Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Drops Case In Chicago
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes, "The RIAA has dropped the Elektra v. Wilke case in Chicago. This is the case in which Mr. Wilke had moved for summary judgment, stating that: '1. He is not "Paule Wilke" which is the name he was sued under. 2. He has never possessed on his computer any of the songs listed in exhibit A [the list of songs the RIAA's investigator downloaded]. He only had a few of the songs from exhibit B [the screenshot] on his computer, and those were from legally purchased CDs owned by Mr. Wilke. 3. He has never used any "online media distribution system" to download, distribute, or make available for distribution, any of plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings.' The RIAA's initial response to the summary judgment motion, prior to dropping the case, had been to cross-move for discovery, indicating that it did not have enough evidence with which to defeat Mr. Wilke's summary judgment motion. P2pnet had termed the Wilke case yet another RIAA blunder."
I am dumbfounded at their stupidity... wow.
The RIAA has slowed down on the old lady and jobless wonder hunts? I don't hear much in the news about them lately =o
So is he going to counter-sue for the time and money spent defending himself against the allegations of the RIAA?
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
I disagree. All of the people that I know who download music (which is a lot on my college campus) do not own ANY of the music they're downloading. however, I think we all can agree that the RIAA and MPAA are out of line in what they're doing. I don't think that a lawsuit against them would be very succesful, but I could be wrong... I was wrong once.
When's the last time the RIAA sued a new batch of people? It seems like with all these setbacks that they might be slowing down the lawsuits.
Sue them for? They clearly -- CLEARLY -- don't have monopoly control in any form.
Is this the guy who was so rich we were all saying "So, the minute anyone with money puts up a fight, the RIAA runs away?"
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Wow! WTF have you been smoking? I cannot make heads nor tails of what you're saying.
Are you asking moderators to mod you as flamebait or what?
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
lets bring in the cd sniffing dogs and search his house for incriminating evidence!
I will bend like a reed in the wind.
Agreed. According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riaa/ - "The Recording Industry Association of America (or RIAA) is the trade group that represents the recording industry in the United States. Its members consist of a large number of private corporate entities such as record labels and distributors, who create and distribute about 90% of recorded music sold in the US." So, from that I would say that since the RIAA is not an individual company it cannot be a monopoly. Do they qualify as a cartel? Possibly.
Good for him. I'm glad corporations and movie stars aren't the only entities that can use the law for their own gain. Remember, it's better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to jail.
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
I am not very impressed by this story as a whole... The article references slashdot for discussion. That doesn't make any sense to me.
There just isn't much information in this story, it doesn't even say if anyone paid out at all. Could it have been a settlement? What did this guy ACTUALLY do? I doubt he is being sued for literally nothing. Any news article that sites P2P websites is not really very fair or balanced.
Next time you read something like this, please send a link to a real article, not just some web-blogger who heard something from a torrent site. Standards people, standards!
You take it, I don't want it...
... all these songs from exhibit B, which resided on my HDD, were duped from perfectly legal sources (namely CD's) that I rushed out and bought right after RIAA has launched its accusations. I find them pretty good... My pirating days are over ! Set me free !
How do balls even factor into it? Yeah, I'm sure you're frustrated and all, but you're just ranting now. Balls have nothing to do with it. It's all about money. I wouldn't want to blow my kids' college fund fighting a lawsuit against an opponent with a bottomless pit of money. So no, balls aren't the issue. It's common sense. Yes, the RIAA uses that to its advantage. No, there's not much we can do about it short of lobbying our congresscritters, which I have done on numerous occaisions. Mine don't want to hear it. They get campaign money from the recording industry. So, I don't vote for them. I tell others why I don't vote for them. I can't really afford to do much else. Out of curiosity, what are you doing? Or did you just come here to berate people?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
He didn't beat them in court, there was no judgement. They just backed out of the lawsuit.
And do you support a legal system where someone can sue YOU, using information that is so inaccurate that they actually don't even have your proper name?
RIAA vs. Osama Bin Laden Aliscool, tonight, on THE PEOPLE'S COURT.
I agree that they're not a monopoly, but I suspect that they might be a "trust" (which AFAIK is the same set of laws in the US under which monopolies are dealt with), defined as "a consortium of companies formed to limit competition". They all agree not to under-cut each other on prices, and to work together to protect their cash cow.
Just then the floating disembodied head of Colonel Sanders started yelling Everything You Know Is Wrong!-Weird Al
Yes, more specifically they're probably a cartel "A cartel is a group of formally independent producers whose goal it is to fix prices, to limit supply and to limit competition."
Try a price fixing cartel. Technology indicates that pre recorded music should be much cheaper than what it is, yet you look on the shelves-and it isn't? Coincidence, or large scale and entrenched (and ignored) price fixing? Or if you are an "artist", how about for fraud. Their contracts would make a mafia loan shark blush. Or how about collusion for bribery in congress? How about no matter how many of them get caught doing some form of payola, none of them are ever forced to stop being in the recording and distribution business *at all*? Why is they are allowed to continue, decade after decade, getting away with the same crimes and just passing along their joke fines they get wussy slapped with to the consumer?
There are several potential avenues to explore.
Thanks, I didn't know the definition of 'cartel'. I agree that's even more appropriate than 'trust'.
Just then the floating disembodied head of Colonel Sanders started yelling Everything You Know Is Wrong!-Weird Al
Piracy is wrong. However, using the term pirate to refer to a copyright infringer really makes the act sound much worse than it actually is. It's propaganda, plain and simple. Try and keep a little perspective on the rhetoric, OK?
Interesting offtopic flamebait at best, but I digress...
While we're doing the ball-less class-action suit, STOP F'ING BUYING CDs AND MUSIC and take away their bottomless pit of money. Right now they're raking in the dough so they can afford to pay plenty of lawyers to argue about how much piracy (Yarrrr!) is hurting the industry. Fuck them at both ends, and maybe get some results (or at least an NC-17 rating!)
blog
How do you get dragged into the lawsuit to begin with when it isn't your name? When they brought the papers by why didn't he just say "Sorry. That's not my name, you have the wrong address," and close the door on them?
Call me crazy, but something doesn't make sense. For the RIAA to have a screen shot of any relevance, it has to be of a file listing on a p2p network of someone with an IP traced back to Mr. Wilke. A screen shot of his actual computer would not only be impossible to obtain, but would also not show any infringement, and there aren't many other types of screen shots that would make any sense in this context. If it is also true that "3. He has never used any "online media distribution system" to download, distribute, or make available for distribution, any of plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings," then the only scenario that makes sense is the following:
The RIAA took a screen shot of something on a P2P network with either IP addresses or user names which were then incorrectly traced back to Mr. Wilke, who had never logged onto the network but coincidently had the songs in the screen shot.
This sounds a bit unlikely to me. The statement sounds a lot like, "I never touched the girl, and in any case she kissed me first." Perhaps even more accurately, "Yeah, sure I did it, but we both know you can't prove it." I don't approve of the RIAA lawsuits, but I don't really like to see dishonesty coming from either side. I wish that the side getting sued would counter sue (to keep the RIAA from just backing away from people who try to fight them), be honest about what they did, and then win in such a way as precedent keeps the RIAA from ever successfully wining such a suit again. Getting the suit dropped because they accidentally put down the wrong first name seems like a hollow victory at best.
You present essentially every defense you can think of. You are presenting multiple levels and angles of an argument. It's like if you asked if I robbed a store and I say "No I was at work that night, and even if I was near the store I'm not nearly stupid enough to do something like that." The second part of the statement isn't saying the first is false, it's just saying that even if you don't believe me that I was at work, you still should believe I didn't do it.
In the event of a lawsuit like this, that's how you'd go about it. Off the top of my head I'd challenge if the listing was undoctored (since screenshots are easy to fake), if it was of the right client (many P2P networks will misreport what you have on accident sometimes), if they verified the contents of the files, if they verified that they were coming from the stated IP address, if the IP to account mapping was accurate and unaltered, and if there was a way to prove that nobody else was using my network. It's just pointing out all the levels of problems. So even if the judge/jury buys everything else is legit, they believe it is likely someone else was using my network.
You'll find in some civil cases there can be hundreds of responses as to why the plaintiffs are full of shit. It's just how the game is played. You throw out any and everything that is wrong with their case, and see what you can get to stick and shoot it down.
I'm not sure about the RIAA's evidence, but suffice it to say, from what I've heard them use in the past, I wouldn't count it as evidence of anything. Anyone can fake a screenshot (or just make some stupid program) to show any IP they want sharing copyrighted files.
As for the lists of songs, the key word here is "some". If he really had been the infringer they allegedly identified, shouldn't he have had ALL the songs he supposedly shared on there, not merely a few of them?
As for probability, please remember the Birthday Paradox. If you have 30 people in a room, the chance that two of them share a birthday is NOT 30/365, which would be under 10%, but rather considerably higher. Google if you want the exact answer, there are lots of good explanations of it online.
Not a new tactic, not a new rhetorical element. Those with power have often tried to give new meanings to facts, events, words, ideas, etc. to make them sound and be thought of as being worse (sometimes less worse) as they originally were. After a while people will just pick up the new terms and use them as if they were natural, and they'll have more easy ways of achieving their goals. We can see this happening even in our lives, in many areas, no need to search for historical examples. You can raise attention to the intent, but most people just don't care at first and dismiss the issue saying it's ok, we know it's just rhetoric, but after a while it'll just subside and be forgotten. Well, these days it's no hard job to try painting a somehow doomed future, we have fairly many places to start from. Freedoms, laws, protection, rights, there were times when measures we happily accept today would have caused civil wars at least, still, we - as a crowd - have nothing against them.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
when most of us (at least 60%,) own the CDs we're downloading off the net.
Whose ass did you pull that number out of?
I rip my CDs with EAC and compress with LAME or aoTuV vorbis because that's the only way I know I'm getting good quality. So much stuff on the net is ripped in igorance. I use EncSpot to check over anything I do download and most of the time it reports sync errors and crapass encoders like Xing.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Actually, calling a copyright infringer a pirate just makes the act sound cooler than it actually is. Plenty of cracker groups in the 80s and 90s latched onto it for that very reason.
Of course, these days it has lost most of it's potency- positive or negative. Calling a copyright infringer a pirate is given no more thought than calling a custodian a janitor.
The use of the term as a negative propaganda tactic has failed miserably.
congresscritters
I wish the 4 or 5 people that still use that Limbaugh-favoured term would stop doing so.
To me, a 'critter' is a fuzzy little (possibly annoying) animal or pest. Are vultures, sharks, sloths and blood-sucking leeches also called 'critters' in your vernacular?
Quickly, everybody, comment on parent! This is the rare chance to get to use "loose" correctly!
(Since we cannot lose the incurable misspellers, maybe we can at least loose them here...)
If you wanna piss them off, don't pirate and don't buy either. Buying rewards them financially; piracy gives them an excuse to go apeshit.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
most of us (at least 60%,) own the CDs we're downloading off the net
And I thought most of the other arguments given for downloading RIAA-label music off the Internet were the ultimate in bullshit.
Why, pray tell, would you want to download music, ripped into a lossy format by some unknown encoder, that you already own on CD? If your answer involves the words "Sony", "BMG" or "rootkit" then I know you're talking gibberish.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Funny! But that last line should read "And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until music is dead."
How do you get dragged into the lawsuit to begin with when it isn't your name? When they brought the papers by why didn't he just say "Sorry. That's not my name, you have the wrong address," and close the door on them?
That is fundamentally exactly what happened in this case:
1. He is not "Paule Wilke" which is the name he was sued under.
*SLAM*!
-=test-sig_0.1.5(NoWhitespaceVersion)=-
...had he listened to this first: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yz-grdpKVqg
Life would be easier if I had the source code.
when most of us (at least 60%,) own the CDs we're downloading off the net
Can you back that up? I'm guessing you pulled that number out of your ass. Like you, I can only speak of anecdotal evidence, but I've yet to meet someone who downloads music he already owns the cd for.
Of course it might be that I'm simply hanging around with the wrong crowd but I suspect that's not the case.
No sig
Think about what we are saying here folks. Piracy is wrong. It is at the VERY LEAST immoral.
Is it more immoral than the vast theft that was perpetuated on the public with each extension of the term of copyright? All those works were created, published and sold under the terms of copyright at that time. Yet, the MAFIAA was able to unilaterally change those terms by bribing enough people in congress.
If stealing millions, maybe even billions, of dollars worth of content from the public is not only OK, it is sanctioned by the people who should be looking out for the public's interest in the first place, then on what grounds is it immoral when members of the public do the very same thing back to the MAFIAA, except on a much, much smaller scale?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
He keeps on getting sued for the same thing again and again, it's clearly harassment.
But seriously, these fucktards in lawyers clothing *ARE* harrassing innocent people, because regardless of the fact that they undoubtedly catch copyright infringers in their nets, the innocent are dragged right along with them. That ought to be unacceptable in any sane society. The life (or livelihood) of even one innocent person ruined even among 100 valid or semi-valid catches is not acceptable.
And the extortion tactic that they use is totally beyond the pail and should be disowned and despised by all honest lawyers. I don't see how lack of funds to defend yourself and consequent caving in to the extortion settlement despite complete innocence can possibly be supported. The fact that it is allowed and supported by the legal profession just shows how generally corrupt it is.
This post was brought to you by Gene Ray.
There is no doubt how this will evolve.
You cannot legislate how the IntraTubes get used... not really.
And the IT's are a better mousetrap for distribution.
In the future artists will charge much more for the creative process... cause that's all they will get.
Art is open source by nature... & since distributing this art is no longer difficult or expensive... well...
In space... no one can hear you scream.
Relax... You're soaking in it." -Madge
And to further skew the statistics, there are folks like me, who don't download ANY music content off the Internet, instead choosing to rip CDs checked out of the library.
However, it's probably important for us to maintain there is a large body of CD-buying rippers out there, to keep them from 'cracking down on our fun.'
If I want to buy a copy of Tom Jones' Greatest Hits, I can only get that from the record label which released it, or somebody that label licensed for resale.
Here here for the EAC + LAME one-two combo!
esp. if your CDs are in the car, or elsewhere. but I don't think the number's anywhere near 60%.
The more interesting number is: how many people would buy the song they're downloading if they had to. Even from iTunes? for $2?
I think 2%
The other more interesting number is: how many sales are *generated by the other 98%, when they user plays it for her friend, or ends up buying it, or whatever. Does it balance out that 2%?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Download time per track (average 8-10 Mb) - 1 minute.
Ripping time per track (average 8-10 Mb) - 3.5 minutes.
See the reason?
...had he listened to this first: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yz-grdpKVqg
Weird Al Rocks!
Latewire
Scratched CD?
Last I checked, it's the riaa's job to find the evidence. It seems like in this case they are saying they don't have enough evidence to prove guilt, but because they "strongly suspect" the other party is guilty, that the courts should go on a legal fishing expedition to try to find evidence against him.
That's why we don't just issue search warrants because someone suspects you are guilty. You have to have credible evidence to go looking (legally) for additional corroborating evidence. You use evidence to go digging for more evidence. Not suspicion.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
One word: cdparanoia.
If your CD is so incredibly badly scratched that CDparanoia can't make sense of it, that's more your fault for taking so little care of your stuff.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Please Mod Up!
As an addendum to what I said before, your CD being scratched isn't a reason for supporting P2P. It's a reason to pressure the record companies to replace scratched and/or damaged CDs on request.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
You misspelled money.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
And here is the world's smallest violin, playing for you...
I'm sorry, but I can't stand this argument, I really can't. It's so hypocritical it isn't funny. You're surrounded by content, drowning in it, even. There is more creative content available today than there has been in the whole of human history. But God help us creative artists if we actually want to charge money for that year's worth of writing/painting/composing/sculpting work, or leave a legacy for our families. You're allowed to do that, but we aren't. You can complain about the Mickey Mouse Act all you like, but it's still hypocrisy.
How about this? How about actually trying to understand the law, and how copyright works? How about understanding how reprint rights work, and how once they are sold to a publisher, it is actually up to the publisher when and how a work is reprinted? How about understanding the history of intellectual rights (and this goes WAY beyond a clause in the original constitution), and why it is important for copyright, and any code of laws, for that matter, to change and adapt as society changes? How about trying to understand the difference between a law itself and abuse of that law?
Guess what - asking you to pay for somebody else's hard work is not theft. Somebody abusing a law to their own ends does not make the law itself invalid. And if you want to hurt the RIAA, file a class action suit against them for abusing and breaking the law, rather than using them as an excuse to break the law yourself. But disrespecting an artist's wishes while claiming that the RIAA's actions give you a moral right to do so is wrong - they do no such thing, and to claim otherwise is hypocritical.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
Rhetorical and snarky question perhaps, but I'd actually love to hear some analysis of it from a lawyer's perspective.
Pi Ran Out
Here here
Here where???
And you will still get ground into the ground until you submit.
He was wealthy and able to fight, it was worth it to them just to drop it. The PR of actually losing the case would be much worse.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
That's funny. I read your entire rant, and I did not see even a hint of a justification as to why my point is hypocritical. Absolutely zero discussion of exactly why "the mickey mouse act" was not theft.
What I did read was an amazingly ironic diatribe about the law changing as society changes so that an artist can be paid for their work.
Guess what - the law needs to change to catch up with society. The content cartel are the only ones who benefit from the anachronistic system staying in place. Rather than allow the law to really catch up with the revolutionary change in society - namely that distribution is dead and the internet killed it - they are constantly trying to stuff the genie back in the lamp, and impeding the natural progression of the law.
Instead of railing at people who are behaving naturally to file a lawsuit -- yes it is human nature to share freely, without it civilization would have never got off the ground -- why don't YOU get busy and figure out how to get paid for your hard work in a way that doesn't rely on an anachronistic, unenforceable law?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I think it is hypocritical to say since "piracy" is less damaging to society than copyright extension it is ok to commit "piracy". I agree about the hypocrisy.
As for Steamboat Mickey, I think it is an insane amount of time until it goes to public domain. Are the grand-grand-children of Walt still getting benefits? Or is it some amorphous legal entity raking in money over someone else's creative talents that has died a long time ago? How does this LONG of an extension really benefits society and the original creator? Things entering public domain yield their own benefits. The fact that my country is leading the effort to kill this is egregious. The fact that we have many artists/creative talent arguing for endless (I am extrapolating) protection is either naive or egotistical.
{stands up} No, I am Paule Wilke
{sits back down}
That's a good point. Unfortunately, memorability and low syllable counts are mortal enemies of accuracy.
Here's an unofficial contest entry form. Try your hand at injecting colorful, catchy words into the popular culture to differentiate the following cases from "pirates":
Someone who downloads copyrighted files: improve on "downloader" or "p2p user"
Someone who shares copyrighted files: improve on "filesharer" or "uploader"
Someone who violates the DMCA for legitimate, otherwise legal purposes,
e.g. to play a DVD on Windows Media Center* or Linux, or to move PlaysForSure
or FairPlay protected items onto incompatible devices: improve on __________?
(And I suppose I should add the obligatory "....Profit!")
--
* Windows Media Center does not support commercial DVD playback, even with a licensed CSS decoder installed, except in the rare case when (a) there is no TV Out device enabled on the system and (b) the monitor resolution is at 640 x 480 or less.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/894323/en-us
Pi Ran Out
It's an important point, and kind of answers a lot of the questions posed in the rest of the thread: the RIAA can't sue again with the same allegations.
Only the most jaded of free information zealots don't believe artists should be able to charge for their content, so I don't really think that's the central issue of the copyright debate. The real issue is how much control society should grant the content holders. Should they have the right to forbid others from making digital copies of their content?
As you say, we now have a great deal more creative content available than ever before. Yet is this because of copyright law or despite of it? With so much content available, society as a whole can not afford all of it. Is this a cost benefit selection where consumers must make do with the limited amount of content they can afford? Does preventing the free flow of digital expressions of thoughts and ideas really encourage the creation of new thoughts and ideas?
Nothing wrong with asking. But is it okay to demand for payment? Is it acceptable to deny others access to your hard work? Does society really benefit more by keeping your content under legal protection? Isn't the debate over where to draw this line exactly what society should be having right now?
A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.
Download time per CD 1 minute * 10-12 tracks + 2 minutes (searching for the right track) * 10-12 tracks + 3 minutes (listening to the song to make the file is good) * 10-12 + 1-2 minutes (redownloading because the first version you found was crap) *10-12 + 10 minutes correcting filenames and tags = 80 -94 minutes
In addition, in the first case you start your ripping program and can go do something else. Many of the steps in downloading require your repeated attention. I can see the occasional case where someone might want to download a song they already own, but it seems unlikely unless they're already in the habit of downloading other music.
But disrespecting an artist's wishes while claiming that the RIAA's actions give you a moral right to do so is wrong - they do no such thing, and to claim otherwise is hypocritical.
That's bull.
Turnabout is ALWAYS fair play. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
The "mickey mouse act" and others before it ARE outright theft from the public domain. As the primary parties responsible for instituting that theft, the MPAA and the RIAA abrogated any claims to morality in this debate.
I'll grant you one point though - pirating the work of artists that are outside of the RIAA and MPAA domain is unfair. As they are not members of those organizations, they do not share responsibility for the actions of those organizations, and given the way those organizations operate, they probably aren't benefiting from those actions either.
You can't take chances like that. In such a situation closing the door on the process server won't help you one bit. You'll wind up with a judgment against you.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
What I've decided to do is only purchase actual CDs, meaning CDs are in accordance with the Red Book Standard. If a CD contains copy protection or cannot be played on all CD players, whether a portable unit, a home player, or a computer, I simply won't buy it. If I do buy a CD with the official CD logo and it turns out to have copy protection, I will return it.
But that's the point, though. The judegement wouldn't be against YOU. Because you're not that person. Don't they ask you if you're the party they are seeking when they show up to serve the papers? If the person answers "No, I'm not." why would they continue to serve you. Aren't they under some legal obligation to actually serve the correct person?
Of course they are under a legal obligation to sue the right person, just as they are under a legal obligation to research the case before rather than after bringing suit against innocent people.
But to suggest that people should ignore a lawsuit is really bad advice.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
It would be interesting to find out if RIAA and/or MPAA had hired Abramov in their lobbying efforts.
(A cursory search didn't find any connections.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The few thousand dollars here and there is hardly a drop in the bucket. It's more of an anti-piracy marketting tool.
Which is perfectly legal in Canada. At least for now.
"Why, pray tell, would you want to download music, ripped into a lossy format by some unknown encoder, that you already own on CD?"
I'm not the guy you responded to, but I wanted to chime in on this. I downloaded a lot of music I had CDs for instead of ripping it for a couple of reasons.
1.) I was able to just queue up the various songs I had an immediate interest in. I didn't have to wade through a stack of CDs, get them ripped, etc. (That and often my CD collection was split between home and work.)
2.) I was too f'n lazy to go find a good encoder and learn how to use it. This relates to point 1, it was easier to just type in the name of the song and have it come down when it's ready.
3.) This is only anecdotal experience, but rarely have I downloaded a crappily encoded song. In that event, I just found a different source. I'm not as sensitive to the quality of encoding as some people.
I have no idea if the 60% argument is supportable, I'm not trying to. I'm just pointing out that not everybody wants to bother with running a huge stack of CDs through their machine.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
The purpose of the suit is not to make or recover money from the lawsuit. The idea is to create fear. This is the same thing that the MPAA and Mattel does.
Many people see "grandmother sued for $1,000,000 for downloading music on the internet" and will be afraid to download music unless the RIAA gives its blessing. The same thing with thing with the MPAA and movies. Though they pay lots of money to their attorneys, their point is made.
The RIAA filed a dismissal on the eve of a bad ruling against them. I had Mattel do the same with a libel claim, when the judge asked what was libelous, Mattel dropped it. They do this to prevent a bad ruling against them, because they will be stuck with that bad ruling.
Fight Spammers!
lol. fixed it for you :)
1. (Older) customer bought works on LP, Cassette, 8 track tape, etc. and wants copies that will play on gear he has today. (Note: Customer also cares less about lossy formats, cause 8 track, etc. weren/t all that good to start with.) (That's about 5% of downloading by some admittedly not too formal estimates - that doesn't really explain why people who own CDs would download them, but it does explain why some people who own other copies would). .MP3s on a hard drive look about 1,000% cheaper than massively air conditioning a small closet with a 500 disk CD changer and its remote, and about 1,000% more convenient than keeping the CDs in some other locked area (to keep them cool, they can't be left in a constantly powered up player in a small closed up area, whereas there are dirt cheap older PCs with low powered processors that will run quite stablely in those conditions) and unlocking the closet every change. (This is obviously 0.00001% or so of the world's downloaders, but I know of one real case just like this, and another who had to give her autistic son only home duped copies of Disney videotapes or watch him destroy the originals at the rate of about 2/week.).
2. Customer owns CD player at home, none in car, nor a portable. (by some sources, that's 15-20% of downloaders who give that as one of their reasons, but admittedly, the number for which that is their real, primary reason is likely smaller).
3. Customer jogs, hikes, rockclimbs, etc. - CD players are bulky (in those situations), and customer would have to pay extra for anti-skip features, weather proofing, etc, if they bought one, or get something really not suitable. (I'd informally estimate 10% of downloaders fall in this category, but maybe the base couch potato to active ratio is steeper than that, although if it is, this country's doomed and we should quit worrying about little things like downloading).
4. Customer wants to be able to listen at home computer while using it for other tasks, does not have CD player in room, OR is using computer's CD drive for software that requires CD be kept in drive while running game, etc. Maybe the customer's only player IS the one in the PC.
5. Customer specifically has game (i.e. Doom or Quake series), that will use computer audio files as replacement soundtrack, and wants them for that purpose only. Why learn to rip CDs when you only want about 6 tracks ever?
6. Customer has 5 year old autistic daughter that loves to mess with in room CD player, watching the little drawer pop out 500 times an hour or so, and wants to put everything possible related to their music collection in a locked closet.
I can't really explain all the medical reasons why standard CD players don't work well for some people, (as I'm not an MD or physio-therapist) but it seems pretty obvious that arthritus, spinal cord injuries, and Parkensons all might make handling CDs or using CD player style buttons impractical, and there are probably several dozen conditions I havent even mentioned you could add to those. As charity, I've personally fixed up over half a dozen medically impaired people's PCs to play their collections conveniently, with mostly mouse only operation, oversized or high contrast displays, simplified icons or other such support, and helped them copy their collections (I haven't helped them download, I've installed legal free software rippers, made copies from the CDs they definitely own, and usually showed a regular care giver how to do more of the same as needed). I'm not about to rewire that many CD players with oversized, soft touch buttons, equally free of charge. Some of this sort of problem can be fixed by such old fashioned ways if you have lots of money, but who has a major illness and lots of money? And how many people trying to help in such situations know enough about the current law AND about tech to come up with solutions that don't involve downloading the music?
Now in many of these cases, it can make more sense t
Who is John Cabal?
I wonder, is it possible to request from the judge etc that the case continue, so that you can in fact prove yourself innocent and/or set a precedent (as well as the moral victory). Countersuing's an option too, but I think there's a special procedure for that insome cases, and you could probably also sue for defamation etc.
Let me tell you what I'm doing.
/. on the net, and give them every **AA story around to read thru the comments.
I go to people's houses, I find any DRM cd they have (ESPECIALLY Sony CDs) and I plug them into their computer. I show them just what Sony and the music industry are conspiring to do in the future, and *WHAM* these people STOP buying any CD. I rip their faves from cassette, remaster, and encode to MP3. I show them how the **AA rips the artists off. I show them
I'll estimate I've already taken about two million from the **AA just in consumer informing, alone. I know *LOADS* of people in Memphis, and most of them, even the un-educated, are learning that buying from the major labels is a waste of their time and money, because the money they think is going to artists isn't even coming close to getting to the artists, it all hits the label's pockets, minus maybe 5%.
Tell me, what are YOU doing?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Then you don't have the appropriate hookups. I buy a CD, and never touch it. Hell, it never gets UNWRAPPED. I get 320kbit rips from people I know and trust with the same music tastes as I have. I've yet to be disappointed by the quality, and my speakers have yet to fail because of 128kbit atifacting pushing higher frequencies than they can handle. But, of course, odds are you're not a musician with the connections. Not trying to gripe or rant here, but odds are you just don't have the hookup. I live in Tennessee and have constant contact with artists in Jersey, and California. Most stuff, I get for free, legally, direct from the artist.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I say that from personal experience and through the people I know and deal with every day in real life. Unlike you and I, most people aren't all that tech-savvy, and will buy music instead of downloading it. Do you forget that little fact? Also, as a disclaimer, I usually deal with people that don't know jack shit about computers and their capabilities.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
yes, I was asking for it. And guess what, as per my plan, I got it. Proof that moderators with power are all too-easy to lead around by the nose with appropriate wording. Thanks, guys, for helping me out with my psych. college class lecture! Power only leads to being easily led around by the right people with the right words to say. And the sheer amount of coments to my OP, and those that posted to the responses afterwards damn-near proves it.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Unlike you and I, most people aren't all that tech-savvy, and will buy music instead of downloading it.
Ok. Your original post didn't state that most people buy music instead of downloading. You said "[...] when most of us (at least 60%,) own the CDs we're downloading off the net." What I called into question was the 60% figure. Where did you get that from? If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say no more than 5 - 10% of people who download music legally own the original cds (how cynic of me, I guess). And I'm not taking into account iTunes customers.
Besides, you don't need to be tech-savvy to download music. All you need is a computer and a net connection. Most P2P programs are dead simple to use. I know several people (again, anecdotal evidence) who don't even know where to access the network configuration settings of their OS and they have 1 or 3 p2p programs on their computer (along with a bunch of spyware that comes with them). Not only they download music, but movies and software as well.
No sig
Great.
So, tell me. Exactly what does your point have to do with the original claim that 60% of the downloads are of music people already own the CD for?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
What you have stated, by and large, are not reasons to download from P2P rather than buy CDs. They are (except the first one) reasons to rip from CDs you have bought.
If you haven't got a CD player in the car but you have at home, you're either copying to tape from CD (fair use) or using an MP3 player, which you can rip CDs onto (also fair use). P2P doesn't factor in here.
Same goes for rock climbing and also the listening to music in-game thing; an MP3 player doesn't mean P2P. And I've really honestly never heard of the situation of number 5 occurring, but "why bother to learn" doesn't really stand up when iTunes, Windows Media Player and (IIRC) Winamp make it a simple, 1-click procedure.
In fact, what it seems like, by and large, is that you're arguing against CDs in general, rather than against ripping CDs. You can say all you like that there are medical reasons for downloading from P2P, but jesus, I've never seen anyone who downloads because of arthritis, they download because it's free! More to the point, if you can't handle a CD I think it's extremely unlikely you can handle many other household objects anyway, like, say, a computer mouse.
It's not easier to download than to rip. To download an album from BitTorrent can take about half an hour, maybe even more...to rip a CD takes 5 minutes, if that.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
And later:
He was never "served" this charge in the first place, nor have any of these high-profile cases against what appear to be largely innocent, unassuming individuals. He was only contacted by the settlement facility long after the RIAA decided he had already "been served".
This is without question the most crooked legal tactics I have ever seen in my life. In my opinion, the time for a class-action suit against the RIAA and each of the major distributors it represents is long overdue. I would love to see someone with deep pockets take that one on.
Having said that: of course piracy is rampant. But holy crap people. Legal precedent! Due Process! Yadda yadda yadda!
ad
Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
He should counter sue the RIAA claiming emotional distress as well as financial damages due to legal costs. THe fact that the RIAA decided to drop the case indicated that they really did not have any "TRUE" evidence of guilt.
He, on the other hand, has proof of defenses costs (his legal bills) and can certainly make claims that his reputation is now damaged. Just looking at what people are saying on this website indicates that there are certainly difference of opinions as to his innocence or guilt.
He'd probably make a fortune as the claims he can make include:
harrassment
defamation of character
emotional distress
financial burden
If they claim they did nothing wrong, he can simply state that they "failed" to provide adequate proof before subjecting him to a lawsuit. (Hence the reason they dropped the lawsuit was to try to save face of their own reputation without adquately compensating damages made to him for their mistakes.)
1.) Receive Law suite from RIAA
2.) Counter sue for damages
3.) Profit!
"The content cartel are the only ones who benefit from the anachronistic system staying in place. Rather than allow the law to really catch up with the revolutionary change in society - namely that distribution is dead and the internet killed it..."
Prove it.
Quite frankly, I see plenty of bookstores around, and the e-book was supposed to kill those years ago. Lots of music stores around. About the only place I've seen evidence that there is a marked drop in sales is in video stores, and those tended to be in regards to movies that weren't that good in the first place. So, you've made a claim - let's see some reports of profits going down across the board.
"Instead of railing at people who are behaving naturally to file a lawsuit -- yes it is human nature to share freely, without it civilization would have never got off the ground -- why don't YOU get busy and figure out how to get paid for your hard work in a way that doesn't rely on an anachronistic, unenforceable law?"
Because:
1. The law is adapting and changing, and is far from anachronistic.
2. It's not my job to give you everything you think you're entitled to. I'll write whatever I want to write, and it will sell however it ends up selling in the market.
3. I'm railing against people doing things that are pointless, or using an unrelated cause to justify their own agenda. You want to pirate music, fine - there's nothing I can do to stop you. But don't claim you're doing it in protest of something. Have the decency to be honest enough to say that it's because you want free music. The RIAA won't even notice the loss of your money. It WILL notice a class action suit. And if it lost such a suit, it would probably lose enough money that the entire RIAA issue would be settled in a positive way for everybody. That's how you fight back.
4. It is not human nature to share freely, and that did not get civilization started. Civilization started when hunter gatherers settled with everybody working the land. Eventually agriculture got efficient enough that people could be paid with food for services unrelated to cultivation. It was a barter economy, not people sharing freely. Considering the number of wars in the ancient world that were fought over areas of land with trade routes or resources, it's a lot more justified to say that human nature is territorial and greedy. Read Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and "Collapse" if you want a better idea of how civilizations develop across history.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
Really? 10 psychopaths who all murder again before being caught vs 1 innocent in prison. 10 deaths to 1 imprisonment.
Imagine that this is all happening on, say, an island with a population of 100. A 10% chance that you are murdered, compared to a 1% chance of imprisonment. You'd honestly want that?
We would not be having this conversation if it were not the case. Dinosaurs did not die over night, and neither will the distribution industry. When the entire point of the internet is to make massive distribution of information at minimum cost, the end is obvious.
1. The law is adapting and changing, and is far from anachronistic.
Prove it! Lol. Show me one bit of legislation that accepts, rather than ignores or is in conflict with, the fact that distribution is essentially zero-cost on the net.
2. It's not my job to give you everything you think you're entitled to. I'll write whatever I want to write, and it will sell however it ends up selling in the market.
You write as if the law entitles you to something. The law is not morality, and copyright law is an arbitrary restriction on inherently non-rivalrous goods.
3. I'm railing against people doing things that are pointless, or using an unrelated cause to justify their own agenda.
Who are you to judge other people's agendas? You just don't like it because it calls your entitlement into question. Seems like two sides of the same coin to me.
4. It is not human nature to share freely, and that did not get civilization started. Civilization started when hunter gatherers settled with everybody working the land. Eventually agriculture got efficient enough that people could be paid with food for services unrelated to cultivation.
Just how do you think the knowledge to make agriculture efficient was distributed? SHARING. Was the wheel patented? Was the lunar calendar copyrighted? I don't deny that people are unwilling to freely share rivalrous goods. But information is non-rivalrous and non-exclusive, making the free sharing of it natural, efficient and inevitable.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
"As you say, we now have a great deal more creative content available than ever before. Yet is this because of copyright law or despite of it? With so much content available, society as a whole can not afford all of it. Is this a cost benefit selection where consumers must make do with the limited amount of content they can afford? Does preventing the free flow of digital expressions of thoughts and ideas really encourage the creation of new thoughts and ideas?"
I would say that the amount of content available right now has almost nothing whatsoever to do with copyright. It does have a lot to do with population, literacy, pop culture, and perception of the trade (there is this idea that writing for a living is this wonderful, glamourous life with lots of sex and money, but that is almost never the case in reality - the joke in the trade is that if we had exciting lives, we wouldn't be spending all our time writing). But people start creating out of love for the craft. When they get good enough that they can spend months on a single project and have it be worth something, they need to support themselves, and copyright law is there to prevent them from getting screwed over.
For example, one of my acquaintances is an amateur writer who has actually stopped posting her work. From what I hear, she's only a couple of steps away from her writing being professional quality. But, every time she posted a story, a bunch of websites copied it, took her name off it, and slapped on their own. That's what copyright is supposed to protect artists from. I really wish she had the time and money to sue those people - the credit for her own work should never have been taken away from her. And now she's been so badly burned that it's quite possible that none of her new writing will ever see the light of day - content none of us will ever read.
This is an abuse that shows up a lot. There was even a Slashdot news story about how a lot of bloggers were plagerizing, rather than doing their own work. Copyright is the law that allows the original author to fight against that.
The idea that society can't afford all of this content is laughable. Society doesn't just buy content wholesale - creative artists put it on the market, and people buy or rent what they like. And there are lots of inexpensive means of distribution. Songs can be listened to for free on the radio. Books can be borrowed from a library for only the cost of a library card. Movies can be rented for a minor fee from a video rental outlet. And that's not counting all the content that shows up on television, paid for either by advertisements that don't cost the consumer a cent, or a small fee in the case of cable television. And then there's places like Amazon, which offer discounts on pretty much any orders. We may be overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of content, but unable to afford it? Not at all.
To think that copyright prevents the free flow of ideas is nonsense. Copyright law does not allow one to copyright an idea - only a specific implementation of one. There is nothing stopping somebody taking the same idea and going their own direction with it, nor should there be. Patent law, which is a much different matter, allows one to monopolize an idea. And copyright law is not about taking away the expression of thoughts and ideas - merely ensuring that the creator of the expression of thoughts and ideas is able to decide what happens with their own work. Having to pay X amount of dollars for a book doesn't stop that book from being on the bookshelf in the first place. It's still available. It's just your choice whether or not to pay to read it.
To deal with your final paragraph:
"Nothing wrong with asking. But is it okay to demand for payment? Is it acceptable to deny others access to your hard work? Does society really benefit more by keeping your content under legal protection? Isn't the debate over where to draw this line exactly what society should be having right now?"
Yes, it is okay to demand pa
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
Use the RIAA Radar and only but non-RIAA CDs. This supports the good guys, would piss off the RIAA if it was done n large enough volume, and lets you listen to something other than what the RIAA tells you to hear.
I hear some non-RIAA artists on Sirius -- which is the only source from which RIAA gets any of my money. I no longer acquire (purchase, download, whatever) any RIAA-related music.
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
Yes, I for one would want that. Have you ever been falsely accused? No? Well it sucks. And secondly your analogy is horribly flawed; if there were only 100 people on an island, the odds of their being 10 psychopathic murders are very slim. Not to mention it probably wouldn't be that hard to figure out who they were :)
I'm sure you are just playing devil's advocate, but next time do it with better numbers kay? Thanks for playing.
My rantings, only longer and with better spelling..
But, every time she posted a story, a bunch of websites copied it, took her name off it, and slapped on their own. That's what copyright is supposed to protect artists from.
The right of attribution is only a minor right in the English common-law version of copyright. Other similar moral rights - droits moraux - are primarily an artifact of French copyright law and either not present in American copyright law or only minimally represented.
And copyright law is not about taking away the expression of thoughts and ideas - merely ensuring that the creator of the expression of thoughts and ideas is able to decide what happens with their own work. Having to pay X amount of dollars for a book doesn't stop that book from being on the bookshelf in the first place. It's still available. It's just your choice whether or not to pay to read it.
Simple consumption of information is only one very small facet of availability. Your justification completely ignores repurposing that occurs when new creations incorporate old ones - like the soundtrack for a tv show being edited for release on dvd because the licensing costs are prohibitive enough to make the dvd release uncompetitive in the market. Or mixups like Danger Mouse's Gray Album, or restrictions on the use of art prints in the background of scenes in movies, or even something as public as the hollywood sign itself. Then there is the entire issue of the fact that the vast majority of the books under copyright are OUT OF PRINT and legally unavailable at any price.
Yes, it is okay to demand payment for your work. It's YOUR work. You can do what you want with it. You can give it away for free if you want to. There's nothing wrong with either of those choices. Taking away the choice is what's wrong.
You are conflating work with work product. What you say is true about the former -- because it applies to every endeavour of man -- but not at all true about the later.
Making ridiculous historical arguments - that a certain implementation of copyright was in the original draft of the U.S. Constitution doesn't make that implemention suitable after over 200 years of societal progress, no matter how many times somebody repeats it (and it has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright outside of the United States).
You sure seem to be arguing for exactly that. Other than increased duration and scope, today's law does not significantly differ from the original English common law.
What the debate needs are people who understand the law, understand the history of copyright, understand what the market is doing and the forces at work, understand the technology, and can discuss all of this in an intelligent manner.
You appear to be ignorant of the economic basis for the market forces at work, ignorant of significant technological ramifications of recent developments, ignorant of key areas of the law and the real historical context of copyright. I believe you are part of the exact problem that you have defined.
PS
Copyright law does not allow one to copyright an idea - only a specific implementation of one.
Tell that to the people who pay for the movie rights to a book, or the remake rights to a movie like Infernal Affairs being remade into The Departed, or Il Mare being remade into The Lake House.
I gotta stop rereading your post, it is riddled with such fallacies, I just want to pick it apart into little tiny pieces.
I've been building a list of sources for non-RIAA music which I call "Liberated Music". If you have any good ideas for additions to it, would appreciate your passing them along. Thanks.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
One can only bring civil suit against another in good faith, that is, you have reason based on presentable facts, not suspicion, that your case has a chance of succeeding. The "presentable facts" must be evidence that can be used in trial. The facts do not have be complete, but they must reliably show a "tip of the iceberg" that you have been wronged.
A screen print of files from someone's computer, even if the files are copies of songs you own the copyrights to, is NOT a presentable fact of wrongdoing *by anyone*. For example, as Wilke claims, the copies may be legally his thru purchase unknown to the RIAA. Unless the RIAA can show a judge that it has FACTual knowledge that those copies are almost certainly infringing, there is no presumption of guilt, and no case. An example of this would be if the copies were of songs that RIAA held rights to that had NEVER been released at all. Then finding the songs outside of the RIAA's vaults (or whereever they were kept) would be almost certainly infringing, and a lawsuit (and discovery) would be reasonable.
Discovery is NOT for a fishing trip to find if the copies are legal. If the RIAA had reliable proof (or "near proof") the copies were infringing, then discovery would be to find out how they got there, who specifically may have been involved other than just the accused, how widespread the infringement went in order to establish damages, etc.
GP is correct - "strongly suspecting" someone of guilt is not only NOT a basis for discovery, it's not a basis for a lawsuit in good faith.
IANAL, as usual.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
If the only data the RIAA had was a name, and they looked him up in the phone book to figure out who to sue, then they may actually have the wrong guy.
Additionally, it depends on how the RIAA got the name in the first place. Did someone at an ISP look up at a log listing, type in the name from one record while meaning to get it from the line above or below? Etc, ETc. An incorrect name can be an indicator of a missed target; and given the RIAA's usual amount of air-tightness in their "evidence", it's not that far fetched.
If the cops nabbed a guy for mugging an old lady, they'd probably have a lot more to go on than just a name to tag the accused to the crime. In that case, a name mispelling WOULD be a "technicality" that shouldn't be the only reason to set him free.
The RIAA's interest in taking people to court has nothing to do with whether those they accuse are guilty - they're making their money cuz people roll over, guilty or not. So the RIAA has no reason to make sure they got the right guy - he'll probably roll over anyway, why bother?
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
Back in the 90s, when CDs existed but mp3s on the internet did not, plenty of young people that I knew had HUNDREDS of CDs. I do not know anyone doing this anymore.
Let me get this straight. Now, I'm no fan of the RIAA, but how the HELL can you NOT find someone who is guilty of file sharing and convict them? Jesus... its really not that hard.
The last time the RIAA dropped a case with prejudce it was determined that the defendant was the prevailing party, and under existing copyright law entitied to all reasonable expenses. Hope that happens here too. Lose a few more like this and the RIAA will be a lot more careful about who it sues with what evidence.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
">>distribution is dead and the internet killed it..."
">Prove it
We would not be having this conversation if it were not the case. Dinosaurs did not die over night, and neither will the distribution industry. When the entire point of the internet is to make massive distribution of information at minimum cost, the end is obvious."
Sorry, but that's not proof. That's turning it into a circular argument. And the end is not obvious. If it was, the tape recorder and radio would have killed the music store decades ago, and the VCR would have done the same to the movie business. When it came to the ebook, history has instead shown is that online distribution tends to become a "sibling" form of distribution to the mainstream distribution channels, and also that online sales tend to be lower than mainstream sales. This is even quite logical. This may come as a shock to you, but even though it's cheaper to distribute online, most people actually prefer to not be chained to their computer for their entertainment needs.
"> 1. The law is adapting and changing, and is far from anachronistic.
Prove it! Lol. Show me one bit of legislation that accepts, rather than ignores or is in conflict with, the fact that distribution is essentially zero-cost on the net."
Well, first of all, copyright law has nothing to do with the cost of distribution - it's about who is allowed to distribute. The cost of distribution is irrelevant to the actual law itself. As far as legislators trying to adapt to the issues of new technology, in the United States alone you've got the: Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations Act (still being debated), the No Electronic Theft Act, the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (still being debated), and the Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004 (still being debated). Not all of these will pass, and not all of them will get it right, but all of them are proof that legislators are trying to understand and deal with the issues involved.
"You write as if the law entitles you to something. The law is not morality, and copyright law is an arbitrary restriction on inherently non-rivalrous goods."
Actually, the law explicitly entitles me to certain protections of my work, and to have all of my reasonable wishes regarding that work respected. And the law may not be morality, but all law is based on morality in some way.
"Who are you to judge other people's agendas? You just don't like it because it calls your entitlement into question. Seems like two sides of the same coin to me."
I'm part of the group whose rights you want to strip away. I'm protecting reasonable rights that are guaranteed to me under law. And I'm somebody with a brain in my head who can see your agenda for the bullshit it is, and is willing to take you to task for it. There are so many ways to fight the RIAA that it isn't funny. But you're not talking about writing letters to newspapers or congressmen/congresswomen/senators, or donating to the EFF or defense funds, or getting involved in organizing protests or protesting, or launching a lawsuit, or writing blog entries or editorials, or making your voice heard in any way that would be noticed and counted - you're talking about hiding in a corner and illegally downloading music, and complaining that there's somebody who would take you to task on it. The actions do not match the agenda. If you want free music, then come out and say it. But stop being dishonest about it.
"Just how do you think the knowledge to make agriculture efficient was distributed? SHARING. Was the wheel patented? Was the lunar calendar copyrighted? I don't deny that people are unwilling to freely share rivalrous goods. But information is non-rivalrous and non-exclusive, making the free sharing of it natural, efficient and inevitable."
Oh, go read a book about history, for crying out loud. And try telling that crap about sha
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
Class action lawsuits against RIAA actions have never taken place, as far as I know. No lawyer in his right mind would be willing to take on The US Attorney General's Office, who have been not only allowing, but backing, the RIAA's actions. RIAA lobbyists have been quite effective in swaying legal interpretation to their favour - it's no longer about copyright law, it seems. http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename= elektra_barker_usstatement
Pretty dry reading, but it does show that the US AG has gone on record and expressed their stance.
Note as well that the Wilke case was dropped "with prejudice", which basically states that although the RIAA is agreeing to not chase this case any further, they still "believe" he is guilty and reserve the right to sue him under the same charges again. Definitely not a win for Wilke. They do this in every case they drop. Basically means that they have never lost a case, and they use this as precedent in subsequent cases.
Point being, you'd be initiating a suit against the RIAA's proven legal machine, as well as bringing the integrity of the US Attorney General's Office into question as well. Good luck!
Dear Deamuxx:
.Elektra v. Barker. It is important to point out that it only addressed a very narrow point that had been made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and specifically declined to take any position on the RIAA's "making available" argument. In fact, the government stated in the brief that it had never prosecuted anyone for 'making available' and that its only prosecutions had been against actual pirates.
I commend you for reading the Department of Justice's "Statement of Interest" in
Secondly, I want to let you know that "with prejudice" means they cannot come back and sue him again. ("Without prejudice" would have meant that they could sue him again.).
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
And, finally, information is facts and figures. Created work is not information, nor has it ever been. And by suggesting that something that a creative artist worked on for weeks, months, or years, is nothing more than information is doing that artist a tremendous disservice, and extremely disrespectful.
That statement sums up your position perfectly. Everything else you posted was silly misdirection and sophistry, but this takes the cake.
Everyone who makes that kind of semantic distinction is an idiot because it demonstrates a willful ignorance of the modern world. If it can be digitized, it is information. No ifs, ands or buts.
That you don't understand this fundamental fact is all the proof in the world that you have zero qualification to pontificate on the topic of copyright. Every single issue that makes copyright controversial today is a direct result of this fact. If we were still in a world where all copyrighted materials had to be semi-permanently fixed in some sort of physical medium like a CD or a book, then piracy would be so rare that it would hardly be a topic of even academic debate much less the central issue of a PR campaign included at the start of every movie out of Hollywood.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I think it is part of human nature to share music and other creative work, and that all creative work is derivative and collaborative in that it builds upon the work of others. All musicians learn from other musicians. All writers learn from things they've read. When a group of playwrights hung out at the Mermaid Tavern and shared ideas, the result was an explosion the world still hasn't recovered from.
Today with hip-hop and rap, the "sampling" takes place is a crucial part of the creative process, and one that is really hard to cover by the copyright laws.
There was a time when the "fair use" defense gave people a sense that they could borrow bits and pieces of the work of others, and build on them.
But today the brutal over-enforcement by the content cartel, and the control of the creative process by corporations and insurance companies which assume the fair use defense is nonexistent, and require clearances for everything, is making for a lot of difficulty, and threatens the creation of new things.
I do think that sharing is an integral part of human nature, while stealing is an unfortunate trait of some humans, but not one that promotes human life.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
"That statement sums up your position perfectly. Everything else you posted was silly misdirection and sophistry, but this takes the cake."
Translation: you don't actually have an argument or proof to refute me, so you're calling my argument names instead.
"Everyone who makes that kind of semantic distinction is an idiot because it demonstrates a willful ignorance of the modern world. If it can be digitized, it is information. No ifs, ands or buts."
Translation: you don't actually have a clue as to what copyright is in the first place, or what it means to be a creator, or the difference between a work of art and a spreadsheet, so you're trying to bully an idea through without proof of any sort.
"That you don't understand this fundamental fact is all the proof in the world that you have zero qualification to pontificate on the topic of copyright. Every single issue that makes copyright controversial today is a direct result of this fact. If we were still in a world where all copyrighted materials had to be semi-permanently fixed in some sort of physical medium like a CD or a book, then piracy would be so rare that it would hardly be a topic of even academic debate much less the central issue of a PR campaign included at the start of every movie out of Hollywood."
Translation: you haven't bothered to actually become informed, understand why copyright is there, or its history, but you have seen anti-piracy ads at the theatre, and you don't like them.
Don't bother to reply to this - you are to an intelligent discussion what a guillotine is to a sore throat, and you've proved that enough over the last two days.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
Translation: you don't actually have an argument or proof to refute me, so you're calling my argument names instead.
Correction. I don't have time to educate you. I've done it enough times on slashdot with people who hold the exact same self-justifying beliefs and found them to be intractable to logic. But just so it is clear, that your post was fully of misdirection of sophistry - just what kind of bizarro world do you live in that you think citing the extinction of neaderthals is proof that humans do not naturally share knowledge?
Translation: you don't actually have a clue as to what copyright is in the first place, or what it means to be a creator, or the difference between a work of art and a spreadsheet, so you're trying to bully an idea through without proof of any sort.
Ok, tell me. Just what makes "a work of art" so much different from a spreadsheet? Is it the time and effort that went into creating it? Is it the skill of the creator and their understanding of what the spreadsheet represents? Is it the uniqueness of the spreadsheet? Is it the thoughts and insight that the spreadsheet can inspire in the minds of people who view it? Or maybe it is what the market will pay for the spreadsheet? I give up. What difference is there? Come on mr holier-than-thou-because-i-am-zee-artiste, put your cards on the table.
I'll give you $2000 via paypal if you can distinguish between digitzed "art" bits and "information" bits. Here are two sets of 32 bits in hexadecimal format, one is copied from a jpeg scan of the mona lisa, the other is copied from a gnumeric spreadsheet:
0x387A2F4F 0x24324373
If art is not information, surely you can tell the difference. I've got $2K I am ready to spend on a Panasonic AX100U projector, but I'm putting my money where my mouth is. If you aren't full of bullshit, then prove it and come and take my money.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
AREN'T purchasing hundreds anymore. They aren't purchasing any. Five steps forward, three hundred back does not move you forward.
How many CDs have you NOT purchased because you heard the mp3 and decided it wasn't as good as you thought it was, or that a few listens was enough? Probably more than five. For many people, it is nearly 100% of their music. Most importantly, it is precisely those who WOULD buy hundreds that most likely to become pirates. Instead of buying many, they buy a few (but probably still more than a non-music fan).
"> Translation: you don't actually have an argument or proof to refute me, so you're calling my argument names instead.
Correction. I don't have time to educate you. I've done it enough times on slashdot with people who hold the exact same self-justifying beliefs and found them to be intractable to logic. But just so it is clear, that your post was fully of misdirection of sophistry - just what kind of bizarro world do you live in that you think citing the extinction of neaderthals is proof that humans do not naturally share knowledge?
> Translation: you don't actually have a clue as to what copyright is in the first place, or what it means to be a creator, or the difference between a work of art and a spreadsheet, so you're trying to bully an idea through without proof of any sort.
Ok, tell me. Just what makes "a work of art" so much different from a spreadsheet? Is it the time and effort that went into creating it? Is it the skill of the creator and their understanding of what the spreadsheet represents? Is it the uniqueness of the spreadsheet? Is it the thoughts and insight that the spreadsheet can inspire in the minds of people who view it? Or maybe it is what the market will pay for the spreadsheet? I give up. What difference is there? Come on mr holier-than-thou-because-i-am-zee-artiste, put your cards on the table.
I'll give you $2000 via paypal if you can distinguish between digitzed "art" bits and "information" bits. Here are two sets of 32 bits in hexadecimal format, one is copied from a jpeg scan of the mona lisa, the other is copied from a gnumeric spreadsheet:
0x387A2F4F 0x24324373
If art is not information, surely you can tell the difference. I've got $2K I am ready to spend on a Panasonic AX100U projector, but I'm putting my money where my mouth is. If you aren't full of bullshit, then prove it and come and take my money."
The only reason I am justifying this with a response is that you have put your money where your mouth is, and in this case I am quite happy to take the money from an ignorant, arrogant fool.
The challenge is, on first glance, a trick question. What you've provided are bits, which are just raw computer data. They're useless to anybody without the context to place them. Unfortunately for you, you never specified HOW I had to distinguish between them, and it's too late for you to do so now. You also only challenged me to demonstrate that I can - not to actually do so. So, my method would be to look at the entire file containing each bit, determine what type of file it is (easily enough done using the file extension, or trying file extensions until something reads as an image file), and that would determine which one is the jpeg (and since the Mona Lisa is easily the most famous painting in the world, the work of art). By process of elimination, that makes the other one the data from a spreadsheet. So, yes, I CAN tell the difference, and having presented a workable solution, I've won the challenge.
Unfortunately, I don't use paypal, so you'll have to pay me by certified cheque. Contact me at delric at istar.ca and I'll give you the address to mail it to.
(Word to the wise - don't ever try to bluff out somebody holding the proverbial nut flush.)
Not that I expect to get paid. You'll make some idiotic claim that I cheated, or misunderstood your words, or that I didn't prove what I was supposed to be arguing, and weasel out of it. I've seen your type on here before. You're like one of those creationists - it doesn't matter what hard evidence I present, you'll just claim that I'm misleading you, presenting inconclusive evidence, or lying. And I don't like having conversations with the equivalent of a brick wall. So, I'm not going to waste any more time with you. If you want to talk some more, you're going to have to make good on your bet.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
You have not proven that you can distinguish between the two, only that you think you can.
4 47659
But, you are wrong - your answer demonstrated that you CAN'T distinguish between bits from "art" and bits from "information." Because if you could, you would have written an answer that would have worked.
To keep things honest, I publically recorded the correct answer immediately after posting the challenge:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=200217&cid=16
You'll find http://www.rot13.com/ to be helpful in understanding the answer and how you got it wrong.
(Word to the wise - don't ever try to bluff out somebody holding the proverbial nut flush.)
Too bad you got all caught up in your own cleverness and couldn't see the forest for the trees.
Perhaps now you might want to explain how a spreadsheet is different from "a work of art?" Seeing as how you so kindly quoted my question in your last message.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
But since they don't, then it's a good reason to use P2P for it
Sorry to take so long to reply to this - I was caught up in racing an editing deadline and another part of this argument had me occupied (although I have finished with that one, thank God).
First of all, thank you - you have to be one of the first people I've seen in this general argument who has provided an intelligent claim on this side and evidence to back it up. After seeing stuff like patent law being mistaken for copyright law, and somebody actually declaring that discussion of a claim was evidence that the claim was correct, it's a breath of fresh air. Almost everything you've said I can't really argue with, and so I'll just deal with the points I disagree with.
"But today the brutal over-enforcement by the content cartel, and the control of the creative process by corporations and insurance companies which assume the fair use defense is nonexistent, and require clearances for everything, is making for a lot of difficulty, and threatens the creation of new things."
I certainly can't disagree with the statement that there is over-enforcement, but there must be a distinction made between the letter of a law and abuse of that law. Unfortunately, the music industry has a history of treating its artists very badly in this regard (there was a wonderful piece by Courtney Love, I believe, about how the impact of a pirated song was nothing compared to how the music industry rips off the musicians themselves). This isn't necessarily reflected in other creative media, though, so I don't think that a generalization really works here.
"I do think that sharing is an integral part of human nature, while stealing is an unfortunate trait of some humans, but not one that promotes human life."
We certainly form communities - I can't argue against that part of it. However, history is replete with examples of one community trying to wipe out another over resources. There is also a long history of people lying, cheating, and stealing to monopolize information both inside and outside of the academic community. The idea of everybody sharing knowledge is certainly a wonderful ideal, and there are certainly people who follow that ideal and are the better for it, but at the same time there are far too many counter-examples of people being territorial and greedy for me to consider the ideal the norm.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
You and Garwulf are talking at each other rather than to each other. I would like to try and lay out a few principles, and see if we are all in agreement on them:
1. Sharing is a universal human trait. Even the worst, and most selfish, human beings, engage in sharing activities with at least some other people.
2. Stealing is an antisocial behavior which some, but not all, people engage in.
3. The creative process is enhanced by sharing, and impeded by stealing.
4. Copyright law should encourage orderly sharing, and discourage outright stealing.
5. Copyright law distinguishes between raw data or information on the one hand, and creative input on the other.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The generalization should be broad enough to include the motion picture industry as well.
Sharing is a norm; stealing is not.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
3. The creative process is enhanced by sharing, and impeded by stealing.
4. Copyright law should encourage orderly sharing, and discourage outright stealing.
5. Copyright law distinguishes between raw data or information on the one hand, and creative input on the other.
How do you 'steal' a non-rivalrous, non-excludable resource?
If your answer is the common definition of piracy, then I have to ask, how do you enforce such laws in a manner which does not produce a significant reduction, if not a complete net economic loss for society?
If your answer is along the lines of the same way society enforces laws against murder, I'll refer you back to the argument about natural human behaviour. If your answer is along the lines of the same way society enforces speed limits, I'll refer you to the fact that speed limit laws are unenforceable as demonstrated on all major freeways every hour of every day and enforcement is both arbitrary and ineffective at discouraging violation.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I'm not sure I understand you. I was merely trying to see if there were 5 basic principles on which we could agree. I'm not sure which ones you disagree with, or in what respect you disagree with them.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I will disagree with any statement about what should be if it does not take into account the non-rivalrous and non-excludable nature of 'content.' That pretty much rules out any use of the term 'steal' and (not that you made any) just about any analogy to physical objects.
My line of questioning is a didactic approach to leading someone down the same path of reasoning that I have followed.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Still not clear on whether or not we are in agreement on all 5 principles. Are you agreeing with 1, 2, and 5, and disagreeing with 3 and 4 because you don't think there's such a thing as "stealing" ephemeral intellectual property? (By "stealing" I guess I would be referring to (a) plagiarism, and (b) pirating.)
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
"The generalization should be broad enough to include the motion picture industry as well."
:-)
Are you sure about about? There's an argument to be made that Hollywood hasn't put out an original product in years...
"Sharing is a norm; stealing is not."
We'd have to agree to disagree here, I guess. I wouldn't say that sharing is a norm. I wouldn't say that stealing in and of itself is a norm either. I'd put the norm more at territorialism (both individual- and group-oriented) and self-interest.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
1. Sharing is a universal human trait. Even the worst, and most selfish, human beings, engage in sharing activities with at least some other people.
Agree, and I believe it is relevant to the discussion of the future of copyright law.
2. Stealing is an antisocial behavior which some, but not all, people engage in.
Agree, but I do not believe it is relevant to the discussion of the future of copyright law.
3. The creative process is enhanced by sharing, and impeded by stealing.
Completely agree with the first part, agree with the second part only in relation to plagiarism, where plagiarism is only non-attribution of 'significant' fragments.
4. Copyright law should encourage orderly sharing, and discourage outright stealing.
Disagree with the first part, I believe the orderly part is impossible. On the second part I agree, but only as it applies to plagiarism as above.
5. Copyright law distinguishes between raw data or information on the one hand, and creative input on the other.
Agree as the law exists today, but I believe it is irrelevant to the discussion of the problems facing creators today.
In defining what copyright law should be I would suggest that you start at one root principle and then apply the technical constraints of the modern world (not the legal constraints, since your goal seems to be to define what the law should be not what it is):
0. People who labor, should have the opportunity to profit from their labor.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
For some, they don't know how to rip it themselves. For others, they can't be bothered. For still more, they can't get their own "protected" CD's to rip.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
I give up on trying to build a consensus here between you and Garwulf. There isn't as much common ground as I thought there was.
For the record, my only "goal" was to try to build that consensus, so you two could narrow the issue to whatever is really bugging you, so I could find out what it is.
But I failed. So on to other projects, like doing battle with the RIAA and the MPAA. Being a lawyer by profession, defining "what the law should be" isn't really my primary focus. Enforcing the law as it is, is what I primarily do.
Unfortunately, while you and Garwulf expend energy battling over the proper scope of copyright law, the law is being rewritten in such a way that will appall both of you when the dust settles, by a series of cases in which the RIAA economically overpowers its victims and confuses the judges as to (a) what the law is, and (b) what the technology is.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
For the record, my only "goal" was to try to build that consensus, so you two could narrow the issue to whatever is really bugging you, so I could find out what it is.
That's easy. I've seen his type plenty. I even used to be his type before I thought things through.
He believes there is a moral basis for copyright law, that there is an inherent right of the creator to control distribution. Notice his first post in this thread was an absolutist moral argument (accusation of hypocrisy) in response to my questioning of the relative weights of the immorality of 'theft' from the content cartel versus 'theft' from the public domain. Insistence that artistic creations are not 'mere' information is also a hallmark of a copyright moralist.
I, on the other hand don't care a whit about morality, I am a pragmatist. I believe copyright exists to encourage creation as a net benefit to society - just as private ownership of real property exists to produce a net benefit to society. When digitalization made content truly non-rivalrous and the internet made it effectively non-excludable, then the opportunity costs of copyright law became greater than the net benefits. It's not that the value of the content went down, its that the value of the opportunity to share went up because the cost of sharing went to near-zero.
If you accept that content is now non-rivalrous and non-excludable, then the question returns to how do you encourage creation in a way that provides a net benefit to society? My answer is that like any other person who labours - be it ditch-diggers, office workers, even lawyers, the creator should be paid for his labour because that labour is still rivalrous and excludable, just like content was before the advent of the internet.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
You seem to be missing a factor here - Your concept seems to be: People who want to get MP3 or other such forms of CDs they own, and have a computer can either download or rip their own. Ripping their own assures getting everything in your collection, with more reliable quality, and is faster, so why would anyone choose downloading? (Sorry if I'm putting words into your mouth here, that's genuinely not my intention, and I hope I'm summing your ideas up pretty accurately.)
Fair enough, but here's the other conditions - You're assuming CD ripping software is equally available with File Sharing software. That is, the prices are the same for similar utility, they are similarly easy to find (particularly by an internet search), and they are similarly easy to learn to use. For that matter, you're assuming a CD drive in the user's computer, although that's a safe assumption in 95% + of cases.
In my own case, I don't download where copyrighted materials are involved, but do download whole Linux ISOs and Usenet binaries (ones legitimately the IP of their poster) so I know something about the software. I had to get X-News for Usenet, as Outlook Express was just about completely useless for multipart binaries. X-News had a steep learning curve and was a very "non-windowsy" feeling program, which could drive many people towards burning if all they want is copies of their own stuff, but it was also free, and had exceptionally good online support pages. The first ripping software I owned was 29.95$ downloaded of the net without the company sending a physical disk copy unless I wanted to pay extra, and I had trouble with compatability with my CD drive of the time (The software incorrectly interpreted the read speeds reported by the drive, and would automatically kick down to read only at 1x speed). So for me, I could have downloaded the CD in 20-30 minutes, or ripped it in about 64. That was about 8 years ago, on a 98 box. The chief reason why I didn't go with downloading was I didn't want to encourage the uploaders who were, even then, breaking the law. I also decided that my public involvemnt in free software and such was a good reason to stay squeaky clean.
The ripping software also frequently popped up windows, chiefly relating to track naming. You had to stay in the room while it was ripping, just in case it hung up when you didn't answer one of the questions (although it did give you about 2 minutes most of the time). I ran across a couple of CDs it just wouldn't rip (Anyone know why Constance Demby's CDs were particularly reluctant to process?) I had to learn a lot about bit rates, including variable ones, and why K-Jofol v 0.31 didn't like them on playback. Eventually I had to move to something new for playback (Winamp, then at 1.04 or so).
Looking back, any of those issues could have made some people decide to skip ripping and try downloading instead. The longer times required to download meant a lot less if you could trust the process to run automatically, and couldn't trust ripping to do so. On older CD drives or PCs, differences in the amount of memory and such could make ripping a lot slower than a 5 minute process, as it is for many (but not nearly all) of us today. There was a time when most PCs could process data faster than most user's download pipes could deliver it, but those same systems couldn't keep up with running a ripping/compression algorythm at nearly maximum CD drive speeds.
There are plenty of people who would rather buy physical media for their software, and so go to staples or best buy and take whatever looks good, and so frequently learn a less than optimal solution. (Just think of all the people in red or blue shirts who would love to sell a copy of MS works on the assurance that Outlook does better downloading than OE, and that will fix the customer's problem - how many of them will steer the customer towards cheap 3rd party ripping software, let alone a free alternative?). There are plenty of people who stick with whatever the
Who is John Cabal?
It has been proven that 90% of all quoted percentages are made-up.
And this is exactly why I'd never represent myself, given the unfortunate opportunity. :) Thanks, Country Lawyer. I can't help but think, however, that declining to go on record in support of or against "making available" arguments speaks to the success of the RIAA lobby effort.
Of course, that's the cynical me talking. In any case, I still think a class action suit against RIAA's tactics ("tantamount to extortion" - it's been used in attempted countersuit) would make any lawyer nervous.
No I think it was not helpful at all to the RIAA, for the Government to seek to distance itself from the RIAA's main (indeed only) argument for the merit of its case.
I agree that a class action would be good. Am hopeful that the class action bar will take this up.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful