there are enough infinging (or so called) files they then notify a pencil pusher who starts the legal suing process.
No real investigation, as has been proved by some of the people that they have sued. (Not cost effective to them)
I'm sure that with all the coders and other people out there somthing like this could be done easily. Make a text document with the filename.mp3 of a new release and tracked theft title. Fill it with a message that states "If you checked this file you would see that it isnt real. Sue me, and expect a countersuit to cover harrassment, and my legal fees" Fill the rest with enough random hash to make up the appropriate filesize.
The first couple of times they start suing people with files like these, they are not only going to get laughed out of court. They may end up being forced by a judge to start utilizing proper evidenciary proceedings. That will just start to kill their search & sue efforts.
My idea, my two bits. Tell me what you think.

Re:Contract Infringement by nsayer · 2005-10-06 02:52 · Score: 2, Informative

No. Copyright is based in law and is granted to the creator of the work by "the people." As such, infringing on a copyright is a violation of the law, not a contract tort. The law says you can't refuse to uphold your end of a contract (modulo exceptions), but it also says you can't copy copyrighted works to which you don't own the copyright (again, modulo exceptions).

To clarify an issue or two... by Garwulf · 2005-10-06 03:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

First of all, I really wish somebody would file a class-action suit against those RIAA nitwits and end it all once and for all. Really, this is not acceptable. The technology of the 21st century does bring up issues regarding intellectual rights, and I do believe that an appropriate balance will eventually be struck, but a bunch of people acting like thugs simply don't help matters.

Second, there seems to be a lot of confusion about how copyright infringement hurts authors and creators. It does hurt them, but not in the way that most people have posted here, and not in the way that the RIAA is contending. Here's how it works:

I'm an author (this is true). Now, let's say that Tor Books buys the manuscript that I've had on one of the editor's desks. At this point in time, I sign a contract with them. The contract states that Tor has exclusive rights to publish the book for a certain period of time, at which point the publication rights revert back to me. In return, Tor will give me an advance on royalties, and a royalty for each copy they sell.

So, the book goes into print. Now, let's say that somebody with far too much time on their hands and a piratical disposition scans the entire novel into their computer and uploads it onto their site for people to download. And let's say that 1,000 people download it (it's a nice round number). Well, those people may or may not have bought the book on their own if it wasn't available for download - they may or may not buy the book because of the download. But, the fact remains that there are now 1,000 unsanctioned copies floating around. Odds are that the lion's share of the people who downloaded won't actually buy the thing (hell, they might not even finish reading it). But, those 1,000 copies (and we're only talking about the electronic copies here), had they been distributed through legimate channels, would have generated royalties for the author, making it easier for me to buy food and keep a roof over my head, and making it easier for me to write my next book.

The size of the damage is very difficult to estimate, simply because no money is actually changing hands. Yes, people who would have bought the book won't now that they have a free copy. But, other people who might not have bought the book otherwise might just use the download as a sample, and decide that they really want the book on their shelf. Well, some damage is probably done - but it's also probably fairly minimal. Until somebody actually does some solid academic research into the numbers, nobody will be able to tell. And, to make matters even more cloudy, not that many people actually have the technological know-how to download the thing anyway - the majority of readers will just go to the bookstore. That's a similar situation to what the RIAA is looking at.

Now, let's change the scenario a bit. The book comes out, and somebody with a piratical disposition scans the book into his computer, and then posts it on the Internet. But, this time, he charges $3.00 per download. And let's say that there are 1,000 copies downloaded. So now you've got money changing hands, just like a book sale. And, not only is the publisher that I actually gave the rights to print the book being cut out of the deal (and basically being competed against using its own product), no royalties are coming my way for any of these books that are sold. THAT is where the serious damage is done, and from the news I've read, it's done by criminal organizations and groups in third world countries.

Now, who is actually the pirate here? Well, it's not the people who downloaded, truth be told, even if they paid for it. It's unfortunate that they aren't downloading/buying a legitimate copy, but that also raises the question of how they can tell if a copy is legitimate or not. Let's face it - most people don't have that great an understanding of the Berne Convention, and if a copyright notice appears somewhere, they might assume that it is legitimate, even if there are signs it

--
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive

Boycott by infiniter · 2005-10-06 03:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's really too bad that more people don't hear about this sort of thing.

I've recently stopped buying commercial music. I had been buying it from the iTunes music store, but the actions of the RIAA have been so asinine as of late that I've turned to buying only from independent artists or taking what's free. I'm not downloading copyrighted material in violation of law; breaking the law is not the solution. I am, however, listening to a lot more Harvey Danger (to whom I'm sending money. Got to support a good thing.)

If more people would move towards this model - the "screw-the-man" model of music acquisition - without breaking the law, I think change could happen, gradually. As it is now, though, it's hard to speak from the moral high ground because there are so many out there who are, in fact, breaking the law. If just 10% of the population started getting their music only from non-RIAA sources, it could be a huge blow to the evil side of the music industry.

Put the Gangsters by Philip+K+Dickhead · 2005-10-06 03:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

out of business.

--
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell

"Sues a Guilty Person" has a more... by WebCowboy · 2005-10-06 04:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

...inflammatory and biased feel to it. It is the sort of headline you would see from "news" outlets in Cuba or China. In a world with a more free and responsible press, reputable journalists refrain from calling ANYONE guilty until they are judged so in a court of law. Until that point they are CHARDED WITH or ACCUSED or ALLEGEDLY commited a crime, even when the facts available to the public seem plainly obvious. Strictly speaking, the headline "RIAA Sues Guilty Person" is not only inflammatory in nature it is technically a lie--this girl is not guily in the eyes of the law because she has never been charged and sentenced with anything, so save such rhetoric until RIAA wins its case against her.

As far as the title of this /. article, "RIAA Suea a Child" is not overly inflammatory nor is it factually inaccurate. I think it is perfectly suitable without being too general. What would you have the article title say? "RIAA Sues a person"? "RIAA Sues an Alleged Music Pirate"? How would this differentiate the story from the thousands of other cases RIAA has chased--I mean, it seems that most of RIAA's activities centre around outrageous litigation and getting into the pockets of politicians. Facts are facts--RIAA found evidence of copyright violation that they believe point to a 14 year old child, and the evidence is fairly convincing. The fact that an industrial cartel has decided the proper course of action is to SUE A MINOR for obscene amounts of money is the whole point of the article, otherwise it wouldn't be news--just another pirate getting taken down.

As for ripping off a man trying to "feed his family" by ripping off a GPL product...well, the same copyright rules apply and if RIAA can sue a child then the FSF is well within their right to sue a man with a starving family. However I don't believe the FSF has ever done that nor ever will do something of that nature. If some enterprising 14-year-old started making money of software derived from a GPL project the FSF's first concern wouldn't be to "make an example" of a child by extorting his money--it would be to make sure he divulges the source code to the derivative project. I would support such action.

Really, your argument makes no sense whatsoever and doesn't seem insightful at all. The article isn't titled "RIAA sues innocent little girl" or "RIAA threatens teenager". The simple facts make it hard to title the article otherwise. That is the point of the article--western society is generally reasonable and gives first time offenders under 18 a bit of a break. Children are not sentenced with the same terms as an adult unless the circumstances are severe. RIAA, however, has decided to wield its legal resources as a blunt instrument without regard to reason or even accuracy in some cases. What is the point of suing a teenage girl over copyright violations when she probably didn't even know what copyright was? Hell, most /. readers don't seem to know what it is. If RIAA wanted to teach a lesson wouldn't there be an easier way of doing it, like getting a court order to seize her computer for a period of time and remove all the MP3s before returning it? At least they could teach her copyright violation is wrong and let her voluntarily make amends? No. Even when their targets agree to participate RIAA will not listen until they have gotten their money. RIAA's actions have definitely proven that they are not doing this to defend what is right. RIAA is doing this to increase revenue first, and "make an example" second--then somewhere down the list is education and innovation. This is not a biased opinion, it is a conclusion that can be supported by RIAAs behaviour.

Re:Wrong argument - need a better solution by cpt+kangarooski · 2005-10-06 05:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Someone who is infringing copyright says it's not theft because the copyright holder still has the original material so they are doing no harm because they have deprived no-one of anything.

That's a fun jump. It's not theft because there is no taking. That doesn't mean there is no harm. If I burn down your house, that's arson, not theft, and I have harmed you.

Damages in the copyright realm are easy to compute, and no one denies the very concept. Still, it's not theft. It's some other offense.

They are violating the basic principles of capitalist economics

Copyrights are government granted monopolies on commodity goods. That's hardly capitalistic. Of course, this just goes to show, again, that capitalism in its raw form is not all that useful.

There is no moral high ground here

I would disagree slightly. Generally, I think that copyright is amoral. However, it is moral to spread creative works and to use them fruitfully. Copyright holders are opposed to this, and wish to keep knowledge under lock and key, portioning a little out only to those who can pay for it, and who are limited as to what they can do with it.

So if anyone is at all moral, it's pirates. But mostly I stick with the amoral approach.

a reasonable balance between rightsholders and the public

The concept of a balance is a big mistake. There should be no balance. Copyright law should always favor the public. This doesn't mean abolishing it, necessarily, as some limits on the public can in fact be beneficial to them, but it does mean that the interests of rightsholders should never be considered save as a means to serving the infinitely more important interests of the public.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Re:Balance by cpt+kangarooski · 2005-10-06 06:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

I (or my assigns), however, AM the only source for books written on PHP by me

Sure, but you seem to be getting into trademark territory with all this talk of sources.

I'm just saying that the creative work, which is intangible, can be fixed into tangible copies. And all of those copies of the same work are essentially commodities. There is no material difference between your book printed by you, and your book printed by me. This should force us into competition, and our prices should drop to marginal cost plus whatever profit we can manage.

Instead, with copyright, you can eliminate competition and raise prices for copies of your work higher than they would be otherwise.

but it's an attempt by an enlightened society to recognize that we're better off providing incentives for people to create. If everything is stolen the second it's produced, simply because distribution costs are zero, then there's actually a negative incentive to create those items, especially since creation costs are definitely not zero.

It's not a negative incentive, it's just no incentive. And it's not the only incentive. Lots of people make stuff without regard for profit derived from copyright -- they're interested in reputation, or expressing themselves, or entertaining others, or have other sources of funding, and so on.

And there's one other thing.

A balance needs to be maintained between creators and consumers, and the rights and needs of both sides need to be respected.

This is wrong. There should be no balance, and no respect for creators, at least for its own sake.

Enlightened or not, copyright is a utilitarian construct. It's not a charity (and if it were, it's a lousy one). The public doesn't want to provide incentives for creation because it's nice. It wants to benefit from it. It wants to maximally benefit from it. This may involve some benefits for authors in the course of serving the public interest. But such authorial benefits are not the goal of the system. They're just means to an end. Authors should get nothing, save that it benefits the public. That's not balance and it's not respect. Copyright is a way to exploit authors, just as the proverbial carrot on a stick is a way to exploit the donkey pulling a load.

You need to think more about why society would be interested in creation, and what else is interested in, and how it can best exploit artists to get the most of what it wants for the least possible cost.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Re:Clarification by symbolic · 2005-10-06 07:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Legislating to create value where there is otherwise none is an abuse of law and government, plain and simple. This is obviously not "theft".

Clarify then, if you will. If it has no value, why would people be interested in aquiring it? If people want it, it quite obviously has value.

Re:Mass Spoofing (think fake japenese airfields WW by evilviper · 2005-10-06 07:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm sure that with all the coders and other people out there somthing like this could be done easily. Make a text document with the filename.mp3 of a new release and tracked theft title. Fill it with a message that states "If you checked this file you would see that it isnt real. Sue me, and expect a countersuit to cover harrassment, and my legal fees" Fill the rest with enough random hash to make up the appropriate filesize.

Nah, that's just no good... Here's a better idea.

A friend or family member of a independant musician illegally shares the copyrighted music, misleadingly named to look like a much more popular RIAA artist.

The RIAA eventually downloads these songs and files a lawsuit. The person who shared them gets out of the lawsuit because it's not material RIAA owns the copyright on. Then, the independant musician who actually owns the copyright can use the RIAA trial as incontrovertible proof that agents of the RIAA illegally downloaded his music, and sue them for truck-loads of cash...

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Giving them money won't work by MacDork · 2005-10-06 07:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Its not going to do any good.

Well giving them money certainly won't help. DO NOT BUY FROM THE RIAA. Check RIAA radar before purchasing.

When people stop buying from RIAA labels, the labels are going to go to the government screaming piracy because they can show what they think the numbers should be they will blaim the loss of revenue from piracy. There will be no consideration of a Boycott. Then congress will start taxing things like burnable CD, digital media players, to make up for the lost revenue due to piracy. They've already tried to have laws passed allowing them to break into people's computers so they can investigate music piracy.

Congress only listens as long as the bribe money keeps coming. Do not fund RIAA lobbyists by buying from RIAA labels.

You're indies labels will be forced to start supporting the RIAA as well, because the equipment they use to press the CDs can be used to press pirate CD, the RIAA will demand a tax or surchange there. If they have them pressed overseas they will find a way of getting revenue from that too.

Indies don't need plastic. They have internet distribution. All the indies need is a paypal.

You reall want to stop the RIAA? You need laws like RICO, and Sherman Anti-trust. You need lots of independent lawsuits to bankrupt them. The RIAA and MPAA are predatory cartels, if you want to stop them boycotts aren't going to do squat, you have to sue them into oblivion.

That requires money be spent on lawyers and bribing congressmen. If you decide to take that route, please use proceeds saved by not buying RIAA albums to do so. You might want to pool your resources with others by donating it to someone like the EFF as well.

DO NOT BUY FROM THE RIAA. Check RIAA radar before purchasing.

Just defending objectivity... by WebCowboy · 2005-10-06 08:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

I only use the word "guilty" here because the mother has basically admitted that her daughter did exactly what the lawsuit alleges.

The fact the child was implicated by her mother is indeed valid evidence in support of RIAA's case, but from a journalistic point of view calling the child a "Guilty Person" could be considered hearsay. Being implicated by another party doesn't mean someone is guilty. Hell, even a confession by the accused herself doesn't always mean the accused is guilty. That is why the media generally is very careful about throwing around the word "guilty" or calling a murder suspect a "murderer" even if the evidence appears quite obvious.

Get rid of the "think of the children!11!1" emotion from the situation, and look at it from a more sensible point of view

I agree wholeheartedly that the emotion around this issue contributes nothing to the debate, and the link in the /. article pointed to a fairly unprofessional piece of writing. I am all for a sensible point of view. That said, RIAA has clearly demonstrated it is NOT a sensible organisation. Like a typical cartel, it demonstrates a complete lack of sense and concern for anyhting that is outside its immediate interests.

can someone tell me what recourse the RIAA *does* have when people infringe their copyright? And how is their pursuing such action in any meaningful way different to that of any other copyright holder or representative against an infringer?

Suing little girls, or any individual for that matter, for millions of dollars over music files just does not make sense. Even from the financial aspect alone the damages they ask for are orders of magnitude more than any demonstratable revenue loss. The punishment is simply not reasonable. In my opinion, a teen casually sharing music files is about as serious as a traffic ticket--it doesn't warrant the same kind of treatment as an executive bilking investors out of millions. Save those penalties for the mafia-associated pirates making millions from selling bootlegged MS Office, music and movie CDs.

It is also no more reasonable for RIAA to sue ISPs or software developers for enabling users to share files. There are legitimate uses of their technology and services and it is unreasonable for RIAA to force others to protect IP that isn't even theirs. If RIAA wants software developers and ISPs to help with enforcement they should put their money where their mouth is and offer to PAY MONEY to them for their services. That is the least RIAA can do given how they expect everyone to pay for their offerings.

Of course suing the actual violators is a viable option, however RIAA has been going about it very haphazardly and without reason. How productive is it to sue a teenager millions of dollars? What case can RIAA make to justify such obscene valuations apart from 'x' songs found on a p2p network at $750 a piece? They've also done next to nothing to verify that a given IP address or P2P acocunt name belongs to a specific individual. Some of the accused have even offered to turn over their computers to forensic investigators to prove their innocence to RIAA, and RIAA refuses. I've heard of cases where people who did not know better left their wireless routers wide open, only to have the neighbours' kids or warpathers on the street suck gigabytes of music through their internet connection.

RIAA could also pursue other routes to combat P2P piracy. They could try pursuing non-monetary remedies as I mentioned before to seize the offending materials from people and restricting their use of the internet--in most cases 1st time offenses should be handled more lightly. RIAA could also do more to educate the public about copyright law--it isn't fair to convict someone for something they were not entirely aware was illegal. Right now RIAA and MPAA do next to NOTHING on the education front. That they DO contribute are stupid "public service" commercials that create furhter misunderstanding by making a no

Re:Balance by cpt+kangarooski · 2005-10-06 08:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

I fail to see why you, who has done nothing at all, should be allowed to profit from my labor

Why not? If you are my neighbor, and your house is really nice, and you have a great garden and yard, it will increase the value of my property just due to the proximity. Plus, I get the benefit of the smell of the flowers, and the nice view, the services of pollinating insects attracted by your garden but who might also go to mine, and so on.

Just because you did something doesn't mean it's all yours.

Especially since we are not talking about profiting from your labor so much as profiting from the fruits of your labor. I cannot force you to labor. If you want to write a book or not, that's up to you. If you want to sell copies to people, that's up to you. I can benefit from the end product, however, if it has left your control.

Creative works are fruits of labor, and through the vast majority of history, have been unprotected. Copyright is a rather new idea, and sets up some artificial benefits for you. That you like those benefits doesn't make them any less artificial or subject to change as the public as a whole sees fit for their own purposes.

In fact, labor is an especially funny thing to talk about here, since copyright doesn't care about labor. Hard work does not make something copyrightable; it is creativity and originality that are required, even if the work was trivial.

Authors should get nothing

That's not what I said. What I said was "Authors should get nothing, save that it benefits the public."

Let me illustrate this. You said: So, should I make the investment, the current system gives me the potential to benefit from it. Notice the words "invest" and "potential" in the prior sentence. Creation of a book, music, movie, or program entails risk. I'm making an investment in it, because I think it's going to be worth it.

I agree. You are acting in a self-interested fashion. I have no problem with that. It's predictable and makes you easy to exploit. But you cannot fault anyone else for acting in their own self interest either!

The public as a whole is self interested. It wants two things: First, for all the works that might be created to be created. Second, to be subject to no limits as to how it enjoys these works.

Without copyright, the first interest is satisfied partially, but not much. The second interest is totally satisfied. Copyright is a way of spending a little bit of the satisfaction of the second interest to get a much larger amount of satisfaction of the first interest back.

So if we created a copyright that lasted for one year, you would see a lot of works get created that otherwise would not be created, and only a minor impairment of public enjoyment of those works. The net result is greater public satisfaction than without copyright at all.

The fact that artists receive some benefit is interesting, but it's not the point. Dairy cows get to live comfortable lives, but no one cares; we just want the milk. Bees get to increase their numbers and live in comfortable hives placed conveniently close to flowers, but no one cares; we just want the honey. Donkeys get to eat carrots, but no one cares; we just want to make them pull a wagonload of carrots to the market.

Artists might get some money for their work, but no one cares. We just want them to create stuff and get it into the public domain (with minimal copyright until it is in the public domain).

This requires that authors be subject to exploitation, and that we tailor the system so that we get the most bang for our buck, i.e. not granting too little copyright or too much. But whether any artist succeeds or fails is below notice.

So when you write your book, the greatest possible reward you ought to get should be the least possible reward that still is an incentive to you to write the book. More would be wasteful, and no one cares about your feelings on the subject. As it is difficult to tailor things to each artist individu

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Re:Wrong argument - need a better solution by cpt+kangarooski · 2005-10-07 03:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Copyright law must favour those who would create content enough that they are willing to share it.

I agree to a limited extent, but I don't like your wording at all.

Copyright must favor the public, not artists. But in order to best serve the public, we might confer some benefits on artists. Not because they're artists, but because the benefits are part of the overall scheme by which the public receives the most benefit for the least price. Because we're interested in what will best serve the public, which is not the same as maximizing creation (you don't want to know how much copyright we'd need for me to be incentivized to rearrange stars into creative patterns), we must accept that some artists won't be incentivized enough and some works won't be created. As long as the net public benefit is at maximum, we just have to live without works that cost more than they're worth.

They hold all the aces,

No, not really. Remember, we don't need to grant copyrights at all. If we do, and to the extent that we do, it must be for the public good. As it happens, artists are actually pretty easy to exploit. This is because they're highly optimistic. They have to be; most creative works have such a low economic value, if any, that you'd be better off just putting the money in a simple bank account. Additionally, virtually all the economic value of a work will be realized immediately upon publication in a given medium. Movies, make most of their money just when they hit theaters and just when they hit rental stores. Books do it in a couple of months. Computer software ages so fast that it's never of value for long, even if it's awfully successful. This means that we could reduce copyright terms to a couple of years and see no significant reduction in creation, while gaining huge public benefits.

The public has no default moral or legal right to any content created by others; they must offer up something as their side of the bargain in exchange for sharing in the benefits of others' work. It's been that way since the dawn of time

Quite false.

Until 1710, and then only in England, anyone had the right to republish what anyone else created. (Within limits because most of these societies weren't all that free, but that's a totally different issue) Most countries didn't have copyright laws until the 19th and 20th centuries.

Also, furthering the spread of creative works, and in so doing, helping to ensure their long term survival, are moral acts.

Frankly, this is essential in order for copyright to make any sense to begin with. If the default position is that everything is in the public domain, only then can the offer of copyright by the public to authors be attractive to them. But in order to serve the public, the copyright must be as limited as possible, and end as rapidly as possible, while best serving the public. Thus, in the end, it's a quid pro quo: the public will trade a limited copyright if the authors will create works.

benefit society by promoting the creation and distribution of works

That is beneficial, but it's not enough. Firstly, too much copyright will actually harm the creation of works (since works are highly derivative and established authors will try to expand their rights by always claiming that other works derive from theirs and thus should be under their control). Secondly, the public only really starts to benefit when the works are in the public domain, reducing their cost, increasing their availability, increasing the number of derivatives of it, and so forth. Artists cannot be relied upon to provide sufficient public benefits themselves.

since almost all of the problems I have with copyright today stem from the fact that it can be assigned to others who do not themselves create works, and various industries have more-or-less forced this to be the default action by those who do

I'd disagree. That's not a big problem, and at any rate, they are forcing no one to do anything. Seriously, think

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

156 of 1,093 comments (clear)