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

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)

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: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