Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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.
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.
Video Game cheats, hints a
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
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.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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 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.
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
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
He who has no