RIAA Ends Harassment of Grieving Family

denebian devil writes "According to Cory Doctorow at Boingboing, the RIAA has dropped its case against the family of a dead man. 'Today, an RIAA spokesperson, Jonathan Lamy, contacted me today with this statement: Our hearts go out to the Scantleberry family for their loss. We had decided to temporarily suspend the productive settlement discussions we were having with the family. Mr. Scantleberry had admitted that the infringer was his stepson, and we were in the process settling with him shortly before his passing. Out of an abundance of sensitivity, we have elected to drop this particular case.'"

Comments

Just a question, and some thoughts

[daveschroeder]

Forget for a moment the RIAA, US copyright law, corporate media owners, and the like:

In any circumstance or scenario, is it ever acceptable for an owner of a work, or their duly specified agent, to protect that ownership, even when the work may be freely copied in an unlimited fashion, and to use the legal frameworks provided by the society in which it exists, to enforce or demand recompense for such ownership?

I suspect some people would honestly answer "No" to the above question. Fine; that represents a fundamentally different philosophical outlook on reward for one's work, if desired, and so on. I trust, therefore, that your disdain for such a system also means you're not a part of activity that would leave you on the receiving end of a legal suit from the RIAA.

As for this particular case: so the RIAA has long-established themselves as a bunch of shameless pricks. So what? Just because someone dies doesn't automatically invalidate a potentially valid legal claim. Sure tugs at the heartstrings, though, doesn't it?

Further, to those who would argue that all of the RIAA, industry, and/or legal activity on this front represent nothing more than a "failed business model", might I suggest something? If this has so utterly failed, why not develop the new model that replaces it? Hint: this won't be with the same commercial artists, so stop downloading and/or "sharing" their music instead of buying it. Don't consume that product, at all. Be a part of the solution to create and encourage the new artists, the new distribution channels, the new promotional channels, and the new studios and "labels" (yes, anything that gets sufficiently large and successful will have multiple layers of hierarchy, organization, and even bureaucracy), all of which will be required to support this new model to varying degrees.

But if you so heartily disagree with the current model, don't steal[1] (or otherwise consume) their goods, or enable others to do so.

Simple, isn't it?

[1] Oops, I meant "infringe on the copyright of". Still, the point stands. Isn't it fairly straightforward? Either legitimately buy it, or don't, and be ready for the consequences[2]. If you disagree with the "business model" or the legal issues surrounding it, don't be a part of it. And that includes not obtaining the content in question. Then all of a sudden, magically, the legal issues and artificial (or self-inflicted) fears of injury from a draconian legal system go away. Funny how that works!

[2] No one's arguing that the RIAA's model of figuring losses is valid, but it's equally (and massively) disingenuous, not to mention utterly ridiculous, to claim that nothing has been lost at all.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Tweekster]

Everytime their sales go down because of people saying "FUCK THE RIAA, I dont want any part of them" they claim it is piracy and get more laws in their favor.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Bryansix]

The lawsuit was frivolous. The person who died was not even the offender. It was the stepson but the RIAA did not spend the time to figure that out. Instead they just filed suit and held out an outstretched arm asking for money. This is extortion and a misuse of our already packed courts. Your entire argument is a straw man because it assumes that the person on trial is guilty. Even the RIAA admits that this person was not in fact guilty and did not in fact "steal" anything.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[daveschroeder]

I fail to see any point you may have, even if true.

As long as people are still either a.) legally buying the content, or b.) choosing to not obtain it at all via any means, it still shouldn't be a problem, then, right?

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[rolfwind]

But if you so heartily disagree with the current model, don't steal[1] (or otherwise consume) their goods, or enable others to do so.

Simple, isn't it?

I already avoid them with the help of http://www.riaaradar.com/

Now the only direct grievance I have with them is them illegimately trying to claim to represnet all musicians, lying through their teeth when claiming to care about said musicians (as is evidenced by their contracts), and the money they make off first stated claim (like a % of blank CD sales in some countries, etc)

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Null Nihils]

Dude, you're supposed to say "frist post!", not make a bunch of intelligent arguments! Anyways, here are some small counterpoints I'd like to mention:

So the RIAA has long-established themselves as a bunch of shameless pricks. So what?

So what? Well, it inclines me to disrespect their outlandish claims to certain intellectual/cultural "properties", for starters. And note that this malice against the RIAA is quite likely felt by a majority of the demographic concerned, not just a fringe few. Because they are indeed shameless pricks, as you said.

Then all of a sudden, magically, the legal issues and artificial (or self-inflicted) fears of injury from a draconian legal system go away. Funny how that works!

So I'm guessing you agree with those illegal wiretaps and so on. After all, if you aren't doing anything illegal, the "draconian" system (getting more draconian as time goes on, it seems) will just "go away" and never effect you! And I guess you believe DRM will never come and bite the legit consumer in the ass, right?

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[geekoid]

It is called social disabdience.

Really, nobody has a problem with buying music, just the price.

The market is speaking, adopt or die. Laws fail when the fly in the face of what the majority want.

I wonder how much of what is considered 'pirated' is outside a sane copyright law(like 14 years.)?

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[daveschroeder]

1. Wrong, my entire argument is not a straw man. Most of my argument doesn't even speak to this particular case. Good job avoiding my points, though.

2. I really don't care whether the RIAA was right or wrong in this one particular case. The fact is that, even though automated, the RIAA is correct most of the time that people are sharing music that is under the RIAA umbrella.

3. In this case, the father (the dead man) was probably the one legally responsible for the internet connection and was likely also a legal guardian of his stepson. Whether you agree with it or not, there can certainly be legal culpability on the part of someone who is legally responsible for a particular item (such as an internet connection). I have literally no idea how this holds up in the context of music sharing; just pointing out that fact.

4. Again, fabulous job ignoring the rest of my post by writing it off as a "straw man".

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[RsG]

In any circumstance or scenario, is it ever acceptable for an owner of a work, or their duly specified agent, to protect that ownership, even when the work may be freely copied in an unlimited fashion, and to use the legal frameworks provided by the society in which it exists, to enforce or demand recompense for such ownership?

In any circumstance? I suppose I coulda agree with some circumstances.

I'd probably be fine with a lawsuit leveled against commercial infingers (ie, people selling material they don't own the copryright for). Likewise, small suits for non-commercial infringement I could support (by small, we're talking at most the commercial value for the material, eg 10-20 dollars per CDs worth of music, or per movie), if they were carefully executed and if the defendant was able to actual stand up for themselves in court.

What I, and other people, can't stand is the use of legal brute force against people who can't realistically fight back. Following the letter of the law with the intent of ruining someone in a civil suit which they cannot afford to defend themselves against isn't "protecting their copyright", it's mafia style intimidation.

Software company suing another software company for breach of copyright on their code? I'm fine with it, as long as the suit doesn't abuse the court system (think SCO and their delay tactics as an example of such abuse). Record company launching a small suit against a major uploader (instead of massive suits against everyone)? I would at least be on the fence, and acknowledge their rights.

Part of the problem of course is that the way the law is set up, the corporations have the upper hand. They can sue for the maximum possible amount per infringement, and they can drag out court cases longer than any individual could afford, forcing an out of court settlement. Plus, they aren't held to a high standard of evidence when it comes to bringing the case before a court.

For the record, I don't pirate. However, at this stage I've completely stopped buying RIAA label music, since I'll be damned if my money is going to pay their bloodsucking lawyers.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[jb.hl.com]

2 things:

1) The price of music does in no way give you a right or justification to pirate it.
2) A "sane copyright law" is subjective, and is currently not "actual copyright law". It doesn't matter.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[nsayer]

the trouble is that they can distinguish between A and B, but not B and illegal copying. So in fact you're right - there shouldn't be a problem. But the industry will claim that the explanation is anything BUT option B regardless of whether that is true or not.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[sm62704]

is it ever acceptable for an owner of a work, or their duly specified agent, to protect that ownership

Yes, but only if someone is profiting commercially from it. Nor is it necessary; this isn't trademark, you don't lose copyright like that.

If they're using your work for monetary gain, then I'd say it was moral. But if they're downloading it they like it and are going to buy it. If they have no plan to buy it, you're not losing anything anyway.

Nor do you own the work. You own the copyright. "Intellectual property" doesn't exist in the US Constitutional framework. You own the COPYRIGHT, which is a "limited time" monopoly on the work's sale. You don't own the work. Disney doesn't OWN "Steamboat Willy", they own copyright to it.

Although I've often thought about going after plagairists who have taken stuff I've posted freely on the internet and re-posted on ad-laden sites (making cash off of my work). You think I should? Could I get $6k per violation like the RIAA is? My Quake II cheats page (now on archive.org with my permission, since I let the site die) is possibly the most plagairized thing on the internet. A lot of stuff I posted at K5 is likewise plagairized.

Thoughts, anyone?

I trust, therefore, that your disdain for such a system also means you're not a part of activity that would leave you on the receiving end of a legal suit from the RIAA.

I'm against commercial gain for others' work. And no, the RIAA won't be going after me unless I download some of their crap by accident when looking for indie music. I'm always looking for new artists to support, so long as they're not part of the cartel.

Just because someone dies doesn't automatically invalidate a potentially valid legal claim.

Tell that to Ken Lay's lawyers.

If this has so utterly failed, why not develop the new model that replaces it?

It's already there. Downloads and posted MP3s are being used as advertising to get people to buy CDs and see live performances.

But if you so heartily disagree with the current model, don't steal[1] (or otherwise consume) their goods, or enable others to do so.

I don't. If I wanted a major-label tune (and I can think of only one 21st century band I'd want to, that's Buck Cherry) I'd pick up a used copy. Or are you telling me not to listen to the radio either?

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[RsG]

I think his point was that telling people to boycott them doesn't work if they in turn shift any blame for loss of sales to piracy. How do you send them a message that the crap they're pulling won't be tolerated by consumers when they in turn are going to spin that message as justification for the very behaviour you boycotted them for?

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[kosh55]

If you want to send the RIAA a message then don't buy the music. Stealing it accomplishes nothing.
Besides, I don't buy the whole "we're doing it to send a message" bullsh*t anyway. You don't want to pay for
the music and this is an easy excuse.

You know, if everybody was truly as intent at getting a point accross as downloaders say they are then there would be a higher turnout for more important issues such as who is running the country.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[kfg]

My Sweet Lord

I trust, therefore, that your disdain for such a system also means you're not a part of activity that would leave you on the receiving end of a legal suit from the RIAA.

I do not buy RIAA music. I do not download it either (not even legally). I write and play my own. This puts me at high risk of suit due to "unintentional theft."

It ain't all about illegal downloading.

Be a part of the solution to create and encourage the new artists, the new distribution channels, the new promotional channels, and the new studios and "labels" (yes, anything that gets sufficiently large and successful will have multiple layers of hierarchy, organization, and even bureaucracy), all of which will be required to support this new model to varying degrees.

I am. Therefore I am a threat. Therefore I am at risk of suit. It ain't all about illegal downloading. It's about control of creation and distribution. Sooner or later they'll be trying to come for all of us.

Yes, we need to think hard about where the place to draw the line is, but once it's drawn we'd damned well better be prepared to hold it, or they'll bulldoze right over us. Some of our brothers and sister have already been crushed under the treads.

KFG

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[John Nowak]

Thank you. I follow this as well -- Since I do not support the RIAA, I do not buy material from related artists, nor do I pirate it. There is plenty of good music out there that can be gotten without breaking the law! I have 10GB of music on my hard drive, all 100% legal.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[jonbrewer]

The fact is that, even though automated, the RIAA is correct most of the time that people are sharing music that is under the RIAA umbrella.

Where do you get this fact from? I'd say it's entirely unsubstantiated.

It's along the same lines as me saying "The fact is, Dave Schroeder is a corporate shill.". This is just based on what I've read online. No evidence, just a guess - could be wrong, but I don't need to back it up, do I?

JB

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Bryansix]

he RIAA is correct most of the time that people are sharing music that is under the RIAA umbrella.

Buahahahahah! I cannot stop laughing! I cannot believe that you actually think that! Do you only go on Slashdot like once a month or something? There is a new story about the RIAA harrassing somebody every day and almost everytime the defendant claims that they did not commit any crime. Still the RIAA gets paid in a majority of these cases because fighting them is way too expensive.

The most dubious of all cases involve and internet connection where the wireless is on. In those cases anybody could have connected and downloaded the supposedly illegal files. Still the RIAA does not care and instantly files suit against those who pay the bills. In a criminal case this would not be allowed to advance.

That's like saying that I own a gun and keep it locked up in my closet. Someone comes and steals my gun and manages to open the lock. Three years later someone ends up dead and it is traced back to my gun. Does the government bring a case against me? Hell No!

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Thangodin]

Unreasonably high prices and artificial scarcities create black markets. Draconian measures to thwart those black markets create criminal organizations who profit on those markets, by a process of natural selection which eliminates all but the most ruthless. International criminal organizations haven't found the business model to turn all this to their advantage yet, but give them time--they're working on it. When they figure it out, the RIAA won't be facing a bereaved family, but a wily group of thugs who do this professionally, with plenty of cash on hand for their own lawyers--if the RIAA can get to them at all. This, of course, assumes that the artists don't find an alternative first and cut the RIAA and the people they represent out of the loop. It's a race between the artists and the gangsters, but either way the RIAA will lose.

I would like to offer an alternative of what they should be doing--put the following notice in each of their CD's and DVD's:

This disk has no copy protection whatsoever. You can transfer, copy, rip, and burn it to your heart's content. You can even hand out these copies to other people, with one proviso: insist that if they like it, they should go out and buy their own copy.

Every dollar you spend is a vote. Paying for this is a way of telling the artists you like it and want more. If you like this music, paying for it means that you will get more; more from this artist, and more from similar artists--and maybe even music from artists you will want to hear who are quite different, but otherwise wouldn't have enough support to get started. You may think that recording artists make a lot of money and don't need your support. In fact, there are a lot of expenses that they incur just to make and promote this album, and it takes a lot of sales just to break even. And hey, if they do get filthy rich, it may take a lot of money to persuade them to get back into the studio. Either way, you get more of what you want.

If you don't pay for this, and a lot of people who like it copy it for free, the artists will have to get a day job. They will stop making albums, and probably won't play anywhere more than a day's journey from home. Sucks to be you. The music that you like won't be made anymore. And every time you turn on the radio, you will hear music made by people whose fans are just too damned stupid to know how to copy it.

So, do what you want. But if everything on the radio and at the music store is infantile crap, don't blame us. We warned you.

That's what they should be doing. Of course, they're not. Wall Street has a saying: "A bear can make money, a bull can make money. A pig always gets slaughtered." The RIAA is a pig. They're going to get slaughtered.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[mengel]

Boy, whenever you have to start your argument with In any circumstance or scenario, is it ever acceptable, you should know you've already lost the argument.

The problem in this particular scenario (RIIAA lawsuits over file "sharing") is that you have a party with large resources (translation -- a Bully) intimidating people with very few resources and demanding cash, by threatening them with a lawsuit with very little, if any, evidence; and doing it over and over and over again.

Sure, there are circumstances (self defense? stopping someone setting off a bomb?) where you could justify hitting someone on the head with a baseball bat, but it doesn't mean you can or should go off doing it over and over and over again without evidence of those circumstances. (But officer, all 50 of them looked at me threateningly, and I struck them each in self defense. They all had hands in their pockets that looked to me like gun...)

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[daveschroeder]

So what? Well, it inclines me to disrespect their outlandish claims to certain intellectual/cultural "properties", for starters. And note that this malice against the RIAA is quite likely felt by a majority of the demographic concerned, not just a fringe few. Because they are indeed shameless pricks, as you said.

Just because someone is a prick doesn't make them incorrect.

I'll agree that it's not the best way to Win Friends and Influence People, however.

So I'm guessing you agree with those illegal wiretaps and so on. After all, if you aren't doing anything illegal, the "draconian" system (getting more draconian as time goes on, it seems) will just "go away" and never effect you! And I guess you believe DRM will never come and bite the legit consumer in the ass, right?

This is actually a very interesting argument.

However, I'm not making the "if you haven't done anything illegal, then you have nothing to fear" argument. Rather, I'm saying "if you run afoul of the law, don't be surprised if that comes back to bite you".

I'm sure we can both agree that there should be some level of laws and order in a civilized society. This isn't about Big Brother, fascism, or a totalitarian regime. It's about content owners of property that is intangible in a certain sense being able to ensure that it's paid for. I'm not making any value judgments on how much money should be involved, and so on. The problem is that members of a society based marginally on rule of law and on the intrinsic value of the work and property of others making their own decisions about what they will and won't pay for, and deciding to take what they don't feel is worth the price, and this on what are essentially luxury items at that (no, I don't believe commercial music and movies are a necessity to human survival, and I realize all of the artistic and cultural arguments that may be intertwined there).

To say that I'm making an "if you're not doing anything illegal..." argument unfairly distills this argument down to a situation where we should apparently have no laws. I can understand thinking a "law" is unfair, and I can even understand people who think (erroneously, in my opinion) that taking copyrighting materials without paying for them is an act of civil disobedience. What I don't understand is why people feel they have this sense of entitlement to copyrighted commercial content, just because it can be easily copied. Like it or not, there is a LOT of money that goes into making a lot of this content. And if it's crap (like Britney Spears or the next worthless "blockbuster"), then don't be a part of it. My only point is how often people seem to talk out of both sides of their mouth, decrying the latest pop princess while simultaneously downloading (and not buying) some other artist on a subsidiary of that same label. If you don't support that business model, or think it's "dying", I simply can't understand why people would want to consume its content. Even if they like the content, why don't they come to the realization that it was that very system that produced the content they enjoy, and they'd better work to improve themselves in whatever stage of life they're at so they can afford to purchase and support the nice things they want.

As to DRM, I think it's in some forms a necessary evil. I DO NOT like DRM. It is a tool for control, and too often, some want to use it to roll back consumer rights that have been long since won (such as the Broadcast Flag, in the context of time shifting television). As long as it is unobtrusive as physically possible and doesn't roll back rights that we already have, I don't think it's a problem, because it does prevent casual, en masse, copyright infringement. Yes, yes, anyone and their brother can download any number of programs that strip all sorts of DRM, but the simple truth is that this escapes the capabilities of most people, and such tools will ALWAYS be relegated to the fringe because their use will be illegal in some jurisdictions. That pr

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[WilliamSChips]

One idea I heard was to boycott a specific slice of RIAA record labels but to continue buying for others. That way it would be clearer.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[sm62704]

f you want to send the RIAA a message then don't buy the music. Stealing it accomplishes nothing.

I don't think anyone here is condoning shoplifting.

You know, if everybody was truly as intent at getting a point accross as downloaders say they are then there would be a higher turnout for more important issues such as who is running the country.

You must be one of those "they don't vote because they're apathetic" bozos. People stay away from the polls for various reasons; 1)both candidates are equally bad; 2) both candidates are owned by the corporations; 3) neither candidate talks about issues important to them 4) a hundred other reasons way too numerous to mention. But I've never met anyone who doesn't care.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[AJWM]

Just because someone dies doesn't automatically invalidate a potentially valid legal claim.

Actually yeah, it pretty much does. Being dead rather effectively denies the defendant the opportunity to defend himself. Doesn't necessarily invalidate the claim, but most judges would throw it out.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

In any circumstance or scenario, is it ever acceptable for an owner of a work, or their duly specified agent, to protect that ownership

Of course. But why bring ownership and property up? Copyright is nothing of the sort.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[sm62704]

There's a band my daughter used to listen to called "Playground Heroes". Their CDs said "please be kind, burn a copy for a friend."

It's good business. If I get a burned copy of your first CD and like it, I'm very, very likely to buy a copy of your second album.

If I never hear it at all there's no way in hell I'll be buying it.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Henry V .009]

Individual copyright infringement is not a crime that should be punished with draconian measures. For individuals, it should be punished at a somewhat lower level than one gets punished for speeding.

Though the RIAA is a private body,they are using governmental powers against the average person. I see them as no different than tyrants. Congress has finally gotten lazy enough to begin outsourcing the erosion of our freedoms.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'd probably be fine with a lawsuit leveled against commercial infingers (ie, people selling material they don't own the copryright for). Likewise, small suits for non-commercial infringement I could support (by small, we're talking at most the commercial value for the material, eg 10-20 dollars per CDs worth of music, or per movie), if they were carefully executed and if the defendant was able to actual stand up for themselves in court."

And how do you know they can "stand up for themselves"?

"What I, and other people, can't stand is the use of legal brute force against people who can't realistically fight back. Following the letter of the law with the intent of ruining someone in a civil suit which they cannot afford to defend themselves against isn't "protecting their copyright", it's mafia style intimidation."

Guess that explains why all the FSF cases have been against "those who can fight back".

"Software company suing another software company for breach of copyright on their code? I'm fine with it, as long as the suit doesn't abuse the court system (think SCO and their delay tactics as an example of such abuse). Record company launching a small suit against a major uploader (instead of massive suits against everyone)? I would at least be on the fence, and acknowledge their right"

That was "breach of contract" not copyright.

"Part of the problem of course is that the way the law is set up, the corporations have the upper hand. They can sue for the maximum possible amount per infringement, and they can drag out court cases longer than any individual could afford, forcing an out of court settlement. Plus, they aren't held to a high standard of evidence when it comes to bringing the case before a court."

One. Legal insurance. Two. Countersuits. Three. In some cases the loser pays the winners bills. Fourth. You need to back up your implication that corporation "rules of evidence" are different than individuals "right of evidence" in civil cases. Fifth. Pro-bono.

"For the record, I don't pirate. However, at this stage I've completely stopped buying RIAA label music, since I'll be damned if my money is going to pay their bloodsucking lawyers."

Good for you. What took so long?

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[geekoid]

"1) The price of music does in no way give you a right or justification to pirate it."

Yes, in fact it does give me justification.
What it doen't give me is an excuse from being prosecuted in a court of law.
Just like any form of civil disobediance. Like not getting up from a bus seat even though the law says you should*.

My point was, the industry would have less pirates if they priced at the market demand point, and that the market is changing.

"2) A "sane copyright law" is subjective, and is currently not "actual copyright law". It doesn't matter."

I was just wondering how much of the reported 'pirated' is older then a certian period.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the amounts by release date of the products.

None of this matters, because the market force regarding copyright is building. People in grade school today will expect music to be distributed digitally and cheaply.
The music corporation is nothing more then a middleman who isn't needed anymore.

*I am only using it to illestrate the point, I am not putting them on the same pedistal.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[geekoid]

"Just because someone dies doesn't automatically invalidate a potentially valid legal claim"

it pretty much does.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[bky1701]

That's all fine and good - but the fact is they are violating our rights, regardless of if we download anything or not. I had this argument with a hippy the other day; you cannot simply say "Good bye!" and walk away. Are you are doing is running from the problem, and it WILL find you, no matter how hard you run.

Lets take a look at how the RIAA sues people even when they didn't do anything (this case, suing kids, I am sure open wifi has been sued over). How sure are you that this will not happen to YOU? You are not.

Lets look at how they shut down sites with perfectly legit uses (some cases with non-legit, too, but that only highlights the fact you will always have it). Lyrics sites? Tabs sites? I am sure both types of sites hosted tabs and lyrics of non-RIAA "artists", but they were collateral damage.

In the end, you cannot stand up and say "Goodbye RIAA!" because they WILL always affect you, even if you don't "steal" (moronic shock word, akin to terrorist). So sure maybe not downloading their stuff is a start - but not buying or downloading it will only make them think they lost sales due to piracy, and it's only a matter of time until you lose other, non-related rights over that.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Millenniumman]

You've really never met someone who didn't care?

For reason 1, there are more than two candidates. Third parties/independents don't often win, but it is better than not voting at all. If all of the nonvoters voted for a third party it would do very well.

For reason 2, read above. Beyond that, politicians are "owned" as much by unions, special interest groups, and religious groups as corporations. You likely have an irrational dislike of corporations. It is very similar to people on the right and left saying that the other side controls the media.

For reason 3, read above. If the main political candidates haven't talked about anything you care about, then you don't care about economic freedom, civil liberties, or foreign policy.

If someone cares but doesn't vote, then they are ridiculously lazy. Generally non voters are apathetic.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[vertinox]

If this has so utterly failed, why not develop the new model that replaces it?

Because the powers that be (aka RIAA) has put very tough entry barriers to market.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you (and the other reply to the GP) for real?

There have been a small handful of cases, amongst the hundreds the RIAA have filed, where there's been some controversy over whether the defendent was guilty. Even in this case, there was a culprit identified, the dead man's son (which is why, presumably, there was talk of continuing the case.) Other individuals who have proclaimed how "unfair" the RIAA is being have used such excuses as blaming Kazaa, claiming they thought the fact they paid for Kazaa meant it was legal.

While the RIAA's evidence may sometimes leave something to be desired, and occasionally they've actually slipped up (such as the grandmother-without-a-computer incident), I don't think anyone has any doubts that the majority of those filed suit against are, in fact, guilty of doing what the RIAA says they did (and as such are guilty of copyright infringement.)

Posted AC because my karma generally takes a hit every time I point out the fucking obvious to the pro-P2P-piracy Kazaa shills, and yesterday I took a major hit. - squiggleslash.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[poot_rootbeer]

It is called social disabdience.

No, it's called copyright infringement. I participate in it too, on occasion, but at least I'm honest about myself.

I wonder how much of what is considered 'pirated' is outside a sane copyright law(like 14 years.)?

Probably very little. When people hit the peer to peer networks, they look for works which are fresh in their minds, which likely means the most recent works to have been released. Nobody's downloading Casablanca; everybody's downloading Pirates of the Caribbean II. Nobody's downloading "Meet the Beatles"; everybody's downloading "NOW That's What I Call Music Volume 21".

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Moofie]

"Wrong, my entire argument is not a straw man. Most of my argument doesn't even speak to this particular case."

The fact that it doesn't speak to this particular case is what MAKES it a straw man.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[RsG]

And how do you know they can "stand up for themselves"?

I'd say that it's pretty obvious that minors and dead people can't.

On a more general level, this is an area where I'd say legal reform is needed, specifically to favour the smaller party. We have a heavy bias in criminal law favouring the defendant, to offset the advantages the government has over individual citizens.

Why not apply similar rules to civil cases where a corporation is pursuing legal action against an individual? Currently we have far to many cases where the recipient of a RIAA type lawsuit has no viable option but to settle out of court; this essentially means they pay regardless of their guilt or innocence.

Note that this is a criticism of civil law more generally, rather than the RIAA specifically. However, when they exploit the letter of the law in order to strong arm people into settlements, I think there is a problem. If the letter of the law can be abused in such a manner, then the law is itself in need of change.

That was "breach of contract" not copyright.

Duely noted. My point however was that perpetual delaying tactics are an abuse of the court system.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of my argument doesn't even speak to this particular case.

1. That is right. Your post above rated +5 right now was and is almost entirely off-topic. And yet, because the context of your post, whether you stay on-topic or not, is the behavior of the RIAA in this particular case, you have in fact presented a series of straw man arguments against any one who would dare question the tactics, harassment, and extortion (whether legal through corporately-purchased--and thus--corrupt laws, or not) of the RIAA.

You know, Dave, there is a journal posting function in Slashdot. Please use it when you want to make a post so orthogonal to the article under consideration.

2. 3. 4. Please stop making stuff up. You aren't Dave Barry.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

daveschroeder writes: "....In this case, the father (the dead man) was probably the one legally responsible for the internet connection and was likely also a legal guardian of his stepson. Whether you agree with it or not, there can certainly be legal culpability on the part of someone who is legally responsible for a particular item (such as an internet connection). I have literally no idea how this holds up in the context of music sharing; just pointing out that fact."

I think you may be a victim, possibly subliminally, of RIAA propaganda.

You happen to be incorrect on both points. Neither (a) being the person who pays for the home's internet access account, nor (b) being a legal guardian of someone who might have committed a copyright infringement, makes one "responsible", under the law. (By the way he was not the guardian of the stepson, the stepson is an adult.).

The RIAA has done much to create the impression that you are operating under, that parents are automatically liable for copyright infringements which might take place through the internet access account they pay for; but this is not the law.

I would recommend that you read the brief submitted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, ACLU, and others, in Capitol v. Foster, where they discuss how the RIAA has, in a calculated way, attempted to give you that impression.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[squiggleslash]

No, in my opinion, it doesn't give you a justification.

Look, I can understand taking a lot of things without paying for them. If you're starving, and the local stores are selling food with such a high mark-up, you could never afford to pay for it, then yes, I can understand you stealing.

And to a certain extent, I can understand copyright infringement when applied to software. I don't do it, I don't agree with it, but I can understand someone being in a situation where they require the tools to do a particular job, and can't afford software which would never be their choice to buy anyway, but is the software they need because other people - thanks to network effects etc - have essentially made mandatory if you want to "play" with them.

Certainly, I think there's a strong argument for, in their present form, reforming copyrights in their present form (that is, in their present form*) when applied to computer software. Hey, I'm not the only one.

But music? I could go my whole life without needing to listen to a specific piece of music. Same goes for movies, and literature. I'm not saying my life wouldn't be enriched by it, but my life can be enriched by the free music out there anyway, it doesn't have to be the latest MTV-promoted big name.

Someone's decision to make their music only available to those who are willing to pay for it doesn't hurt me in the slightest. I can make a judgement as to whether that music would enrich my life enough for me to part with the required amount of cash. In the mean time, I have real alternatives. There's music in the public domain. There are artists with lower priced music or who source their music via alternative means. To decide to take advantage of someone else's work without paying on their terms strikes me as very unfair, especially if there's nothing they've done that makes me need that work.

* You know some dumbass is going to respond "You're saying we should abolish copyright for software?" and give me a thousand reasons, three or four of which are actually good ones, why this would be bad. I'm not proposing we abolish it. Hence me repeating that part three times.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

"2) A "sane copyright law" is subjective, and is currently not "actual copyright law". It doesn't matter."

It's also a red herring because they're plenty of examples of illegal copyright infringement before something is even released to the public. Let alone those violations that happen soon after.

"1) The price of music does in no way give you a right or justification to pirate it."

When most thing are of an "unacceptable price". Most people don't steal it, or even "copy it". They simply do without. Technology however has made it easy for people to indulge their baser instincts, instead of taking either the "moral/ethical" high ground, or even the same behavior pre-technology.*

*Note well that they have no problem abusing technology for their own ends, but raise holy hell when the content creator uses technology to protect themselves.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Ian Bicking]

As for this particular case: so the RIAA has long-established themselves as a bunch of shameless pricks. So what?

Yes, many people put up with shameless pricks, even admire them. But how does that lead to "so what"? Like most people I don't put up with shameless pricks or admire them, so it is important to identify such people.

Just because someone dies doesn't automatically invalidate a potentially valid legal claim. Sure tugs at the heartstrings, though, doesn't it?

Not the RIAA's heartstrings, apparently. Well, they probably don't have any heartstrings. This is useful to identify as well. This property, when identified in an individual, is labelled sociopathic.

But anyway, when a suit is brought about to redress some wrong it seems reasonable that it might be continued against the estate. The wrong still needs to be redressed, doesn't it? In this case the suit is punative, it is meant to punish. No wrong is righted. Death makes punishment moot. Well, you could punish the kid who actually used the filesharing, but I doubt that is legally or financially reasonable.

No one's arguing that the RIAA's model of figuring losses is valid, but it's equally (and massively) disingenuous, not to mention utterly ridiculous, to claim that nothing has been lost at all.

That is not true either. It is extremely likely that if a child (the actual "offender" in this case) does not have access to free music that they will simply do without. That's what I did when I was a kid. A lawsuit does not put the entire filesharing public on trial, just one person, and for an individual case it is entirely possible that nothing was lost at all.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Null Nihils]

However, I'm not making the "if you haven't done anything illegal, then you have nothing to fear" argument. Rather, I'm saying "if you run afoul of the law, don't be surprised if that comes back to bite you".

I wouldn't be surprised per se, if a frivolous lawsuit ended up on my doorstep. I don't think anyone with a healthy amount of cynicism would be. You would go, "gee, the decision to download that music / buy those Cuban cigars* / go 20km over the speed limit on that seemingly deserted road, has had some disproportionately unpleasant but not entirely unexpected consequences!"

Likewise, the RIAA cannot do what they do and expect everyone to keep playing by the rules. They should not be surprised either! (But they sure sound surprised. And a little confused...)

Anyhow, I admire the non-participatory response (in fact, I myself don't recall downloading any RIAA music in a good many years, although if I really liked some of their shit I might not hesitate to "steal" it) but I think the desire to disobey is, in this case, an understandable human response, and possibly even an honorable one -- it's certainly more honorable than giving the RIAA more money.

To demand that people refrain from enjoying the music that the RIAA lords over seems a little unreasonable. It reminds me of an example: In the video, an atheist mentions to a Christian that he does not appreciate "In God We Trust" being written on the currency. The Christian's response is (to paraphrase): "If it bother's you, don't live in the USA".

In other words, disobedience is a legitimate form of protest (and please note that I believe violence is not.)

* Actually, I don't think Cubans are illegal in my country, but its just an example and I don't smoke anyways.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[soft_guy]

As a society, do we really want to pass a bunch of unenforceable laws?

Do we really want to cripple the consumer electronics industry that is huge and employs lots of people to specifically benefit the entertainment industry that is tiny and employs only a very small number of people at (mostly) very low wage jobs?

The entertainment industry is telling us that we have to choose between the two. If this is really true, I would choose to protect fair use rights and the consumer electronics/computer/software industries. If no more hollywood movies or bubblegum rock records get made, then I guess that really isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. The sun will rise whether we're being force fed hollywood crap or not.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Software]

>It is called social disabdience.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Civil disobedience is when you publicly violate the law and accept or even invite punishment for it. Using a file sharing network to share copyrighted materials is not civil disobedience; it is breaking the law and hoping not to get caught. Big difference.

>Really, nobody has a problem with buying music, just the price.

What does this mean? People don't have problems buying things that are free?

>The market is speaking, adopt or die. Laws fail when the fly in the face of what the majority want.

What makes you think that a majority of people (not just Slashdot users, the rest of society) want file sharing of copyrighted materials to be legal? What is preventing the majority from acting?

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Bryansix]

Posted AC because my karma generally takes a hit every time I point out the fucking obvious to the pro-P2P-piracy Kazaa shills, and yesterday I took a major hit. - squiggleslash.

Assume Much? Hopefully people will figure out that you are the original poster and mod that post down. I cannot even fathom why you think such silly tricks are acceptable.

Anyways, you assume that I am trying to somehow promote the downloading of music that I do not own. I am not nor has anything I said up to this point implied that. While I admit that I used to download music I did not own, that was a long time ago. I have long since deleted that music or actually purchased the cd and kept the file since I now own it.

I am not trying to promote illegal downloading. I would like to point out that not all downloading is illegal though. If you own the music and there is DRM preventing you from making a legal backup of it then it is not illegal to download the music. Now the RIAA could actually probably still win a lawsuit in the case. This is because judges assume that the RIAA knows what they are talking about. They don't! The RIAA resorts to mafia style extortionary tactics when going after individual offenders and those whom they suspect have offended. These people do not have to be guilty to have thousands of dollars taken from them by the RIAA. Like I said, I am not supporting illegal downloading of music; I AM protesting the tactics of the RIAA.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[multisync]

like a % of blank CD sales in some countries, etc)

This really pisses me off. In Canada, we pay a levy on blank media regardless of what we are using it for. There are plenty of "legitimate" uses for blank cds, such as burning ISOs of Linux distros, sending digital photos to friends and family, backing up legally purchases music ... but the assumption is that we *must* be using them to burn mp3s downloaded from p2p networks. What crap.

It's bad enough that I'm fined for the illegal behaviour my government -- and the cultural gatekeeers at the RIAA -- just know I must be engaged in, but I would *really* resent paying it if I were an independant artist producing my own cds to sell at gigs or on a web site. Imagine the struggling artist who, by choice or circumstance, decides to produce his own cds. He not only has to compete against the huge RIAA steam roller for the mindshare of his fan base, but he also pays them a percentage of every cd he produces, that they can then use to bribe radio stations and finance lawsuits against their customers.

I agree with the original poster. The only thing that is going to end this nonsense is to *stop* listening to music produced by RIAA member labels. Stop watching movies produced by MPAA member studios. No more commercial radio or television. Use the money you spend on cds and movie tickets to attend live performances of independant artists in local venues, and buy a t-shirt or a cd from them while you are at it.

They've turned art in to a commodity, like soap or toilet paper. It's time we tuned them out.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[shark72]

"Just like any form of civil disobediance. Like not getting up from a bus seat even though the law says you should."

Although you later disclaimed that you are not equating the two, at some point you should take the time to talk to somebody who was involved in the civil rights clashes of the 1960s, or some other form of real civil disobedience. Explain to them that you believe that teens sitting on their ass in their basement P2Ping Gnarls Barkley is "just like any form of civil disobedience." Then watch their reaction.

Remember, kids: music piracy is civil disobedience you can dance to and put on your iPod!

"I was just wondering how much of the reported 'pirated' is older then a certian period. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the amounts by release date of the products."

I can't help you there, but you can go to bigchampagne.com and look at the top pirated music this week. Note that it's almost identical to the top ten purchased tracks as listed on the iTMS.

"None of this matters, because the market force regarding copyright is building. People in grade school today will expect music to be distributed digitally and cheaply."

It already is. Check out emusic, Magnatunes and the iTMS. The digital market is still growing exponentially, and prices are all over the board. Many people are even giving their music away for free. This has nothing to do with copyright. Digital distribution != piracy, and if you decide to become a musician, you can sell your tracks for a buck or a quarter or even give it away for free if you like. But if you do opt to try to make a living making music, and you find that giving your stuff away for free just doesn't make it worth all the hours you've put into it, God help you if people call you "greedy" and opt to pirate your stuff, using their perception of your greed as their moral impetus.

"The music corporation is nothing more then a middleman who isn't needed anymore."

Good -- then perhaps you can help me out. I'm reasonably cute; I have a good voice, I can play the guitar and I have some sheets of paper with lyrics on them. Here is what I would like to do:

1. Get into a studio. I mean a real studio; recording this stuff at home sounds like crap. I'm a musician, not a producer or an engineer.
2. Get my stuff produced, mixed, engineered and mastered. I'll need some backup musicians, as well.
3. Get it out to radio stations all over the country, and get it played.
4. Get me on TV (MTV, etc.) so that people actually know about me.
5. Get some work done on my look. I'll need wardrobe, photos, a stylist, the works.
6. Get me booked into clubs and venues.

Now, I could try for a recording contract; they'll get me a manager, an agent, and cover the costs for the production, distribution and marketing of my music. My record might not break even, which means that I may not see much, but at least I'll have a chance.

However, you point out that all these people aren't needed any more. Can you help me become a success? Note that I couldn't pay you; then you'd be in the music industry yourself and just as bad as these people that you decry. What do you say -- want to team up to make me a star, or is your "they aren't needed any more" just all talk, no action?

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you send them a message that the crap they're pulling won't be tolerated by consumers

angry mob accosting them on the way to work and in front of their offices would be a good start.

Unfortunately the american public does not have the balls to do it. Americans are such PUSSIES, makes the french look downright brave.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Qzukk]

it still shouldn't be a problem, then, right?

Wow, it's the "if you have nothing to hide" argument all over again!

I can think of several ways it can become a problem, starting with RIAA whining (read: paying for congresscritters' re-election) to Congress.

Then, Congress can pass laws requiring applications to not play back files that lack DRM at all. But that won't be a problem, right? You didn't really need those God Ate my Homework or Minibosses mp3s you downloaded from their websites, or the Creedence Clearwater Revival mp3 collection you bought legally from emusic.com, or the Jim's Big Ego music you bought from slabster.

Or maybe, Congress can pass a law requiring that all audio files capable of transmission over the internet require that they be cleared and signed by an appropriate institution in order to prove that they aren't actually recordings of the Beatles or Metallica. Of course, someone will have to be in charge of this, and naturally the RIAA already has plenty of experience in handling money for artists, their Soundexchange company is perfect for the job. About $5 per minute for a lackey to listen to your podcast to make sure you aren't infringing any copyrights sound about right?

Should I keep going? Or is it clear now that if the RIAA runs to Congress (or hell, runs for Congress, after all, Sonny Bono did a good enough job) that even if you're not warezing or buying RIAA products, it can be a problem.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Assume Much? Hopefully people will figure out that you are the original poster and mod that post down. I cannot even fathom why you think such silly tricks are acceptable.

Huh? WTF are you talking about? And why would people mod my "original post" down because of what I just wrote?

Anyways, you assume that I am trying to somehow promote the downloading of music that I do not own. I am not nor has anything I said up to this point implied that. While I admit that I used to download music I did not own, that was a long time ago. I have long since deleted that music or actually purchased the cd and kept the file since I now own it.

Do you actually want to respond to something I said? The above doesn't appear to be remotely relevent either to my comment nor the one I replied to. I never said you engaged in piracy, I said the majority of those targetted by the RIAA in lawsuits have engaged in piracy, and that you were wrong in implying otherwise.

And the word is "anyway".

I would like to point out that not all downloading is illegal though. If you own the music and there is DRM preventing you from making a legal backup of it then it is not illegal to download the music.

That's not true. I wish it were true, but it isn't.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[soft_guy]

I don't know about that. When Napster first came out, the thing I liked about it was that I could search for things without really knowing the name of the artist or the name of the song. If I just new the lyrics from the main hook or something I could probably find it. Then armed with the name of the artist, I could probably find the record on Amazon or CD Now.

I'm almost embarrassed to say it*, but I didn't know exactly who Nick Drake was at that time (circa 1998) and I was able to find the song I was looking for, find his music, and then buy CDs from Amazon and eventually iTMS.

*(Embarrassed that my musical education hadn't included him up to that point in my life.)

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[shark72]

"There's a band my daughter used to listen to called "Playground Heroes". Their CDs said "please be kind, burn a copy for a friend.""

Cool. Others do that as well... Magnatune encourages purchasers to give three copies to their friends. I'm sure there are many, many other bands -- and maybe more than a few indie labels -- that encourage similar small-scale copying as a form of publicity.

"It's good business. If I get a burned copy of your first CD and like it, I'm very, very likely to buy a copy of your second album."

That is for the rightsholder to decide. If somebody doesn't want you pirating their stuff, then don't. Who knows... maybe it's their loss, but it's their call. There's tons of music out there that you can freely copy without running afoul of anybody's rights.

"If I never hear it at all there's no way in hell I'll be buying it."

Makes you wonder how people discovered and previewed music before widescale piracy became feasible via P2P and high-bandwidth connections, huh?

I personally favor the radio (XM, to be precise), the iTMS preview feature, and pandora.com. It allows me to hear before I buy. As a result, I rarely make purchases I regret, and I don't violate others' rights.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[daveschroeder]

Um, the AC you are replying to is definitely not me, for the record. In fact, it might be this person, exactly as that person signed the post.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Saeger]

What I don't understand is why people feel they have this sense of entitlement to copyrighted commercial content, just because it can be easily copied.

You answered your own question in that sentence.

If something is not (artificially) scarce, then it's only natural for the grabbing hands to grab all they can, because it doesn't "feel" wrong to dip in and share the abundance. Consideration of initial/future production costs (which isn't so abundant) of something with zero reproduction costs only factors in when the relationship between consumer and producer gets more personal.

Here's an unworkable idea:
A red/yellow/green "health meter" associated with each work which gets updated to show how much more money is needed to break even on initial costs, and another meter to show how much more profit is needed to satisfy the producers greed.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[shark72]

"I don't know about that."

BigChampagne tracks music pirated on the various P2P networks. Their home page has a list of the top tracks pirated this week. It matches up pretty closely with the top tracks downloaded via the iTMS.

Your experience is probably different because, like most Slashdotters, you're smarter than average and your musical tastes are more refined. But the bulk of pirates are just pulling down the stuff that's hot on the radio and in the clubs now.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

No one's arguing that the RIAA's model of figuring losses is valid, but it's equally (and massively) disingenuous, not to mention utterly ridiculous, to claim that nothing has been lost at all.

I just lost some of my own creative output.
If only I hadn't flushed the toilet, that output wouldn't have been lost.

Should I sue the sewer authority, or the makers of commodes?
The loss is identical.
Where's my financial compensation?

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[daveschroeder]

Hello,

As I said, I had no idea how that actually applied in this context. But are you telling me that there are no circumstances where there is legal responsibility - even responsibility that could be transferred to an estate after death - on the part of a person that owns or is otherwise legally responsible for a property, service, or item? I understand that you're saying this is (or may not be) the case with an internet connection. Since I am not involved in this area day-to-day, would you mind telling me if it is in fact the case that this has been firmly established with case law that there is NO responsibility on the part of the person who pays the bill in the context of an internet connection? If it has been, is the RIAA continuing legal action in these cases in hopes of a settlement? Also, isn't it generally accepted that many of these people (or members of their family) have indeed committed the violation(s) that the RIAA alleges? Being in the central IT organization at a major university, I can say that we routinely get abuse requests from the RIAA and MPAA for sharing of copyrighted materials, and in nearly all of those incidents, it's quite easy to quickly and easily determine the infringing machines. Sometimes they're "owned" (much more common on networks where machines are running all manner of things like web applications, are exploitable via various channels, and are behind no firewalls), but many other times, some identifiable person (e.g., a resident of the student housing) is actually deliberately sharing that content, and admits it. Do they have no culpability?

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[MooUK]

"How do you send them a message that the crap they're pulling won't be tolerated by consumers when they in turn are going to spin that message as justification for the very behaviour you boycotted them for?"

Email would seem a good first choice.

No, I'm being serious. Every time you don't buy RIAA-backed music, or every time you buy non-RIAA music, email them telling them why. If they don't get the point fast, something is seriously wrong with them.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Columcille]

Very, very good post.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, never mind all that, daveschroeder. This has nothing to do with this thread, but would you just listen to me for a little bit? See, I went to the local Yoshinoya today. Right. Yoshinoya. And the damn place was packed so full of people, I couldn't even find a seat. So I looked around a bit, and I found a sign that said "150 yen off". What the hell is wrong with you people? Are you idiots or something? Any other day you wouldn't even think of going to Yoshinoya, but if it's 150 yen off, you all flock in here? It's just 150 fucking yen! 150 yen! And you're brining the kids too. Look at that, a family of four going to Yoshinoya. Con-fucking-gratulations. And now the guy's going, "All right! Daddy's going to order the extra-large!" Shit, I can't watch any more of this.

Yoshinoya should be fucking brutal. Two guys sit facing each other across a U-shaped table, and you never quite know if they'll suddenly just start a fight right there. It's stab-or-be-stabbed, and that's what so damn great about the place. Women and kids should stay the fuck away.

Well, I finally found a seat, but then the guy next to me goes, "I'll have an large bowl with extra gravy!". So now I'm pissed off again. Who the fuck orders extra gravy these days? Why are you looking so goddamn proud when you say that? I was gonna ask you, are you really going to fucking eat all that gravy? I wanted to fucking interrogate you. For about a fucking hour. You know what? I think you just wanted to say "extra gravy".

Now, take it from the Yoshinoya veteran. The latest thing among the Yoshinoya pros is this: Extra green onions. That's the ticket. A large bowl with extra onions, and egg. This is what someone who knows his shit orders. They put in more onions, and less meat. A large bowl with the raw egg, that's really fucking awesome. Now, you should know, if you keep ordering this, there's a risk employees might write you up. This really is a double-edged sword. I really can't recommend this for amateurs.

And you, daveschroeder, well, you should really just stick to today's special.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

What is preventing the majority from acting?

Probably the same Christian moralistic "shame" that keeps our country from saving its women from a horribly painful death from cervical cancer, because HPV vaccines might cause sex.

Until the majority quits being afraid of what the guy with a funny hat thinks of them, they cannot act.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Doctor_Jest]

When the CREATORS of copyrighted works get compensated by these suits, we can speak logically on the subject of copyright. If you remove copyright, copyright law, and the *AA out of it... you have nothing to talk about. (Anywhere you see "you" it is the COLLECTIVE "you" who endorse or otherwise buy into the fallacious argument that somehow copyright infringement is "theft" and some faceless company has lost one red cent because the work exists outside of the secretive confines of their IP fortresses...) So don't get your knickers in a twist, because this is going to get ugly.... still with me? Read on....

HOLDERS of Copyright are just leeches on the creative works. They are sponges or parasites who GLOB onto the creative force and derive benefit from that creative force, often to the detriment of the force (Black blues men... anyone?)

The claim was against a deceased party. If they wish to continue going after the ESTATE of the deceased party, that's their gamble. But in a PR war where the *AA looks like a bunch of jackals (yes, they in fact are), going after a dead guy's assets with trumped up damages is just as bad as asking Mrs. Lincoln "Other than that, how did you like the play?"

If society wishes to have copyright for the CONSTITUTIONALLY PROVIDED "limited time".. I have no problem with it. Infinite renewals by things that do not die (corporations) and holding companies who make their living off the WORK of others is NOT "a limited time."

Until this is fixed, the RIAA will always be in the wrong... even if they have "proof". Copyright has been bastardized by corporate greed. It is broken... possibly beyond repair.... simply put the RIAA/MPAA and other complicit corporations have broken it off in the collective butt of the United States. It's time we beat them to death with the other end of the stick.

And no, logical reasoning, an appeal to human compassion, or anything similar will change our minds. The *AA's have raised the stakes. It's time they learned the consequences.

Sound harsh? So what. They asked for this. They started it. We will finish it.

Boycotts, new business models, etc. WON'T FIX IT. They just give fuel to the paranoia and more draconian measures come as a result. No, it's time to scrap it all. If corporations die off because of it, who cares. Multinational corporations are doing nothing but loading their coffers anyway. They can weather a little copyright reform.

Trouble is, THEY like the system. THEY want it to stay the same. And POLITICIANS are stupid enough to go along with them, even though corporations don't vote. Why? Because we have become lazy. We have given up our power and let the corporations tell us how and what we can do. We need to get that back. We need to remind the politicians WHO votes. WE DO. And if they want to stay in OUR HOUSE, they will represent US.. not the faceless moneychangers who give them free lunches and seminars on how evil computers are.

I'm tired of the logical fallacies that people bring forth to "balance" the debate. This debate hasn't been balanced since the FIRST time Congress extended copyright. It has been a steady downhill slide, from the DMCA, to the "analog hole" GARBAGE, to Orrin "hope you rot" Hatch wishing he could VANDALIZE computers of suspected infringers like some idiotic Mormon vigilante. I'm sorry. The logic went out the window with that one. The DMCA is just a cherry on top of a shit sundae that we are being forced to eat so some asshole in a high-rise can rape artists of their works and live off the profits until hell freezes over.

Peddle your argument elsewhere. The gloves are off. I'm done being nice to these people. And if my lack of purchases is seen as piracy.. who cares? Kiss my rosy red ass. Think they won't tighten the screws when we stop buying their crap? DREAM ON.

Your second footnote isn't even worth speaking about.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[MurphyZero]

The US was founded on social disobedience. Laws change when enough support for overturning (or ignoring) the laws occurs. Sometimes that change is in the form of action instead of speech. Downloading music has taken its place alongside speeding. Neither is presently legal, but it continues until an invidividual is caught **I know that there's plenty of legal downloads too--sometimes people actually drive the speed limit. Of course, money is also very effective at changing laws, at which the RIAA has been busy. How this one plays out I have no idea.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Columcille]

Laws that address the behavior of those interacting with products influenced by the RIAA. If you have nothing to do with those products the laws will have nothing to do with you.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[LordLucless]

It is called social disabdience.

No it's not. It's not even called civil disobedience. An example of civil disobedience would be setting up a CD-burning booth outside the RIAA corporate offices. The whole point of civil disobedience is to get yourself persecuted for disobeying a law you consider unjust. If a lot of other people consider that law unjust, and the authorities are seen to be being heavy-handed, then you'll probably get a whole lot of support, and build up public resentment against the law in question.

Sitting at home downloading MP3s from your home computer doesn't cut it though; that's an act purely in your own personal interest, not a noble political statement.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[x2A]

"everybody's downloading Pirates of the Caribbean II"

oo is that out now? On DVD (or a screener), I hate those cinema cam jobs... hmm what was my shortcut key for shareaza again? :-p

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

...In any circumstance or scenario, is it ever acceptable ... blah blah ... Don't consume that product, at all. Be a part of the solution to create and encourage ... more blah blah

Ok. Starting tomorrow. Maybe.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[quanticle]

If you disagree with the "business model" or the legal issues surrounding it, don't be a part of it. And that includes not obtaining the content in question.

As others have pointed out, the RIAA automatically blames "piracy" for declining revenue. They then use this justification with Congress to get ever more restrictions on fair use. Its all well and good for you to say, "Don't be a part of it", but it is equally ineffective to just stand by and wait for completely new content to appear. Like it or not, a lot of intellectual property is in the form of derived works. If consumers stand by and let the RIAA destroy fair use, then much of the feedstock for the new content that you are looking for will become inaccessible. At that point you are stuck between bowing to the RIAA's wishes or settling for the small amount content that is so absolutely new that the RIAA can't make a claim to it.

Restrictions on fair use also make it more difficult for those striving to create absolutely new content. If I happen to shoot an outdoor scene, and copyrighted music can be heard in the background, can the RIAA sue me? If I mention a song in a story, does the RIAA have rights? Its unfair to make content creators strip out or get rights for references to existing work. But with increasing restrictions on fair use, that's exactly the sort regime we are approaching.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[motank]

whatev dude. they should calculate how much business they've lost because of people that are fed up with their business tactics. but wait, they would then start suing people for no buying cds and try to pass laws mandating people buy one cd a week.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

The US was founded on social disobedience.

You make unnecessary freeloading sound so... honourable!

But seriously, that's what you're doing. Freeloading.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

> [2] No one's arguing that the RIAA's model of figuring losses is valid, but it's equally (and massively) disingenuous, not to mention utterly ridiculous, to claim that nothing has been lost at all.

There is no mechanism to find out what has been lost or gained by RIAA members as a result of infringing downloads.

This all comes down to one thing: Does an infringing download constitute a lost sale or a gained sale?

Each person has their own personal motivation for downloading, and there is absolutely know way of knowing what their motive is, or what the future result of their download might be.

To make a fair and accurate accounting, we must evaluate the motivation of each individual infringing downloader, to see if it represents (1) a lost sale, (2) a gained sale, or (3) no sales impact.

Unfortunately, the answer to this is absolutely unknowable.

Asking them is useless because their activity is perceived as "illegal", so their answers would be completely unreliable.

You made the speculation that infringing downloads represent a net loss for RIAA members. You don't have a shred of proof for your speculation. The reason I know this is because it is absolutely impossible for anyone to have obtained such "proof".

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[TheMeuge]

Something tells me that what you're suggesting is the quickest way to get sued.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[squiggleslash]

Let's knock this off now.

Nobody is exercising "civil disobedience" so far as I've seen when it comes to P2P networking. CD involves more than simply breaking the law, it means doing so openly, and in the face of those who oppress you.

Now, if this is what you, personally, are doing, then bully for you. I admire your spirit even if I don't admire your cause. But I doubt this is the case. What I suspect is that you, like everyone else who engages in this, does what they can to avoid being caught, and if, perchance, you are caught, you'll pay your fine like everyone else. Or maybe you won't - but only on the grounds that you think there's some loophole, or some other way in which you're "not guilty".

When the founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, they knew their very putting of pen to paper meant a death sentence. And every damned one of them would have gladly gone to the gallows for it. When Rosa Parks sat at the front of the bus, she knew she faced arrest and imprisonment. The Founding Fathers didn't "hope they'd get off", they hoped their cause would be vindicated by whatever means came about.

If you're questioning the evidence the RIAA has against you, rather than providing it and saying "Damn the settlements, I want a trial, and I'll go to jail for contempt before I pay a fine", then, yes, you are engaging in civil disobedience.

If that sounds to you like an absurdity you'd never be prepared to go through, then you might want to question whether you really are engaging in civil disobedience, or whether you're just, plain, freeloading.

If you're prepared to go to jail, then I admire your spirit, but not your cause. Hell, even if I agreed with you, I'd think you were taking things a little too far.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[MooUK]

For what? As I recall, at least in the US, spam is specifically commercial, no?

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Punk, leave the trolling to the experts.

Besides, we're not pussies, we're the most successful result of the banks and governments conspiring to make us slaves, and give us enough "gifts" as slaves that we don't realize it, and simply spend hours working or lusting after what we don't have and shouldn't need, dependent on drugs for diseases brought about by dangerous food packaging practices, subsidies, big business, and malnutrition, such as the reason that all our processed foods cost more to produce than natural foods, but the non-processed foods cost more and are usually farthest away from the store than are the processed foods - it's why the corn syrupy foods and sugar-filled foods and processed crap are closer to the store. And yet every idiot and his mother in this country wonder why there's a "sudden" obesity problem in our USA. Sheesh. I'm 27 years old born and raised in our crappy country and I never once got fat.(Bin Laden, you dick, why did you bother asking slaves of American Banks for their cooperation? If you really believed half of the shit you spouted, you'd have blown up most of America's big business a long time ago, and if you had, you'd still have been hailed as a terrorist by the richest top 5%, but to everyone else you would've been a fuckin' ecoterrorist hero and you would've been done a long time ago... a long time ago, you dumb shit. Fuckin' newbie-ass wanabe ji-had-raising violent extremist - Allah, God, Gaia ... all of 'em have a big-ass fly-swatter with your name on it, you murdering low-life.)

Note the sudden change of topics and the introduction of completely unrelated, unverified, but ultimately true information in an infuriating way, most especially regarding the fact that this topic deals with how the shitty-ass RIAA is trying to save face much like the evil Walmart does.

THAT, you silly fop (Yes, I'm still trolling-I've got my groove on now), is how you troll.

"I just think things should work properly." - Dyson.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, kids: music piracy is civil disobedience you can dance to and put on your iPod!
A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having!

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

damn! that should be on ask.com or something. "trolling for beginners." how-to make most idiotic statement barely true, but pissy enough to get new comments by others?

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

In any circumstance or scenario, is it ever acceptable for an owner of a work, or their duly specified agent, to protect that ownership, even when the work may be freely copied in an unlimited fashion, and to use the legal frameworks provided with the RIAA BRIBE , to enforce or demand recompense for such ownership?

There, fixed it for you.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[kimvette]

On what basis?

Are people REQUIRED to purchase RIAA affiliated music?

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[gnarlin]

What I don't understand is why people feel they have this sense of entitlement to copyrighted commercial content, just because it can be easily copied

I can enlighten you on that point.

Copyright was first established in the United States with the Copyright Act of 1790, which allowed for a term of 28 years. The Constitution explicitly described copyright as a statutory right created for public benefit: "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" (Article 1, Section 8).

Does copyright today work for the public benefit?
Fundamentally, copyright is an agreement between the public (by their representives) and the owners of culture, so that those who make culture can feed themselves and their family, buy a house etc. while the public can enjoy the fruits of their labor. Copyright is then supposed to expire into the public domain after the author has made use of his rights that encourage him or her to make more.

The owners of culture have keept extending copyright again and again, added more restrictions on the public with who they supposedly made this agreement with without consulting them in regard to their extensions and additions.
Now copyright lasts from 50 to 70 years (different from country to country) after the death of the original author. Tell me this. How can the author be enticed to make more works for the public good if he or she is dead? Could you please anwser me that?

At some point the non-referred public just took their hat and left because they weren't worth consideration anymore it seemed. As far as the internet using public is concerned, the original agreement between them and the supposed owners of culture has been broken though negligence and being shameless pricks (as you so eloquently put it). Copyright was also originally made to restrict publishers because publishing (i.e. getting your work out to the public) was very expensive. Now, that it has become so very inexpensive one would think that copyright would last a shorter time, not longer.

You keep saying the the public must stop doing this because they are violating the copyright act. But those laws were NOT written with the public consent (and don't try to say that the public agreed because they got passed, that is like saying that deciding to hurt somone without that person being there to disaprove is the same as having their agreement to do it). For the owners of culture it is nothing short of having your cake and eating it too. They make the laws and the public is supposed to obey them without question. The peoples representatives aren't anymore.

Regarding digital restrictions management.
You say that it is a necessary. Your justification for it seems to be that without it it would be too easy for the public to copy whatever part of the culture they liked to give to their friends or edit or make use of in some way. You further explain that this must not be so because they would be violating copyrights. It is nothing short of treating people as criminals before they commit the crime. Inocent until proven guilty indeed!

Being able to easily copy and mix material is increadably useful to everyone. However the copyright cartel have nibbed it in the bud by passing the DMCA. Now, anyone copying material that is "proctected" with digital restrictions management is now a criminal. Is that in the public good or for the good of a few rich people and corporations?

Simply but, the copyright agreement simply isn't nearly as useful to the public as it once was. If the supposed owners of culture wish to keep the current system somewhat intact and they want the public to edhere to the original agreement then they must use their representatives in the House to shorten copyright considerably (to say the original 28 years retroactively), eliminat

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[bxbaser]

This is about the riaa sueing a deadman.
Not about US copyright law.

did you even read the article in your haste to post ?

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[RoyBelmont]

nothing more than a "failed business model"
Except in terms of severity and urgency the same argument is taking place with cluster bombs and rockets in Lebanon right now.
Ownership that begins at a certain entirely arbitrary point and becomes sacred and binding immediately and for all time after.
Music as it's now purveyed rests on an unacknowledged and virtually invisible foundation that includes but isn't limited to what's called the "public domain".
The p.d. functioning a lot like the "uninhabited" lands various privileged "discoverers" planted their flags on and claimed for "God and Country" or whatever.
What it's really about is the sanctity of contract law.
We see with the grotesquely absurd writhings of the insurance companies in the Katrina aftermath that contract law is a refuge for something that does not embody the highest expressions of human nobility.
Music often does.
Music is played at weddings, at funerals, at coronations and inaugurations, people make love to music, many of us were conceived to music.
Music is integral to the human experience. It's been redefined, and trivialized, as "entertainment", and entertainment itself has been reduced to an idle thing, because it has no application to the industrial model except as an industry for the provision of entertainment.
These are not proven aspects of the social employment of music, merely givens, and mostly the result of skewing by non-producing "owners".
Sony doesn't make music, they sell it - they pimp it.
The RIAA is more like a giant tick preserving its connection to the blood of the people than it is anything like the agent for some troubador starving at the gates of the castle, playing his heart out on the ten-string mandolin.
The failure isn't in the business model, it's in the organism, the thing these businesses become when the grafted source of their power swells them past human proportion.
The machine doesn't care, perforce the agencies of the machine don't care.
Music is central to the expression of human caring.
That's where the conflict is.
Reducing and repositioning it to a conflict over money is ultimately a misdirection, and deceitful.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[AlHunt]

>Every time you don't buy RIAA-backed music, or every time you buy non-RIAA music, email them >telling them why. If they don't get the point fast, something is seriously wrong with them

Good luck finding an e-mail address. I've looked. Furthermore, it'd just end up in the bit bucket anyway.

Al

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Your best bet would be to read MGM v. Grokster where the standards for secondary liability for someone else's copyright infringement are laid out.

Being a parent, or being the person who paid for the household's internet access account, would not satisfy those standards.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

"So what? Just because someone dies doesn't automatically invalidate a potentially valid legal claim."

Tell that to the people Ken Lay Screwed... I'm sure they would be relieved to hear it.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

"In any circumstance or scenario, is it ever acceptable for an owner of a work,"

That's as far as I got. I assume the rest of your comment hinges on the same supposition.

Allow me to provide an alternative viewpoint. Work is something you DO not something that can be owned.
Once you have performed work you have transformed the universe in some way. If that work is entirely intangible
you now have a choice. Either choose to share that work freely with the world or shut up. It's that simple.

Sharing the work is the act of living. If you hide your creation you are not participating in reality.
People who cling to the antiquated 20th century notion of "intellectual property" are fearful, they fear death,
they fear obscurity, they are afraid deep down that they are stupid and will never have another good idea
in their lives. A confident creator shares without a second thought because he knows these things.

1) His creations are not truly his own.
2) Life is short and the opportunity to give is a fleeting gift.
3) With some luck he will always be growing wiser and able to acheive better things tomorrow than today.
4) Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
5) That to work on something for the love of it is the greatest life a person can aspire to live.
6) The supposition that all work must be "paid" for is false.

People who believe in and advocate intellectual property are not creators. Anybody who is truly creative and original understands
exactly what I am saying.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[TheMeuge]

They don't need any proof to sue you. You'll have to spend a bit before they'll drop the case... even if they have no evidence whatsoever.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[mysticgoat]

I don't object to copyright law in its original sense.

I do object to the legalized abuse of copyright law that was implemented by the US Congress over the last century, under intensive lobbying by recording businesses, the Disney Studios, and other corporations, and culminating in the DMCA and the current mess. Copyright law no longer serves its original purpose of encouraging artists to be creative; it has devolved into a tool for assuring a steady revenue flow for certain corporations, many of whom have never produced any tangible goods.

The unlicensed copying that is going on these days is symptomatic of this congressional failure to protect the intent of the original copyright law. The law has gone bad; it needs to be fixed by Congress or by the courts. It no longer serves its intended purpose and in fact it gets in the way of the creative and evolutionary growth of today's societies and cultures as they attempt to capitalize on the maturing internet and related technologies. We are seeing one segment of industry attempting to maximize its wealth through methods that limit the greater potential wealth of the entire society that is its host. This is corporate parasytism.

One way of fixing the whole mess would be a simple change in copyright law: make it that copyright can only be established by the flesh and blood artist(s) who create the artwork, and that the copyright can then be transferred only to other flesh and blood individuals. Prohibit any corporation or institution from owning any copyright.

We have other laws that work this way. For instance, even though a corporation is a legal individual, a corporation cannot get a driver's license; it has to hire drivers. A corporation cannot become a Certified Nursing Assistant; hospitals have to hire CNAs. A corporation cannot earn a Ph.D., or an M.D., or pass the bar and practice law. So there is already a strong basis in law for recognizing that some activities are uniquely human. So why not agitate to have the rights, responsibilities, and privileges of human creativity be limited in the same way to only flesh and blood human beings?

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[cpt kangarooski]

I'm not saying my life wouldn't be enriched by it ... Someone's decision to make their music only available to those who are willing to pay for it doesn't hurt me in the slightest.

These statements don't really jibe.

I think that we can all agree that our lives would be greatly enriched if all creative works were in the public domain: those works would be available for us to simply use and enjoy as they are; for us to make and distribute copies of; to publicly perform or display, and; to serve as the bases for derivative works. Without that being the case, we are harmed. The only way that that harm can be tolerable is if it is incurred in the service of a benefit even greater to ourselves than we'd have otherwise. And that's the point of copyright: by accepting a limited, temporary harm now (i.e. copyright), we can encourage the creation of more original works, and then drop those original works into the public domain rapidly, maximizing our net benefit. Grant too much copyright, and we don't maximize our net benefit. Grant more than that and we're worse off with copyright than we were without. It's a lot like other government-granted monopolies, e.g. on utilities such as electricity, water, or cable tv.

The thing is, benefits to the recipients of the monopolies, for their own sake, are wholly inappropriate. No one says that Comcast ought to have a monopoly on cable tv in a town because they're really nice people. No, the reason is that if they are allowed to charge rates higher than where the market would have them, they'll be willing to accept the burden of upkeep and improvements on the local cable tv infrastructure. Copyright is quite similar. Authors don't deserve copyright. They get copyright essentially in order to bribe them to create works which we will then place into the public domain. And we must limit copyright sharply so that we wring the most works out of the authors at the least cost to ourselves.

To decide to take advantage of someone else's work without paying on their terms strikes me as very unfair, especially if there's nothing they've done that makes me need that work.

And I disagree. First, it's the fruit of their labors that is at issue. No one is proposing that authors be forced to labor at creative pursuits. Authors will always have the choice of whether or not to create, based upon whether they feel that it's in their own interest to do so, where the factors they consider are money, the love of art, reputation, etc. Copyright is a way to add more potential money, and thus encourage artists further.

But secondly, and more importantly, whether authors should have rights to control what other people can do with creative works is a choice left to the other people who will bear the brunt of that choice; not to the author, who will nearly always seek more control over others.

Plus, it's perfectly ordinary to take advantage of what other people do without paying them on their own terms. Plenty of authors with public domain works would love for you to pay them. But you don't have to. If your neighbor renovates their house, and plants a beautiful garden, and gives a big cash gift to the neighborhood school for improvements, that'll all raise the value of your house tremendously. And you needn't pay them a penny for it. And it's fair.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[SpiritGod21]

As someone who also works in central IT at a major university, I not only know about the *AA requesting info, but what our response is. It's the latter that's really important.

The RIAA can file a request to the university, but the university 1) doesn't have to turn over that information until subpoened, and 2) isn't responsible for what is done on private computers[1]. This means that if a student in the dorm is trafficking kiddie porn, it's not the university that is arrested when it's tracked down. If a student is sharing a gig of Metallica, it's not the university that is liable and can be sued. Individuals are responsible for their actions. However, there is a difference in these two cases. In the first, it is a criminal case, and if the university or certain university officials were aware that child pornography traffic was being transmitted yet did nothing, then those officials could be held liable for aiding and abetting. In the case of music or movie sharing, though, it is a civil case, and the university can not therefore be held accountable. You can't have an accomplice when no crime is committed.

They might want to sue the university, but their lawyers would tell them not to waste their time.

[1]Lab computers, on the other hand, are an entirely different story. Also, as far as our university goes, we have enacted bandwidth limits to the residence halls, because it's not really fair that user A, who just wants to check their GMail, gets a ridiculously slow connection because user B has a few gb of IRC traffic. Also, they get internet for free (well, it's incorporated in dorm costs, at any rate), so I can understand enacting such a limit. However, our dorm students also have the option of getting cable internet (and TV) provided by a local cable company if they are unsatisfied with the university's provision.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

"Like it or not, a lot of intellectual property is in the form of derived works. "

WHOA dude... I, as a producer and self-titled electronica musician wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. While we may be running low on chord changes that sound good that have never been used before, that doesn't mean that my I - IV - V - I progression is a DERIVITAVE work. the last time i checked (seeing as how i have copywritten many albums of my own now) the only thing you can actually copywrite on a song is the melody line. there is "unintentional theft" where some guy in paraguay wrote a song that is similar to mine and had no prior knowledge, but they don't fine the crap out of him, they make him rescind his copyright and he either has to fight it, stating that his is unique enough to not be a copy, or rewrite it.

This applies to almost all forms of art. plagarism is not cool, and i absolutly do NOT create derivitave works.

I delved into copyright law for a time, and i know a bit about it, i know how to protect myself and my Intellectual Property. I also know that what the RIAA is talking about is not people making derivative works, but protecting the current and future assest of the copyright holder, namely themselves. be aware that the person who originally created the content, the actual IP material owns it forever, unless they specifically agree to release that right. so the only people benifitting from all of this hooplah(lars aside, that bag of crap) are the RECORD LABELS.

None of these litigations or lawsuits is helping me in my business ventures. So to hell with them.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Cadallin]

"shameless prick" status however, might be argument for nationalizing their assets, which in my opinion is the only effective answer to corporate graft and corruption.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Captain Jack Taylor]

According to their legal department, probably yes. I have never, and will never. I'll import my stuff and stay the HELL away from American mainstream music...hell, about 1 in a million songs these days are worth listening to anyway!

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[dwandy]

But if you so heartily disagree with the current model, don't steal[1] (or otherwise consume) their goods, or enable others to do so.

"Their goods" is our culture. And it is ours not theirs. They are granted temporary exclusive rights, but the "goods" belong to us, and those rights were bestowed to enrich our lives, not the publishers bank-accounts.
By your logic I can either be a social outcast (like using Linux doesn't already mark me!) or I can support this model.
It's not so simple as you suggest.

The system is broken, but it's broken in a way that makes a select group of people very rich. And they have no intention of letting anything impact their free ride.

If this has so utterly failed, why not develop the new model that replaces it?

Well, because there are some serious hurdles to implemeting a new system. Here's a few:

• The incumbents are rich. Very rich. A new model will cost money and/or buying politicians is expensive :)
• The current model is only a failure from the consumers point of view. From the publishers perspective they are getting very wealthy on this system and would like to keep it that way. They will buy the legistaltion they need. In general, the average person can't affect the laws that way they can.
• The current model allows the publishers a great deal of control. The vast majority of radio, MTV, etc play is RIAA material, which (despite the original fear) is a 3-5min commercial for the album, and is considered one of the best ways to advertise new music. Hence: payola.
• Any artist who doesn't want to play by RIAAs rules (even after a hit) is burried, and only by selling out can they get play, which translates to concert ticket sales which is what the artists really care about...
• People like the music they currently listen to. Any new model needs somehow include music from the old model. Any new model that doesn't include the RIAA won't have the current music in it, and will therefore be much harder to start. Any new model that does have the RIAA in it, will be corrupted to their will and profit ...again.

The basis for all of this is the copyright law. Remove the copyright law, and a new model will emerge quite quickly. Artists will (I suspect) self-publish on the internet. News-groups, google, youtube etc (maybe even /.!) will contain discussions and artists will be discovered. Music will be made. Artists will sell tickets. There will be more music.

The problem is that you've bought into the idea that their monopoly on our culture is required, and that there needs to be some kind of controlling interest. There already is a controlling interest: Us. It's our culture. Humans have had art and culture thousands of years despite the absence of monopoly controls like the RIAA.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's about content owners of property that is intangible in a certain sense being able to ensure that it's paid for."

This is a flawed argument... The content OWNERS are not the ones suing here. The RIAA only has rights through a series of contractual hand-me-ups that effectively steal the content from the real owners - the artists. These hand-me-ups are in turn a perk of previous pay-offs to congresscritters to get special exemptions to contract laws. The result is that the content owners have very little or no control over their own creative product.

Past that, I agree with you. The business model is broken, it should be boycotted into oblivion. The model was created back when the technological barrier to entry said an artist had no choice but to get a record company behind them. The real money always was, and still is, in live performance. Without a record contract you were unknown, and very limited in venues. But starting in the eighties the market has seen the cost of recording drop to where independents, even hobbyists, can produce very good recordings at rates any band can afford. The record companies still controlled distribution though, or thought they did, but the internet changed that. Now record companies are functionally obsolete, and that's the whole situation in a nutshell. They are trying to twist the legal system and the laws to maintain a business model that is already dead.

With affordable recording facilities and worldwide distribution via the internet, a band can make a good living just playing regularly, and if they've got some management brains working for them they can do even better. That's why the Grateful Dead were one of the top moneymaking bands year after year despite very marginal "commercial" success; they toured constantly. But they did it by bucking the system and doing pretty much what the record companies are currently trying to prevent - by giving away recordings. Anyone was welcome to take a recorder into a Grateful Dead concert and record the whole thing, hell, if you got in first they'd even give you a line out of the board. And distributing those tapes brought them a full house every time they played. $Ka-CHING!$

I'd hazard a guess that some of the bands the RIAA supposedly "represent" would actually be thrilled to see a little piracy of their stuff if it meant a full house for every date on a tour.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[ben there...]

Now the only direct grievance I have with them is them illegimately trying to claim to represnet all musicians, lying through their teeth when claiming to care about said musicians (as is evidenced by their contracts), and the money they make off first stated claim (like a % of blank CD sales in some countries, etc)

You mean like the USA?

Under the AHRA, royalties collected by the Copyright Office on digital recording devices and digital recording media are divided into two separate funds, the Musical Works Fund and the Sound Recordings Fund. One third of the royalties goes to the Musical Works Fund, which splits its cut 50/50 between writers (distributed by ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) and music publishers (distributed by Harry Fox). These parties receive royalties according to the extent to which their recordings were distributed or broadcast.

The remaining two thirds of the royalties are placed in the Sound Recordings Fund. Four percent of these funds are taken off the top for nonfeatured musicians and vocalists (distributed by AFM and AFTRA), what remains is split 60/40 between two sets of "interested copyright parties." Interested copyright parties, a heretofore unknown category in copyright law, is defined by the act as featured artists(40%), and the owners of the right to reproduce sound recordings (60%). These parties receive royalties through the Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies according to the extent to which their recordings were distributed.

The inclusion of this last group, reproduction rights holders, is unprecedented in copyright law. ALmost thirty-nine percent of the royalties collected under the AHRA go not to songwriters and musicians, but to the record labels who own the right to copy and distribute their recordings. The justification for this cross subsidy is that the copying enabled by the digital technology is a loss of profits for the recording industry, and that they should be compensated for this loss.

(I didn't realize they collected royalties on blank media in the US until a recent Slashdot article got me researching it)

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[vegasmacguy]

I can help... 1. Market yourself in the local music scene. 2. Get local gigs and save that money towards studio time. 3. Studios can be rented for as little as $100/hr and you can even have them supply you with an Engineer 4. Get a website (myspace, etc...) and market your to your fan base 5. Get your audio masters and submit them to lulu or CD Baby 6. Submit your audio to radio stations, satellite stations and even cable TV networks for air play. I know I've oversimplified the process, but it can work. I have several friends who are doing this exact thing. One friend of mine started the band Serpent Underground. They are self produced have weekly radio play on XM, have had Cable spots on Playboy and are competing in MTV2's On The Rise contest for MTV Play. My point is, you can eliminate the middle man and you can bypass the RIAA. My take on the whole RIAA situation is that it is the equivalent of seeing a black lab crap on your lawn, subpoenaing the records of all the black lab owners in your neighborhood from the city, sending all the owners a settlement offer to pay $100 for your cleanup costs of all the poop on your lawn in the last year(when you can't prove how much you actually paid for the cleanup), If they don't remit payment then you sue for $100 for each incident even though you still can't prove you ever paid. The RIAA bases their initial lawsuits on IP addresses. Everybody on slashdot knows that is completely unreliable proof of who was actually using the computer that was sharing the song or file. Once they know who had that song according to the unreliable IP address, they go after the owner of the ISP account. They CANNOT PROVE that anybody ever DOWNLOADED that song and they CANNOT PROVE that the song you possessed was not legally yours or another file named the same and they CANNOT PROVE that the IP address was your computer or that the files were shared of any users' free will without infringing on your 14th amendment rights and the CANNOT PROVE that they've actually lost any money (i.e. damages). The problem is that most judges, attorneys and defendants involved do not understand the technology. So they give in and pay. It is extortion and it is borderline illegal. Only a class action suit will bring this to an end.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[vegasmacguy]

I can help...

1. Market yourself in the local music scene.
2. Get local gigs and save that money towards studio time.
3. Studios can be rented for as little as $100/hr and you can even have them supply you with an Engineer.
4. Get a website (myspace, etc...) and market your to your fan base.
5. Get your audio masters and submit them to lulu or CD Baby.
6. Submit your audio to radio stations, satellite stations and even cable TV networks for air play.

I know I've oversimplified the process, but it can work. I have several friends who are doing this exact thing. One friend of mine started the band Serpent Underground. They are self produced have weekly radio play on XM, have had Cable spots on Playboy and are competing in MTV2's On The Rise contest for MTV Play.

My point is, you can eliminate the middle man and you can bypass the RIAA.

My take on the whole RIAA situation is that it is the equivalent of seeing a black lab crap on your lawn, subpoenaing the records of all the black lab owners in your neighborhood from the city, sending all the owners a settlement offer to pay $100 for your cleanup costs of all the poop on your lawn in the last year(when you can't prove how much you actually paid for the cleanup), If they don't remit payment then you sue for $100 for each incident even though you still can't prove you ever paid.

The RIAA bases their initial lawsuits on IP addresses. Everybody on slashdot knows that is completely unreliable proof of who was actually using the computer that was sharing the song or file. Once they know who had that song according to the unreliable IP address, they go after the owner of the ISP account. They CANNOT PROVE that anybody ever DOWNLOADED that song and they CANNOT PROVE that the song you possessed was not legally yours or another file named the same and they CANNOT PROVE that the IP address was your computer or that the files were shared of any users' free will without infringing on your 14th amendment rights and the CANNOT PROVE that they've actually lost any money (i.e. damages).

The problem is that most judges, attorneys and defendants involved do not understand the technology. So they give in and pay. It is extortion and it is borderline illegal. Only a class action suit will bring this to an end.

(I appologize for the double post, That's what I get for not paying attention)

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[theredmenace]

Taking copyrighted materials without paying IS civil disobediance... but only if you don't enjoy them. That's why I have reels of Blink 182, Britney Spears, and various emo mixes gathering dust on the shelf.

Take THAT, establishment!

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Maxo-Texas]

4) It makes no difference how I vote*. I has not for at least 12 years. My district is 70/30 split.

*I still vote and it did make a difference in 1 vote (out of several hundred). Even then not really but we throught the incumbant out by 31 votes. I guess I was #31. Every other election goes down exactly as they planned. Electoral districts should be basically rectangular. You should not be able to do what they do with them.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops, I meant "infringe on the copyright of". Still, the point stands.

No, it doesn't stand, because of that absolutely critical difference you shoved into a footnote.

I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt, figuring that maybe you didn't realize there's a difference between holding copyright on an intangible work and owning a physical object. But you admit that you do know those are two separate things. So why are you using an argument based on physical ownership, and attempting to apply it to copyright, when you admit that's a different area of law? Expecting them to work the same way, on the legal or ethical level, isn't automatic. If you want me to believe that copyright is like ownership, you have to justify it - and I don't think you can, because you seem to be accepting it on faith. I prefer the reality: that copyright is completely unlike physical ownership. For instance, because copyright is a government-created market regulation that wouldn't even exist in a state of freedom.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[freedom_india]

Man if i had not used up all my mod points in the Slackware discussion, i would have modded you insightful.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Kaioshin]

How do you send them a message that the crap they're pulling won't be tolerated by consumers when they in turn are going to spin that message as justification for the very behaviour you boycotted them for?

1. Buy it
2. Demand a refund
3. ??? [get the refund]
4. Profit! [...more or less]

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Pofy]

>In any circumstance or scenario, is it ever acceptable for
>an owner of a work, or their duly specified agent, to protect
>that ownership, even when the work may be freely copied in an
>unlimited fashion, and to use the legal frameworks provided by
>the society in which it exists, to enforce or demand recompense
>for such ownership?

You are confusing ownership (of copies of a work) with holding/owning copyright (to the work), they are not the same thing. One does not imply the other. Works themselves are not owned, one hold copyright to them (or own the copyright to them if you prefer that verb).

I suspect you are refering to the copyright holder above and if it is acceptable for the copyright holder to protect its copyright. That is quite different from the owner of a copy of a work protects his ownership, that would be, for example me, protecting my ownership of the copy of a work, for example the CD I bought (or even copied in a non infringing way). How you would go about protecting those two different things is quite different, the laws ae different and how you should view it is different. Too often people mix them up though and try to use the measures, thinking and concept of protecting ownership of copies with ownership of copyright and end up misserably wrong (not saying you nessecarilly did that though).

>I trust, therefore, that your disdain for such a system also means you're not a
>part of activity that would leave you on the receiving end of a legal suit from
>the RIAA.

It was my impression that the only recieving end of those suits are RIAA themselves, they don't distribute it further to the ones they represent.

>Just because someone dies doesn't automatically invalidate a potentially valid
>legal claim.

The issue most have I would say is not that they do it, it is how they do it, which in part due to the way they US system works is close to, what some would say is extortion. That is, no matter what you do, you end up losing a lot of money (guilty or not) since the only way to prove that you are unguilty, or even if guilty to get a fair trial, would cost you more than the "settlement" they offer and threaten you to go to court otherwise (which should never be a possible threat to make). Of course, people tend to pick the "easy" examples when they want a victim for that method since if putting forward someone that just died or some old lady with no computer, it turns much more obvious and there is a far higher chance for emotional sympathy as well.

>Further, to those who would argue that all of the RIAA, industry, and/or legal
>activity on this front represent nothing more than a "failed business model",
>might I suggest something? If this has so utterly failed, why not develop the
>new model that replaces it?

I suppose you are also of the opinion that no one should ever be allowed to complain unless they have a (better) solution themselves? Or that you are not allowed to think anyone has done a bad job unless you can do it better yourself? And so on.... Or?

>But if you so heartily disagree with the current model, don't steal[1] (or
>otherwise consume) their goods, or enable others to do so.

See how you end up hopelessly wrong when making the error I described above! It doesn't matter that you try to cover up yourself by some footnote, you stil end up wrong.

>[1] Oops, I meant "infringe on the copyright of". Still, the point stands. Isn't
>it fairly straightforward? Either legitimately buy it, or don't, and be ready
>for the consequences

You ommit several other possible ways to aquire and turn the owner of copies of a work (or alternative ways were you get in possession but not nessecarilly turns owner of such copies) that are all perfectly legal but has nothing to do with buying or would even ever end up with your money going to the copyright holder. This includes making new copies.

>If you disagree with the "busin

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[OldManAndTheC]

Actually it's probably better to e-mail one of the RIAA member companies. The RIAA itself is likely to just toss out your e-mail, while a company that makes its money from selling music, as opposed to filing lawsuits, might actually read it.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Reality check: angry mob accosting them = a pityful half-a-dozen geeks being more of a nuisance than normal.

Response: send in a bunch of security guards to beat them down. Being geeks, the term should actually be "swat them aside with the palms of their hands".

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Opportunist]

The problem is that the industry refuses to see b) as a viable option. The idea that someone would choose NOT to buy their overpriced, overhyped crap does simply not fit into their view of the customer as the willing, milkable cow. So dropping sales MUST mean that people copy it.

Actually, people don't even download it anymore 'cause the stuff ain't worth the bandwidth, left alone the dollar.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

the trouble is that they can distinguish between A and B, but not B and illegal copying. So in fact you're right - there shouldn't be a problem. But the industry will claim that the explanation is anything BUT option B regardless of whether that is true or not.

I think part parent's point is that if their sales nosedived, and people were actually not stealing[infringing], they can blame piracy all they want -- and it won't matter, because they would have nobody to sue.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[hugetoon]

I'd like to argue about this sentence:
'If you disagree with the "business model" or the legal issues surrounding it, don't be a part of it'
which is essentially based on principle that could be formulated as:
"One should'n force artists to adopt any particular way to distribute their work"
Well, it seems sensible and fair.

Yet i have to disagree: while the personal liberty of the author to do what he wants with his work is something essintial to our society (as many other personal liberties we still have, but watch out ...), this liberty gets bounded by other('s) liberties.

Specifically, once the public is exposed to the artist's work (i consider being exposed as soon as i CAN buy it, especially if advertised), it is sensible and fair to limit by law what restrictions one can put on usage of such product.

Fair use is an illustration of this approach: once you publish something you are not allowed to disallow fair use by contract (now you can by DRM +DMCA threat, thats why DMCA is bad and should be abolished).

Thus i don't agree with, nor accept this argument that essentially sais "accept it or go away".

I don't have to accept everything that you do in an inveronment you share with me, i have the right to oppose to something i consider harmfull.

For instance i consider the current business model of entertiment distribution harmfull to my economic an cultural envirenment and thus i consider i have he rigth (and duty) to get it dismantled ASAP.

Beside that, i notice that economic interests of entertinment industries are opposed to mine, in a truly liberal world i should be able to fight them (actually i'm not that interesed in their modern content, but
some old goodies that got their copyright abherantly extended are still compelling).

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[squiggleslash]

These statements don't really jibe.

Well, I read your justification, and I'm still none the wiser as to why you believe those comments don't jibe. Something doesn't hurt me, though my life isn't enriched without it. This is a problem for you? You demand people enrich your life? Given the choice between the non-existance of things that enrich your life, and the existance of things that could enrich your life that you're not prepared to pay for, you are actually harmed in the latter case compared to the former? I see more of a "failure to jibe" with the following:

I think that we can all agree that our lives would be greatly enriched if all creative works were in the public domain: those works would be available for us to simply use and enjoy as they are; for us to make and distribute copies of; to publicly perform or display, and; to serve as the bases for derivative works. Without that being the case, we are harmed.

...and And I disagree. First, it's the fruit of their labors that is at issue. No one is proposing that authors be forced to labor at creative pursuits. Authors will always have the choice of whether or not to create, based upon whether they feel that it's in their own interest to do so, where the factors they consider are money, the love of art, reputation, etc.

So is someone being evil in refusing to enrich your life without monetary compensation or not?

I'm sorry, but enrichment is not a right, it's a luxury. It should be encouraged, not enforced. And undermining copyright by allowing people to make unlimited copies on peer to peer networks doesn't encourage. It destroys a valid mechanism for ensuring artists are compensated for the works they do and have some creative control over the final results.

You want to talk about how not having access to copyrighted works that can make or break your ability to make a living, and I'll agree with you that your life is actively harmed by the lack of them. Network effects ensure that. But your world does not start out with luxuries, it cannot be harmed through the lack of them, only improved by the existance of them. And you bear some responsibility for making those luxuries come into existance, whether you do that by creating them, or by funding their creation and treating artists with respect.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Brass Cannon]

On the surface your suggestion to not be a part of the failing business model sounds simple. Don't like it? Stop using it. But the reality of that is quite different.

That business model just happens to control more or less all of the music ever written. To abandon it simply to make a statement is just not practical.

I'm not saying that all music belongs to "the people". I'm a capitalist. But what your suggesting sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Everyone talks about Brittney Spears as an example of the end product of the music industry but that same industry also own the Beatles, Rolling Stones etc.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Lijemo]

One idea I heard was to boycott a specific slice of RIAA record labels but to continue buying for others. That way it would be clearer.

But in that case, no one would agree on which "slice" to boycott-- everyone would want to "boycott" the slice they don't listen to anyway.

Better to just buy through distribution chaneles who's models you approve of,f from independant artists, etc. Sure, they'll think it's just piracy at first but 1) They'll have a hard time finding anyone to sue 2)if the independant chanels start gaining market share, it will demonstrate that their model actually works

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[garwain]

This really pisses me off. In Canada, we pay a levy on blank media regardless of what we are using it for. Yep, I have to pay an extra tax on every CD my company uses to back up the financial data and project data... I have to pay an extra tax on every CD that my band makes (thus lowering our profit...)

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[nsayer]

But they will be free to use that explanation for far more in the legislative arena - to make more pernicious anticircumvention laws, foist universal DRM on us, etc, etc, etc. Everything they can to prop up their failing business model (in particular, anything they can to try and outlaw or deprecate independent music publishing) all the while saying, "Won't someone think of the pirates?"

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also legal to download music in Canada, so while your opinion may certainly differ, I'm not all that bothered by a $0.25/disc levy when it leaves me free to download to my heart's content.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm sorry, but enrichment is not a right, it's a luxury. It should be encouraged, not enforced. And undermining copyright by allowing people to make unlimited copies on peer to peer networks doesn't encourage. It destroys a valid mechanism for ensuring artists are compensated for the works they do and have some creative control over the final results."

Illegal copyright infringement is to digital goods what outsourcing is to intellectual goods. Or to put it in a form slashdot can understand. Most people who are "harmed" by outsourcing don't produce a physical good, but an intellectual good (I hesitate to say digital good because the latter is for public consumption, while the former usually isn't). Artists produce a digital good that has a physicality to it. In both cases the mechanism for compensation is both undermined (in the general case), and in the worst case is outright removed.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Then eventually the laws in their favor will put them in the lawsuit business. Good business for Lawyers and bad business for artist.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Big_Al_B]

Please excuse me for being a "Johnny-Come-Lately", as I read your post yesterday but had no time to reply until today...now behind 40 others I see. :^(

Hope you had your firesuit ready.

In any circumstance or scenario, is it ever acceptable for an owner of a work, or their duly specified agent, to protect that ownership, [etc.]

It appears this question was merely a set-up for you to comment on the implications of the answer, "No," so I'm not sure you're looking for an actual answer. In case you are actually seeking replies, here's mine:

First let me disclose that I personally have benefitted--a lot--from royatlies paid on sales of copyrighted works. For me to flatly answer "no" to your question, as worded, would be hypocritcal at best, if I was inclined to answer "no" at all.

With that disclosure out of the way, you should also know that your question is flawed in several ways that make it even more difficult to answer than it normally should be.

The first flaw is the "is it ever" modifier. The existance of even one case, however unlikely or rare the circumstance, forces an answer of "yes" making your comments on a "no" answer moot.

The second flaw is the phrase "acceptable...to protect". What is the basis of acceptence? Morality? Social mores? And what do you mean "protect"?

Depending on interpretation, the question could be, "Is it moral for one to legally protect his/her ownership and/or receive compensation for damages incurred from third-party's disregard of such ownership?"

Or it could be, "Do we, as a society, accept that ownership of trivially duplicable material is legitimate, that said ownership has a monetary value, *and* do we accept the creation and enforcement of laws to protect that value through damage compensation?"

They're similar, but fundementally different questions. And where does simple compensation for intellectual creativity and effort figure into this? You just covered compensation for damages, not base compensation for effort--i.e. is it okay for an artist to receive a dollar--or whatever--for every album sold? That's another completely different question.

Should creators be compensated fairly and completely for their creations? Absolutely.

Is it moral to take legitimate legal action to protect ownership for your creations? In most cases, yes. Probably not all cases, though.

Is the concept of intellectual property socially acceptable, do we accept IP laws and enforcement of them? Obviously yes, as the concept of IP and related laws currently exist. But herein lies the great social debate on IP. What's socially acceptable changes over time, and there is a rising tide of discontent with the current state of IP and IP law.

[No.] Fine; that represents a fundamentally different philosophical outlook on reward for one's work, if desired, and so on.

Okay...

I trust, therefore, that your disdain for such a system also means you're not a part of activity that would leave you on the receiving end of a legal suit from the RIAA.

I trust that you're equating the ideas of "distain for" and "disagreement with". I don't think they're synonymous ideas. I also don't see why you think such distain--or disagreement--implies a complete separation from a system. It is possible, and very common, to distain or disagree with a system from inside that system. It's how systems change. So I don't think your trust is well placed.

Nor do I believe it is remotely realistic to suggest that the majority of people would ever fully disconnect from current popular culture *and* create a new popular culture rather than simply circumvent and/or legally challenge roadblocks to their enjoyment of existing pop culture.

It is infinitely more likely that pop culture industries will eventually adapt to market pressures, when those pressures are great enough.

Simple, isn't it?

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Braino420]

You don't want to pay for the music and this is an easy excuse.

Have you seen the cost of music? Have you seen how rich everyone on that side is? Have you seen the terms at which you purchase the expensive music? Have you seen the tactics they use and the lives they've destroyed? I for one believe this world would be a much better place without all of them.

I want to listen to artists with a passion for music, not a passion for money. It is then that I will give them my money (as I do now, with bands that don't sell out). I don't give a damn if you agree with me; just keep giving them money, they do wonderful things with it and as a consumer you're telling them: "I love sucking your cock after you've been fucking me in the ass."

I'm a consumer, and I get my point across with my money. Thanks

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[grumpyman]

Regarding digital restrictions management. ....It is nothing short of treating people as criminals before they commit the crime. Inocent until proven guilty indeed!

You can say the same thing about the use of keys, magnetic strips, receipts, password and such.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[kimvette]

My question was a rhetorical one.

By their logic, I should open, say, a paperclip factory, and when offices refuse to buy my product, I will then sue them for damages because obviously if they are not buying my paper clips, they are obtaining their paper clips illegitimately.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

To address your point 1.... that is valid only if you assume the RIAA is actually and one hundred percent accurate in detecting infringement. It's become clear they are actually using a shotgun approach and also snagging the innocent. So. You are NOT safe if you do not infringe. Thus you should support stricter standards for what the RIAA is allowed to do, and not to.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Workaphobia]

Tell me this. How can the author be enticed to make more works for the public good if he or she is dead? Could you please anwser me that?

I can enlighten you on that point.

Increased copyright terms make ownership of the copyright more desirable, regardless of whether or not the original owner is dead. So the artist has more bargaining power with the label, because what he or she brings to the table is more valuable. The musician can't benefit from the song after his death, but he can get an advance on that profit from the label itself during his own life. I'm by no means saying that increasing the term was a good move - I lament it as one of the worst things to happen to culture, I'm just saying that we can't pretend that the artist does not benefit indirectly (at least in theory).

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[multisync]

You are correct, I believe, regarding the current legality of files sharing in Canada, but I have a couple of issues with your stance.

The Canadian Copyright Board ruled in 2003 that Canadians were entitled to download files off p2p networks, but sharing files was illegal. The following year, Judge Konrad von Finckenstein denied the CRIA's request to force ISPs to provide the names of 29 customers accused of file sharing, and commented that putting files in a shared folder did not violate Canada's copyright laws either:

"The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution," Finckenstein wrote. "Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying."

All well and good, but the recording industry continues to lobby the federal government to ratify the WIPO treaty of 2006, and the previous liberal government had proposed legislation to ammend Canada's copyright laws to bring them in line with WIPO. I guess I feel that this battle is not over yet.

Now, you say you are not bothered by a .25/disc levy provided it entitles you to download music and burn it to your hearts content, but the holders the copyrights to the music you are downloading don't believe you are entitled to do anything of the sort -- although they are happy to collect the levy "thank you very much" -- and continue to lobby hard to take away your right to do so and force your isp to turn your name over to them so they can sue you.

Also, I *don't* download mp3s off p2p networks and burn them to cds (not due to any moral objections, just not my thing), and I resent having to pay for a service I am not receiving (just as I resent having to pay the Microsoft tax when I buy a new computer that I plan on running linux on).

So I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I think the current system is. If sharing and downloading music files is legal, then the levy is just another tax. If the government wants to support Canadian artists, the money should come out of general revenue and appear in the budget, maybe as part of the Ministry of Herritage or something, I don't know. At least there would be (theoretically) some accountability then. God knows what happens to the .25/disc we're paying now. I'll bet the other guy who replied to my post will never see a penny of it.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[jb.hl.com]

What it doen't give me is an excuse from being prosecuted in a court of law.
Just like any form of civil disobediance. Like not getting up from a bus seat even though the law says you should*.

The difference is this. Rosa Parks wanted to rebel against a society which discriminated against her because of something she couldn't change; the colour of her skin. You, however, want free music.

There's a very very big difference.

The music corporation is nothing more then a middleman who isn't needed anymore.

Which is why lots of new bands sign to record labels. Obviously.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[jb.hl.com]

He/she can rent a studio for ONLY 100 DOLLARS AN HOUR?!

What fucking world are you living in where people can pay that sort of money?

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[ebyrob]

People put locks on their own property for their own purposes. Things like credit card strips and encryption keys are a bit more complicated, but they at least represent some kind of mutually beneficial arrangement between parties.

DRM is one group putting locks on another group's property with no more consent than a spammer gets before sending an email.

You can argue all day about how copyrighted works are "licensed" and therefore "anything goes" but it just doesn't hold water. The only way any kind of license agreement gets any legal traction is by first claiming that copyrighted works are borrowed, leased, loaned, rented etc but never bought. However, if you look at the in-store or on-line transaction involved in aquiring a copyrighted work or license, it is very clear that a purchase has taken place.

If copyrighted works are purchased, then DRM is corporations locking up private citizen's possessions in order to obtain more control.

If copyrighted works are "only for license" then copyright is a rediculous and unconstitutional monopoly. (Basically a legal agreement where only one side gets represented...)

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[ebyrob]

(at least in theory).

Which is precisely the point. Most works make their money in the first year after release to a given market (if not less time).

The only reason to build a portfolio beyond that is to stifle future innovation by competitors. (At least the only reason I can see... Also there's the "It's mine! I wanna keep it!! Waaa!! syndrome)

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[vegasmacguy]

Did you miss Step 2.

Save Money towards studio time.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Artists vs. Gangsters?

It's MXC come true!!

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

>Every time you don't buy RIAA-backed music, or every time you buy non-RIAA music, email them telling them why.

CC your congressman and senators as well.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[cpt kangarooski]

You demand people enrich your life?

No, but where enrichment will naturally occur, I don't give up that enrichment without a compelling reason.

So is someone being evil in refusing to enrich your life without monetary compensation or not?

They are not being evil at all. However, if they want monetary compensation, then I'd say it's a good chance that they're acting in a self-interested manner. That's fine, and I have no problem with that. However, it's just as acceptable for me to act in a self-interested manner, and it is in my interest to get creative works for free. This puts us at loggerheads unless we can find a way to serve both of our self interests more than they are being served in the natural state of things.

I'm sorry, but enrichment is not a right, it's a luxury

I disagree. The right to copy and distribute creative works created by another is a subset of the right of free speech. When I stage a performance of Hamlet, I am exercising one of my rights. What isn't a natural right is the right to control whether or not people can engage in free speech for particular works. This right must be artificially created, ultimately by the people that it would be used against. Why would they do so, unless it served their ultimate self interests to do so?

And undermining copyright by allowing people to make unlimited copies on peer to peer networks doesn't encourage. It destroys a valid mechanism for ensuring artists are compensated for the works they do and have some creative control over the final results.

Encouraging the creation of original works is something that should be done, of course, but only up to a certain limit. It is equally important to encourage the creation of derivative works, and to have no, or minimal restrictions upon those works, and even then for any restrictions to last for the least amount of time. Pursuing only one of these policy goals is likely to result in a lesser public good than if attention is paid to all of them, and to maximizing the net public good. Of course, the last goal -- having minimal or no copyright in scope and length -- is the most important, as history has shown us that society can get along just fine without copyright, but that free speech is of critical importance, regardless of whether censorship is a tool of the government or of private interests.

I'd also like to point out that "ensuring artists are compensated" and "have some creative control" are not goals of copyright. At most they are only means by which the goals of copyright can be pursued. It is never in the public interest to reward artists purely for their own sake.

treating artists with respect

Nor does copyright have the least thing to do with respect for authors. As a copyright lawyer, and as an artist, let me say that I couldn't care less about authors. I'm only interested in exploiting them, via copyright, so that they produce the most original and derivative works they can, for the least incentive and reward. If I can best exploit them, and best serve the public, with generous copyrights, then I'm all for that. But if the public is best served by exploiting authors with weak and small copyrights, then that's the better plan.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[serutan]

For someone so seemingly erudite you amaze me by missing the fundamental point that modern copyright law itself has become piracy. In the most recent copyright extension, Congress not only lengthened the terms of copyright but placed back under copyright many works which had already been in the public domain for years. Currently all audio recordings made before 1972 are now copyrighted until 2067. This includes many works that had already been the public domain for years, even wax cylinder recordings made in the 1890s.

How can this be called a legitimate, reasonable act? Copyright isn't a one-sided thing. It's a contract. The copyright holder enjoys specific rights, and the public pays for the enforcement of those rights through taxes. The payoff for the public is that after a specific period of time the work becomes freely available. Suppose you have been making payments on your 30-year mortgage for 29 years, and Congress suddenly declares that all 30-year mortgages are now 60-year mortgages. Is it immoral or irresponsible for you to resist complying? How about someone who paid off his house several years ago and finds that under the new law it again belongs to the bank? Where's the moral high ground in defending the law here? Congress broke, and thereby voided, the contract between copyright holders and the public. The responsible thing for Congress to do would be to reinstate the public's rights that the Bono Act took away. Then you can preach to me about right and wrong.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[ralph1]

turn about is fair play everyone should begin to sue record companys for anything scratched cds whatever you can think of. a few hundred thousand lawsuits would ruin them.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

But they will be free to use that explanation for far more in the legislative arena - to make more pernicious anticircumvention laws, foist universal DRM on us, etc, etc, etc. Everything they can to prop up their failing business model (in particular, anything they can to try and outlaw or deprecate independent music publishing) all the while saying, "Won't someone think of the pirates?"

Isn't that a little extreme? Even with all their undoubtedly purchased politicians, they won't be able to convince anyone to declare the First Amendment null and void. As far as foisting universal DRM -- I think my original point still applies. If nobody is buying their products, then it won't matter what they try to do.

However, that being said, it ain't gonna happen. We all know that at most 1% of the music-listening population actually cares about DRM; the rest haven't a clue. And in my experience, those who are made aware of it don't really care -- they feel they're getting their money's worth, and don't think it's unreasonable that they have some limitations in what they can do. And that is the real problem -- it will be very difficult to convince those people that they should be able to do more "on principle" -- because it has no effect on the things they want to do.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[sm62704]

Which is why I'm voting "loser party." Most don't, though.

If this is an abundance of sensitivity...

[DragonPup]

...then I imagine a lack of sensitivity from the RIAA resembling a prison in Uzbekistan.

Re:If this is an abundance of sensitivity...

[kfg]

I imagine a lack of sensitivity from the RIAA resembling a prison in Uzbekistan.

I see you're a "glass half full" sort of guy.

I'm afraid you'll never truely understand the depths to which a "Hey, who drank my damned water" guy will descend.

KFG

Let me try to understand this

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

It's OK to steal music if one of your relatives is about to die.

Did I understand that correctly?

Muahahah...!

Re:Let me try to understand this

[Reverend528]

Only if their name is on the ISP's bill.

Re:Let me try to understand this

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Aha! I knew it couldn't be so simple. I have to get a relative to sign up with an ISP and then kil^H^H^Hif they are about to die I can download stuff for free.

Re:Let me try to understand this

[MadJo]

No, perhaps not, but the accused was the one who died... And once dead, in my eyes, you can't be sued...
And you're still innocent until proven guilty.

But I'm not a lawyer. And perhaps too naive and too idealistic.

Re:Let me try to understand this

[Reverend528]

Or you can just download the stuff under your name and then die. Whatever's easier for you.

Re:Let me try to understand this

[gbobeck]

It's OK to steal music if one of your relatives is about to die.

Actually, I think the more important question is "If you are in college and your roomate commits suicide, would you get straight A's for your grief in addition to the RIAA's suit against you dropped?"

Re:Let me try to understand this

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be great for the emo kids

Re:Let me try to understand this

[soft_guy]

It was his son.

Re:Let me try to understand this

[MadJo]

So, why don't they sue him then?

Re:Let me try to understand this

[soft_guy]

Because it would generate more bad publicity for them, so they decided it wasn't cost effective for them to continue legal action.

Re:Let me try to understand this

[jabuzz]

Most U.K. universties postumostly give firsts to students who die while studying on a degree course however. A bit of a drastic way to get a good degree though.

Re:Let me try to understand this

[gbobeck]

With my sick mind, the following slogan came to mind... "UK Universities: Where students are just dying to earn their degrees"

Surprise (or not)!

[cplusplus]

Hey, the RIAA's cold black heart has a drop of warm kind blood in it afterall :-). Or not. I'm sure they were only considering the bad PR and not the family.

Re:Surprise (or not)!

[geekoid]

the lawyer that couldn't make this work has since been flayed and served in the corporate cafeteria.

Re:Surprise (or not)!

[bky1701]

RIAA: "Bad... PR? What is this, bad PR?"

Re:Surprise (or not)!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. It just proves that nobody can beat a zombie pirate.

Temporary?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are only temporarily suspending the litigation? What are they hoping for, the guy to come back to life?

Good God, have some respect for a family who has had a tragic loss!

Vultures!

Re:Temporary?

[eosp]

RTFS, they are stopping that too.

Re:Temporary?

[Propaganda13]

Temporarily suspending or dropping? Make up your minds! Are they trying to confuse the issue by separating the case and settlement discussions? Dropping the case against the dead guy, but only suspending the settlement discussion?

"Our hearts go out to the Scantleberry family for their loss. We had decided to temporarily suspend the productive settlement discussions we were having with the family. Mr. Scantleberry had admitted that the infringer was his stepson, and we were in the process settling with him shortly before his passing. Out of an abundance of sensitivity, we have elected to drop this particular case."

RIAA SUX!

[DoctorPepper]

While I don't condone copyright infringement, and I AM one of those folks that was crying out for the RIAA to go after the actual perpetrators, I don't agree with their tactics. In fact, I find they have gone way overboard in their overzealous prosecution (persecution?) of anyone they even think has been illegally downloading music from the Internet.

If you were to look down from space, and see the headquarters of the RIAA, it would be shaped like a giant anus.

Re:RIAA SUX!

[kfg]

In fact, I find they have gone way overboard in their overzealous prosecution (persecution?) of anyone they even think has been illegally downloading music from the Internet.

Bear in mind that this was only made possible by buying new law that allows it. It's uploaders that they're after, because that's where the law is strong, but P2P makes downloaders into uploaders, so everyone's a target, rather than just the maintainer of a central server.

I was a "go after the perps" guy too, but that was under the old system which required something approaching real due process against a few "perps" who understood the system in advance, not Jane Doe rubber stamped process going after old ladies who have never even owned a computer.

KFG

Re:RIAA SUX!

[k31bang]

If you were to look down from space, and see the headquarters of the RIAA, it would be shaped like a giant anus.

So the goatse man in otherwords. eh?

Re:RIAA SUX!

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you were to look down from space, and see the headquarters of the RIAA, it would be shaped like a giant anus."

Nope, sorry, that's just the Pentagon.

More appropriate PR would be...

[telbij]

Out of what's left of our meager and withered sensitivity..."

Re:More appropriate PR would be...

[Kadin2048]

"Out of what's left of our meager and withered sensitivity..."

Or, in other words, "our wives finally threatened to leave our sorry asses."

(I was really disappointed that this photo didn't get more publicity. It really sums up the kind of soulless, hardened criminals the RIAA is out there every day, defending us all against.)

Re:More appropriate PR would be...

[LordKronos]

>I was really disappointed that this photo [CC] didn't get more publicity

Would you care to tell me what I'm even looking at?

Re:More appropriate PR would be...

[telbij]

Would you care to tell me what I'm even looking at?

It's the RIAA coming to take away a filesharer's firstborn.

Fun fact

[scenestar]

At first they gave the relatives of the diseased a 60 day period to grieve before they sued.
I guess the public outcry made them change their minds.

Seriously, what the fuck is next with the RIAA.

Re:Fun fact

[Donniedarkness]

Perhaps they were afraid the issue would make it to major media stations and then people would realize how anal the RIAA is?

Re:Fun fact

[eosp]

You do mean deceased, right?

Re:Fun fact

[Greyfox]

They're going to eat a kitten which was thought to be sharing a Metallica album.

Yeah, right.

[lax-goalie]

Mr. Scantleberry had admitted that the infringer was his stepson

They can say that all they want, now that the only person who could confirm it is dead. If they really had the goods, they'd be all over the stepson with a lawsuit.

Re:Yeah, right.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Agreed. They can say anything they want to say about what Mr. Scantlebury said; he's no longer around to contradict them.

What concerns me is their use of the language "this particular lawsuit". This "particular" lawsuit was a nullity anyway, because it was going to have to be dismissed in any event. Are they planning to turn around and sue the children?

That's not quite right....

[LordPhantom]

Due to the abundance of negative PR this has generated , we have elected to drop this particular case.'

There I fixed that for you.

Im touched...

[D-Cypell]

Such an "abundance of sensitivity" shown in not trying to finacially ruin a grieving family. I do hope the pope has been informed, beautification must begin immediately!

Well at least all those people who have been asking, "Where will RIAA draw the line?" have had their questions answered. Clearly the answer is, "Somewhere between 12 year old girls and dead people".

Re:Im touched...

[RsG]

"Where will RIAA draw the line?" have had their questions answered. Clearly the answer is, "Somewhere between 12 year old girls and dead people".

I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere, but I'm afraid to try and find it.... :-P

Re:Im touched...

[imnojezus]

I imagine it somehow involves Michael Jackson.

Re:Im touched...

[Anonymous Coward]

4chan, on the other hand, is willing to go above and beyond the RIAA.

Re:Im touched...

[RsG]

Nah, that would be "12 year old boys and dead careers". :-)

Re:Im touched...

[Ian Bicking]

They didn't actually have even that level of sympathy. Only when the story became news did they drop the lawsuit. They have an abundance of sympathy for their client's PR.

Re:Im touched...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is because the magnitude of longcat's length knows no limits.

PROOF!!

Re:Im touched...

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

"Somewhere between 12 year old girls and dead people" lies a dark secret.

This Fall.

These lawyers sue second...

First they kill.

TORRENT OF DEATH

From Sony Pictures. Coming to a cartel theater near you.

Re:Im touched...

[hany]

The joke:

What do necrophilian pedophiles and beer-lovers have in common?
They both love "chilled 12".

(I hope my translation to English will be able to be understood.
Plus: 12(deg) marks a beer made from certain amount of malt, thus with certain amount of alcohol, at least in some parts of Europe.)

Hmm... Lawyer? Sensitivity?

[RyoShin]

Out of an abundance of sensitivity [CC], we have elected to drop this particular case

Something doesn't seem right...

[opens his Lawyer Dictionary]

Selective Casing... Settlements, Large Payouts from... Whoops, went to far... Okay, here we go, "Sensitivity":

sensitivity Pronunciation Key (sns-tv-t) n., scapegoat
A term used when dealing with a large public backlash against previous actions, usually involving death, abuse, sexual harrassment, or being caught in the Ritualistic Lawyer Act of eating a kitten
We are regarding our lawsuit against the 90-year-old grandmother with sensitivity.

Same here.

[xactuary]

Out of an abundance of sensitivity, I have elected to stop bying DRM protected music. Thank you for your understanding.

Yeah, because..

[AWhiteFlame]

Yeah, because the RIAA is soo known for all their good publicity and PR-control.

too little too late

[MoFoQ]

I don't know about the rest but I think it's a bit too late...the cat's out of the bag that the RIAA is even more viscous than the Grim Reaper and a pitbull/lawyer combined.
Makes ambulance chasers look like Saints.

And I'm not sure if they should use the word "Productive"....they could have just said "legal settlement" instead of admitting that their settlement tactics are "productive"...which is like the oil companies saying their price increases are profitable. Not something you want to admit to in public.

They need to learn to spin better or at the very least not shoot themselves in the foot.

Re:too little too late

[Anonymous Coward]

hrm ... so how much will RIAA brand oil outperform Grim Reaper brand oil?

Re:too little too late

[MoFoQ]

both brands will spue black smoke and kill.

just imagine mad max....yes...with all the leather and spikes.

+10 karma points for them

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad they're still at -78431486143872354038164.3.

After running it through Babblefish

[Registered Coward v2]

the statement translated to

Our hearts, if we had any, would go out to the family for their loss and our loss of revenue. We had decided to temporarily suspend, pending our passing and at least one of our staff avoiding burning in hell forever and thus limiting our ability to get a hearing before the ultimate judge, the productive, for us, settlement discussions we were having with the family. Mr. S had admitted that the infringer was his stepson, who now will claim his stepfather was actually a rap and techno fan and downloading MP3s for his 8 track, and we were in the process settling with him shortly before he decided to suspend the settlement talks indefinitely. Out of an abundance of sensitivity to the tons of negative publicity we were getting, we have elected to drop this particular case like a hot potato.

Re:After running it through Babblefish

[kinglink]

I didn't know Babblefish had Legalese (a dialect of "bullshit") to english.

A shred of decen... oh never mind

[helmutvs]

It's good to see that the RIAA is, in fact, composed of decent human beings after all.

Aw, hell... who am I kidding?

Yeah, right. (on a very cold day in hell)

[Lead Butthead]

They can say that all they want, now that the only person who could confirm it is dead. If they really had the goods, they'd be all over the stepson with a lawsuit .

And you have on good authority that isn't on their to-do list a couple months from now? Perhaps they're just waiting for the whole thing to blow over before pursing the step son? Each time actions RIAA lawyers hit the headline, I lose a bit more faith in the human race.

Re:Yeah, right. (on a very cold day in hell)

[AgentFade2Black]

I still don't believe it's admissable regardless. A statement like that, without being a deposition or sworn testimony, is hearsay. Only the deathbed declaration (and other exceptions) are admissable in court. (IANAL.)

Re:Yeah, right. (on a very cold day in hell)

[Peyna]

Statements against one's pecuniary or proprietary interest, which would otherwise be hearsay, are admissible if that person is now unavailable

Re:Yeah, right. (on a very cold day in hell)

[AgentFade2Black]

I was unaware.

Re:Yeah, right. (on a very cold day in hell)

[Anonymous Coward]

I figured as much from your "IANAL;" but hey, you probably knew more than most people.

Don't be fooled... Corporations have no compassion

[mojotooth]

There are two factors leading to the RIAA's cancellation of this particular circus.

- They have already accomplished the goal of scaring the living daylights out of a customer, and
- They appear to have an "abundance of sensitivity" by dropping the case, hopefully negating the negative press that has cropped up around this.

They care nothing for the family involved. They care nothing for the memory of the dead person, who I'm led to believe is a friend of at least one Slashdotter. They care nothing for their customers' wellbeing. And lastly, they care nothing for their artists. All they care about is control and money.

Many people already do as you suggest...

[IANAAC]

Why do you think the RIAA et al are up in arms over "lost sales"?

It's because many have already chosen not to take any part in the system. We're not all pirates.

In breaking news...

[Eric Damron]

In a statement today the RIAA said that it was dropping its law suit against the Scantleberry family but added "We will, however, expect to be compensated for any music that is played at the funeral."

Re:In breaking news...

[parc]

I know you were trying to be cute, but RIAA is compensated for music played at a funeral if the music is supplied by the funeral home. Technically, any performance of a copyrighted work entitles the copyright holder to whatever royalties they see fit to negotiate. This fee is usually hidden from you (be that by advertising, payola, subscription fee or the like), but it still happens.

Re:In breaking news...

[polymath69]

I know you were trying to be cute, but RIAA is compensated for music played at a funeral if the music is supplied by the funeral home.

You're probably thinking of ASCAP and/or BMI. Here's a little bit about how they work.

Technically, any performance of a copyrighted work entitles the copyright holder to whatever royalties they see fit to negotiate.

Fortunately, in most cases all they can ask for is up to the price of a compulsory license, which is generally set to be quite inexpensive.

Misleading title

[Anonymous Coward]

The key word in the statement: "temporarily".

Read: They're still going to bully the family into paying grossly in excess of any true damages caused, they're just going to wait until they don't get any bad publicity for doing so.

temporarily suspend ?

[nurb432]

Or permanently dropped?

All dislike of the RIAA aside, the fact this was even an issue shows how twisted and out of touch these people are.

If the public hadn't heard about it, i bet they would on the kids doorstep with a warrant.

They are sick.

From independentmusician of Boycott Riaa

[Anonymous Coward]

"...isn't it fair to say that the RIAA is demonstrating sensitivity to its public image, and not its sensitivity to the Scantleberry family?"

Absolutely.

It is important that we in the public who are outraged by RIAA actions continue to spread the word as widely as possible each and every time they commit an attrocity. Only by bringing to light these evils are we able to deflect the juggernaut.

Ultimately, the ongoing boycott of the RIAA (and similar content fascists) is our best hope in saving music and culture. Congress sure as hell doesn't do enough to protect us from them. (In fact, our stupid and/or bribed lawmakers are the ones who gave them the "upper ground" of this unlevel playing field in the first place.)

In the long run, it remains up to us (we, the people) in order to win this war against the copyright terrorists.

Never let up. Continue your contribution. Keep kicking and screaming. The enemy WILL capitulate. This story is just one small example of how it works.

Just a question, and some more thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

A fair question. Regardless of the justification for the laws.* Are those who legally purchase said content "legally harmed"? How about those who never touch the stuff? Is any "legal harm" brought against them? Collateral damage as it were?

*Note I make the distinction between "technological harm" (DRM) versus "legal harm" (DMCA) because the OP mentioned (lost sales==more laws).

In Soviet Russia

[monopole]

Music Consumers Spend a Year Dead for Legal Purposes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotblack_Desiato#Hotb lack_Desiato

this reminds me of

[56ker]

A while ago my mum got a speeding ticket/fine through the post as her car had been photographed speeding. It wasn't her that actually did the speeding (it was my brother) but she was the one who was assumed to do it because she was the owner of the car. She told them who it was who was speeding and no action was taken against her.

Now, in the RIAA case against this person if they were acting sanely, rationally and not just trying to extort money from people or launch frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to deter people from infringing copyright they would've dropped it long before the person had died.

Re:this reminds me of

[ShawnDoc]

In this case it was his stepson. So provided he was the legal guardian of his stepson, he is responsible for the civil damages\fines incurred by his stepson.

I'm pretty sure you meant "beatification"

[IANAAC]

On the other hand, the whole thing is pretty ugly, so...

Harassment

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are they harassing? Let's hear a different story:

"A guy (or his son) is downloading music and is not paying for it. he is then taken to court by the big organization that published it, then dies. His family is given 60 days to grieve, and then the lawsuit for his criminal activities will be continued."

I don't think they were being mean at all. He was breaking the law, he was a criminal, and he knew it. This is the only thing to do to stop the thefts, besides modifying hardware through legislation, which would be a very dangerous precedent against our freedoms. It was very nice of the RIAA to drop the lawsuit. He was engaging in illegal activity, and deserves punishment.

-bendodge

Re:Harassment

[Travelsonic]

A guy (or his son) is downloading music and is not paying for it.

Given how there is legally downloadable/sharable content that is copyrighted, I will say that payment in this case has nothing to do with it rather that they were distributing/downloading music that was shared without the permission of the copyright holder, that is the RIAA. POermission or lack of is what breaks or makes copyright infringement, IIRC. Yes I do agree that the boy broke the law doing this but draconian is not the answer.

This is the only thing to do to stop the thefts..

Woah there, we are talking about copyright infrignement here. Still illegal, but I though people at /. and Digg knew better than to change the law they are talking about mid-thought. ^_^

Productive my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

"[..] temporarily suspend the productive settlement discussions we were having with the family.[..]"

Productive my ass!

Bad Press

[lordperditor]

Out of an abundance of sensitivity.... more like an abundance of bad press exposure.

And pray tell me HOW they had a case against them

[unity100]

?

You can NOT inherit a case.

Already incurred debts, and existing assets, yes, you can inherit, or refuse.

But, a LAWSUIT that is in progress is not an item that is bound by laws governing inheritance. ONLY if its incurred penalties - if the case is closed and any monetary punishment has been given - can be applied to inheritor.

In each of extraordinarily greedy, negativistic and bullying peoples' and organisations' timelines, there comes a point that the greed blurs the vision and judgment, and they commit inexplicaply stupid and pointless stuff, because of power nausea, if they had found that their deeds were going unchallenged. Apparently riaa has reached such a point.

Stress hastened death - SUETHEIR ASSES!!!

[lordperditor]

Now the family should sue them on the basis that the stress of the action against their departed father hastened his death.

Given that tens of thousands have been

[Ogemaniac]

sued, and at most, I have heard of a couple of dozen odd-ball cases like this, it is safe to presume that most of the other 99.99% are legit.

Hell, RIAA could pay some college kid twenty bucks an hour to document infringers in his or her dorm, and catch them by the dozen.

Re:Given that tens of thousands have been

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people actually have the money and time to take a case like this to trial? Almost none. That's why people simply pay for the settlement.

Re:Given that tens of thousands have been

[dwandy]

Go read this and then tell me if you still think that most are legit.

People have made careers low-ball suing corporations because they know it's cheaper to settle than fight...that doesn't make them 'guilty'.

Re:Given that tens of thousands have been

[Firehed]

More likely they'd pay out in coupons that are only good for CDs produced by RIAA-backed labels. Though something tells me that the kid might end up beaten to death, unless they launch a flurry of paperwork at the end of the school year.

Of course, I'd agree that most of their case are legit. We only hear about the unusual ones, be it pre-teens, the dead, or those without internet or computers - but for every one of those, there's probably a hundred that we don't hear about, and 99 of which are valid. But it might be in everyone's best interest to just stop the damn lawsuits and protection racketeering (quite illegal under the RICO Act), and instead spend money on designing a new business model rather than wasting money on lawyers.

x time life, where x 1

[Fuzzums]

let's say you go to prison for 40 times life.
once you die, your kids go to prison for your remaining time. and their kids and..

now let's say you get 5 death penalties.....

Re:x time life, where x 1

[unity100]

Yes, but this is the next stage in Riaa moves. not now.

Different meaning?

[lullabud]

They may have said "abundance of sensitivity", which we would all take as them having a large quantity of pity to pour forth onto people who are mourning, but what I think they meant was "we have the balls to sue dead men, 12 year old girls, people who don't own computers, but like all balls, ours too are easy to hurt and they make for easy targets since they're so big". Clearly this was forfeit due to the PR nightmares that perpetually haunt them and their big balls before their abundant sensitive parts get kicked.

Gentlemen, start your copiers...

[Just Some Guy]

I no longer believe that the RIAA and its constituent scum have any standing for consideration of rights. None. Zero. Want to download a song? Go for it. Upload an album? No sweat. Steal a shipment of CDs and sell them on eBay? Knock yourself out.

These subhuman filth have no right to own anything, least of all a fictitious monopoly on a set of manufactured waveforms. Since they're willing to destroy lives to protect their greed, I think they forfeit the moral expectation to profit from their wares.

Seriously, enough is enough. An "abundance of sensitivity"? Bah! That one sentence lost me forever. I mean this truly: I will never again buy anything when I think that a member of the RIAA may benefit in any way. Screw you guys, I'm going home.

Re:Gentlemen, start your copiers...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I will never again -- I mean this truly: I will never again buy anything from the RIAA, ever. To repeat, I will nev ... ooooh, look shiny! New Brittany Spears single! Now with J-Lo and Christina Aguilera doing the choir! Gimme-gimme-gimme!"

How I screw the RIAA

[Pancake Bandit]

I buy used CDs.

Did RIAA Cause this Man's Death?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was the stress of RIAA's lawsuit the cause of this old man's death?

If RIAA caused his death, can RIAA members be classified as Enemy Combatants?

Protect Fair Use,
Protect the First Amendment,
Protect the Right to Read

It's all about the price

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point is valid, but with a so widely spread "pirating" phenomenon we should ask ourselves if something must be changed.
Why nearly eveybody today downloads "pirated" content?
Short answer: because it's much cheaper and more practical.

Long answer: Because music prices exceed by orders of magnitude what can be accommplished today with modern technologies. One must keep in mind that record companies were created primarily for communication, marketing, packaging and distribution of the material.
The high cost of manufacturing, stocking and shipping of records and CDs justified (at least to some extent) their high prices, but now each one of these steps can be eliminated by the Internet along with music labels.

It's called progress, which like every deep change in people culture sometimes requires to act against the law.

Didn't even sue the correct person

[cdn-programmer]

They didn't even sue the correct person.

There is no way on earth that I will ever buy anything the RIAA touches. Musicians should know this.

Just an agenda and some speculation

[Anonymous Coward]

"Should I keep going?"

Speculation never has an end. Reality however does.

"Or is it clear now that if the RIAA runs to Congress (or hell, runs for Congress, after all, Sonny Bono did a good enough job) that even if you're not warezing or buying RIAA products, it can be a problem."

Or you're under the assumption that the RIAA/MPAA/"Whatever we don't like this month" are the sole "owners" of congress, and much like slashdots "there's no groupthink, or hypocrisy because we all are not unified". Congress has many conflicting forces driving it.

Re:Just an agenda and some speculation

[Anonymous Coward]

You are incorrect sir.

Congress has one and only force driving it.

M-O-N-E-Y

Those who have it can join the club or get their laws passed. Those who don't. Well.. No one really gives a shit about them.

Re:Just an agenda and some speculation

[Qzukk]

Ah, and if they get another Sonny Bono elected that won't give them a "driving" force?

Oh I guess that's just speculation, it's not like actors and musicians ever get elected to public office in reality huh?

"Out of an abundance of sensitivity..."

[Anonymous Coward]

"Out of an abundance of sensitivity..."
baaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

To all Self Respecting Artists

[Anonymous Coward]

If you, the Artists, respect yourselves, then this means that you have shunned involvement with the RIAA and have made progress towards independent, unassociated production of your work.

They've killed him

[porneL]

RIAA and sensitivity? I'd rather believe that they've killed the guy themselves in a plot to get some good PR.

particular!?

[AlgorithMan]

[...] we have elected to drop this particular case

doesn't the word "particular" bother anyone but me? this means that if the public hadn't been outraged, they would have sued them, although "their hearts go out to the Scantleberry family for their loss"(haha, give the guy an academy award!) AND if a similar case happens where the public isn't outraged (maybe because the same story isn't news-worthy twice) THEN they'll sue the people - they don't start forgiving dead people - they only did it in THIS PARTICULAR CASE

True

[tkrotchko]

Congress has many conflicting forces driving it.

True, but all of them seem to have one thing in common: money donated to re-election funds of congressmen.

The RIAA's problem

[Simonetta]

The RIAA's problem is that they really think that they own the world's culture.
    If you put a recording into the public sphere, play it millions of times for hundreds of millions of people and do that for years, then the recording becomes a public domain part of culture simply by the process of being absorbed by the public.
    The recording did not magically appear. It came from musicians who studied the recordings of other musicians, who played the works of the musicians before them, back into time. This is public culture: you can't claim to own public culture. It doesn't matter what laws you bribe the politicians to pass.

    The RIAA is like some guy who thinks he owns the ocean just because he makes surfboards.

The RIAA.

[Runefox]

The RIAA are the only people I know of in the entire world who are legally entitled to slander and sue you for not doing business with them. Imagine if you will, the RIAA taken to another market.

The WWAA (Wood Workers Association of America) has recently monitored your activities in creating a shelf that is exactly the same as the shelf a friend of yours has purchased. The WMAA has deemed it necessary to take legal action because the shelf you made was an exact reproduction of the shelf your friend bought, and because you didn't buy it, but rather built it yourself, you're stealing from them. You've duplicated their work using your own time and effort, and because of it, you're liable to pay them many times what the shelf retails for.

Different world? Yes. Parallels? All there. Could it happen? Unless the RIAA is knocked onto its ass and exposed for the loudmouthed monopoly it is, then I say yes. Yes it could.

Re:The RIAA.

[Mordaximus]

The RIAA are the only people I know of in the entire world who are legally entitled to slander and sue you for not doing business with them. Imagine if you will, the RIAA taken to another market.

Please. That's not at all what they're doing. They're suing people who are allegedly distributing material copyrighted by their clients, hardly the same thing.

The WWAA (Wood Workers Association of America) has recently monitored your activities in creating a shelf that is exactly the same as the shelf a friend of yours has purchased.

If, in the act of purchasing the shelf, your friend agreed not to allow anyone to make duplicates from it, the WWAA would be well within its rights to sue HIM if you made a duplicate.

The WWAA has deemed it necessary to take legal action because the shelf you made was an exact reproduction of the shelf your friend bought, and because you didn't buy it, but rather built it yourself, you're stealing from them.

Trying to make comparisons between physical property and copyrighted material just doesn't work, period. But that is just one of the silliest, short sighted things I've ever read. If you had all the instruments you needed, and performed the music yourself that would be a more apt comparison to building a shelf. And if you eyeballed someone's shelf and built, by hand, a replica, that would be fine. But, they really don't care about you and your copy of their shelf. They care about the guy handing out templates for the shelf they designed, when he agreed not to when he purchased the original. That's not stealing, that's copyright violation.

Parallels?

No. No parallels at all, not that an understanding of copyright and the cases wouldn't debunk.

Don't get me wrong, the WAY that the RIAA is going about this is all wrong and for that they deserve to be dragged through the mud. Be my guest if you want to join in. But bashing them for defending their clients' copyrights is stupid, it's exacly what they should be doing. We wouldn't have seen the DMCA had they done it all along.

In Modern Times....

[woolio]

Just like any form of civil disobediance. Like not getting up from a bus seat even though the law says you should*.

What would have happened had Sept 11th occured on Sept 11th, 1955?

Rosa Parks would have been labeled as a Terrorist, with ties to Al-Quesadilla. Due to her race, a bomb would have been 'found' on the bus and that would have been attributed to the reason of her protest.

She would have been deported to Cuba and the Civil Rights movement would have suffered a great loss.

IANAL, but I would think that in the real 1955, Rosa Parks' illegal actions were something closer "tresspassing" (despite the race issue) rather than "theft" (of intelluctual property). I bet the bus companies didn't have the same pull as the RIAA does today. I can't see how her actions were that serious considering the federal criminal laws regarding IP today.

I realize the RIAA's prosecutions are probably civil cases rather than criminal ones, but I maintain that today overall civil rights are "more equal" across races, the overall trend has been negative. We used to have the right to congregate and the right to openly protest in public spaces. We used to be protected from un-warranted search and sesiure.

Civil Disobedience is a Symptom of the Cause

[Zancarius]

I commend you for your attempt to uphold a decent debate in the realm of Slashdot, wherein trolls and other bottom-feeders seek refuge. I also think you're partially correctly, though I believe you have overlooked a significant contributing factor to the cause (both in regards to the public view of the RIAA and why the average Slashdotter upholds copyright infrigement as insignificant).

The problem, as with most, can be boiled down to a matter of economics. Most of those who commit such infrigement, such as teenagers, likely cannot afford to buy every album they might listen to--and often don't. Sometimes acts of disregard for the law are considered harmless by teenagers; it's unfortunate, but it's the truth. Think about the bratty kid next door who fitfully tromps on your wife's rosebed, has a hearty laugh at her dismay, and continued about his business on his way to school. He certainly broke the law, did he not? By damaging property that was not his own, he has demonstrated his capacity as a criminal. But, for the sake of argument, which is the more appropriate means of punishment: a $50,000 fine (which will punish his parents, not him) or a Good 'Ol Talkin' to? Okay, so the latter might not work in this day and age (child protective services doesn't seem too fond of Daddy pulling out his leather belt and giving the child a good lick or two), but I think it demonstrates rather well the direction we've taken from sensible laws to the absurd. I never thought I'd see the day when punishment dealt to violent criminals seems pale in comparison to that given to those who might otherwise obey the law (and only possibly break laws that put no one in immediate danger). Alas, I digress.

The last time I went to the local record store, I noticed much to my dismay that the popular music albums--presumbaly that which is marketed by our loving, caring, sympathetic friends affectionately known as the RIAA--was about $18. For most releases, that's almost $1.50 a track, USD. I would also imagine that threshold is outside of most teens' budget range, particularly when taking into consideration other forms of media in which they participate, be it after-school activities, movies, video games, or the like (whatever happened to curling up with a good book?). Therein lies the problem: economics. The affordability of the media has drastically gone out of sight for most young people and those who might be too poor to afford it. I never did like mainstream music, thankfully, and I purchase all of my music through Amazon for a meager $10-14 USD for quality music. It's great for imported CDs, too.

I think selling music via digital formats is a great idea, but I also think that the RIAA caught on to the notion a bit too late. More importantly, they're still raising a fuss about it being too cheap! I would wager that, by decreasing the cost of a work to something within a much more sane cost bracket, they would notice an increase in sales. It appears to me that several industries caught on to this idea a long time ago; perhaps some executives need to revisit their old economics courses?

On the other hand, perhaps this is another symptom of the cause. The massive beast that has become the Recording Industry must be fed, and it must be fed in massive quantities. They certainly have an immense marketing engine behind them capable of churning out those who become teenage icons--no matter how poorly we might view them--virtually day after day. But it has become a problem of sustainability; in order to afford finding the "next Britney Spears," they must spend money on their marketing machine. By spending money on their marketing machine, they must continually increase the price at which they sell their albums. By increasing the price of the album, they are effectively dismissing their largest consumer: The parents of the teenagers who want to consume the music. This is where illegal downloads comes in: before it became taboo, it seemed to be a legitimate way to obtain music for those yo

Was that a typo?

[Sir Holo]

Out of an abundance of sensitivity, we have elected to drop this particular case."

Shouldn't that read, "Out of an abuundance of bad press, we have elected to drop this particular case."?

Nice URL....

[renjipanicker]

"riaas_abundance_of_s.html" = "RIAA's abundance of S" -/renji

so how's astroturfing paying these days?

[alizard]

You sound like a person who can tell us.

so you don't care if the RIAA is right or wrong

[alizard]

but you're parroting their talking points anyway.

Contemptible, but that's what I expect from a shill.

Your "arguments" aren't worth addressing, since they describe a reality that only exists in the minds of *AA company PR firms.

If I hear "new business model"

[Ogemaniac]

one more time, I will smack someone. Go ahead and do it yourself, and prove that it exists.

Re:If I hear "new business model"

[Firehed]

Apple already did. They called it iTunes. Granted, it needs to be better for me to consider using it, but they proved a billion times over that people will pay a buck a song. I'm rather sick of $16.99 CDs that have nine tracks on them. Hell, just following supply and demand would be a great new business model. You know - charge a small amount less, sell a large amount more. More people get the music (and, if they like it, are likely to buy again), AND they make more money. I WANT to buy my music, to reward the artists, but while the only legitimate way for me to do so requires giving 90% or so of the money to the organization that's suing everyone, I'm not going to do so. Charge a reasonable amount and actually reward the artists, another new business model. If any of the money for Allofmp3 actually went to the artists, I'd use it in a heartbeat (and I'd certainly pay $5ish for a lossless copy of the audio with no DRM, versus $10 for a lossy DRMed copy).

There are plenty of alternatives - which would work - that they could use. Or merely try. And no, paying twice as much for a DRM-free lossy copy (someone tried this, yahoo maybe?) ain't gunna cut it. Shame it doesn't work in stockholding America. Once they realize that music is NOT an inelastic good and that they can't charge outrageous amounts for it and still sell stuff, they'll turn a LARGER profit and have MORE people buying stuff legitimately. And I can't think of how anybody would lose.

OT: Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I've noticed something common to online discussion of any controversial topic. Someone can make a logical, well-laid-out post (such as your own), and the fanatics will answer maybe one point in ten. The rest -- the part they can't answer -- they will ignore, or deride with illogical statements (as done here) or ad hominem attacks. The disappointing aspect of this is that it truly seems to be a universal behavior -- even on Slashdot, where the community members pride themselves on being logical individuals who are a step above the rest of the sheep.

Yep, s'pose I'll get modded Troll now.

Mod this stupid comment down...

[Anonymous Coward]

The analogy is just simply wrong!

Temporarily suspend...

[JustNiz]

>> We had decided to temporarily suspend...
( the productive settlement discussions we were having with the family )

So they're not actually totally dropping it then... just putting it off until no-one else is looking.

Yes, I know...

[Eric Damron]

My comment was in part a joke but sadly it is also true. I know several people in a band that have been told the RIAA that they owe money from bar gigs.

The RIAA is truely evil.

Let them!

[unicorn]

You misunderstand the point of his thesis.

If you disagree w/ the model that the RIAA operates under, and you remove yourself from their economic sphere, it won't matter AT ALL how many laws they pass.

If you will never, ever, ever buy, listen, admire the cover art of an RIAA CD, then who cares what kinds of restrictions are on it. If you're never going to get within 10 feet of it, who cares whether or not you can copy it, etc?

Kinda like for me, with cigarettes. They can slap a $1000/stick tax on them. And make it a criminal offense to stub one out to finish later. It will have exactly 0 effect on me. Because I don't have any business in any way with the tobacco industry.

Not an ideal comparison, but the best I can do on short notice.