Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Goes for the Max Against AllofMP3
Spad writes "Zeropaid is reporting that as part of its ongoing lawsuit, the RIAA will be seeking the maximum of $150,000 per song for each of the 11 million MP3s downloaded from the Russian AllofMP3.com between June and October last year. This amounts to roughly $1.65 trillion, probably a tad more than AllofMP3 has made in its lifetime. A representative of AllofMP3 stated: 'AllofMP3 understands that several U.S. record label companies filed a lawsuit against Media Services in New York. This suit is unjustified as AllofMP3 does not operate in New York. Certainly the labels are free to file any suit they wish, despite knowing full well that AllofMP3 operates legally in Russia. In the mean time, AllofMP3 plans to continue to operate legally and comply with all Russian laws.'"
Why sue for a trillion, when you can sue for... a million?
got sig?
last time I checked and considering that they cornered 45% of the space launch business and is the world's largest exporter of oil and gas, the USA needs Russia more than Russia needs the USA, so good luck to the RIAA and their money wasting tactics.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Let's see how many RIAA people come down with an acute case of radiation sickness. In Russia, the competition comes after you!
And if they win, how exactly are they going to pay this stupidly large amount of money. I think the quote to remember is "operating within Russian law".
"Dark Wings, Dark Words"
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this was actually the second post.
$1.65trillion is a fair bit more than the GDP of Russia as a whole.
How fucking ludicrous and excessive. Jesus.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
AllofMp3 offers 20% bonus untill January 14, 2007
Russia's yearly gross domestic product is $1.576 trillion. RIAA's claim is little more than that, $1.65 trillion.
I'm all for allofmymp3 and all of it's Russian counterparts. I lost my entire cd and record collection in Katrina and it was the only was to recover my collection instead of repurchasing all of the albums again.
I am old enough to have bought my entire collection on records, tapes, cd's and for as much as I can SACD/HD audio. I am all for contributing to the machine if the records companies release NEW, higher quality recordings in the future, but I'm not repurchasing my cd collection. I've already paid my taxes to the RIAA Gods several times over.
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
This is an batshit insane amount of money to ask for. According to here, this is more than Russia's 2005 GDP by any measure.
I know that most of us on slashdot realize how absurd the RIAA and MPAA's claims are about the losses caused by piracy, but if this is publicized I think that it could go a long way toward aptly demonstrating the absurdity of their claims.
I mean, I don't think anyone, except apparently the RIAA lawers, could possibly believe that in a few months- or even in a year or two, one single (not all that well known) russian website caused the RIAA to lose over a trillion dollars in revenue.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
Where do they get these numbers? This is over 10% of the GDP of the USA, and 333 times the amount gross retail music sales in 2005. I wonder if the US court will take this companies .com domains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_music_market
That when all is said and done, one of the things the RIAA will walk away with a list of customers who used the service?
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
...by repaying them with $1.65 trillion worth of Russian intellectual property.
I'm sure the Russian government would be willing to make an official valuation of the complete works of Joseph Stalin as worth $1.65 trillion.
Then AllofMP3 could repay the RIAA by licensing them to the RIAA.
Problem solved.
Imagine downloading the audiobook version from the iTunes Music Store.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
As of 2005 Russia's GDP was 1.58 Trillion Dollars. I'm not sure how the RIAA expects that amount to be paid.
Of course, in the broader sense, this really creating a very interesting disparity in International law. The USA, along with some corrupt nations in South America, are fast becoming refuges for international criminals convicted/awaiting conviction in the International Court for War Crimes (*Cough* George W. Bush *Cough* who recently purchased a 100,000 acre ranch in Paraguay). The rest of world, on the other hand, is becoming a haven for people avoiding prosecution under US IP law. Living in the United States, I'd say we're definately getting the shitty end of the stick on this bargain.
This amounts to roughly $1.65 trillion
Proof once again that the RIAA is run by Dr. Evil.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Typically, you are licensed for the music/song/movie -- you only buy the media. If the RIAA wants to take that position, then you do not need to buy new copies. If you are buying the music/song/movie, then you can do what ever you want. Which one do they chose?
Fight Spammers!
You're either wrong or there are a lot of naive western investors who don't know there are no laws in Russia. Or maybe Putin just happens to have a lot of friends.
Your local public libraries carries a tons of CD that you can borrow for FREE
and rip it to your best MP3. I'm wondering when RIAA is going after the local
public library
THEIR SUING POWER IS OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
You are wrong and ignorant.
You *must* be trolling, right? If so, I guess I'm falling for it.
He bought a legitimate license, lost his original copies in a natural disaster, and then downloaded replacements - and that's the moral equivalent of your download without purchasing any license? I don't see it.
In his model, the money was paid to the copyright holder, and presumably some of that money made its way to the artist. When he downloaded replacements, he cost the copyright holder nothing, and only deprived them of the opportunity to charge him for an additional copy.
I'm not saying what he did was morally right, but it's a darn close to acceptable in my book. I'm frankly uncertain of what I'd do in that situation. I keep an off site mp3 version of all of my legitimately purchased music, so I'm less exposed in the case of a natural disaster. It seems ridiculous to suggest that he should pay full price to have access to something he already paid full price for.
I think it would be a good idea for you to pay for music. After all, if no one pays for music, there's no money to pay artists at all, regardless of the fairness of the contracts and the distribution mechanisms.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Are you being serious or just trolling?
:-p
It depends on this if I should bother to correct you.
... somebody please nuke RIAA HQ.
... why are you not stopping these "colleagues" of yours from their unrestrained rape of not just the afluent west but the world at large?
Humanity just doesn't deserve the shit that those lawyers have in their heads.
And to any lawyers who may be reading this
If you continue to do nothing, then don't complain when lawyers are regarded as parasitic scum by the rest of society.
RIAA: What is this, where's all the money?
Russia: That's as good as money sir. Those are IOUs.
Russia: Look, $125,000. Might want to keep that one.
A hilarious response would be if the Russian government would now confirm that Allofmp3 operated within the country's laws.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I dare you.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Just like all the Naz-
;)
1 926/843
Phew. That was a close call.
But seriously, wtf? I googled briefly and got this --> http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/10/14/1
Got any MSM links (though I wouldn't be surprised if there were none, true or not)?
I'm afraid that whatever the RIAA does, and whatever the figure in damages they're claiming, it doesn't mean diddly squat.
Not to RIAA: There are no fucking laws whatsoever in Russia, and no way of claiming anything against AllofMP3.
Their best and most thoughtful bet would be to collaborate with AllofMP3, support them and take their cut out of the whole thing that way, because they have absolutely zero chance of getting at them in any other way.
Naive western investors and lawyers still laughably believe that they can go and sue people over there.
All it will do is increase the level of fear amongst the unwashed masses. In their minds this just reinforces the belief that the **AA have the power to do anything to anybody. And unfortunately it's hard to argue with that.
Okay, it's gonna be unpopular and I'll get modded as a troll probably, but I've got to say it.
I'm not a big fan of the RIAA, but I'm also not a big fan of AllofMP3. Yes, it's legal in Russia (through a loophole in radio licensing they're trying to close), but not here in the US.
A ton of Slashdotters use it because they think it's a good business model and they feel like they're doing something legal because they're paying for music. Sure it's a nice business model- the way they calculate the price you pay by measuring the amount you're downloading in MBs, but they money that goes to AllofMP3 doesn't end up in the artist's hands any more than it does when you pay money to a record label by buying music on a CD here in the USA (in fact less: none to be exact). Sure, you can complain all you want about the evil RIAA and how they don't give enough money to artists, and boycott them all you like. But the truth is artists get NO money from AllofMP3 (instead of an unfair tiny amount from the RIAA). They're just profiting off of other people's work. Like the RIAA but worse. Instead of a tiny amount of money going to the artists, the moeny goes instead entirely to the proprietors of AllofMP3 (who are rumored to be connected to the Russian mafia, by the way).
I've seen a handfull of people wondering how they would pay such a fine if ruled against, simple, they wouldn't.
Suits of this nature are filed knowing full well there's no way the entity could possibly fullfill the terms, which cripples the entity & ensures they can not recover & continue business as usual.
Funny thing is, if ruled against, I could see allofmp3 flipflopping & silently going bankrupt through their US counterpart somehow, then starting all over again.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Well I for one hope Putin uses AllOfMP3 because this means there may be an radioactive solution to all of my RIAA issues and if anyone deserves some 3rd world evil empire justice it's the RIAA. ;)
Funny, I'd say the same about the United States and Bush:P
(BTW, no European nation talks too badly publicly about Putin or we fear that our heating oil and natural gas supplies from Russia will be cut off.)
Sue for a Trillian? Why the hell would they do that? Especially after she fell for that stupid... "I'm from another planet. Wanna see my space ship?" line. I mean geesh.... she wasn't even that hot.
load "$",8,1
I'm surprised they don't pull an Al Bundy and go for a bazillion dollars.
Also, what would a trillion dollars convert to in Brazilian dollars? I'm sure there is a good Bush joke in that somewhere, too...
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Putin has a lot of friends, or at least people who play along and don't upset him. Power buys that.
Anyone from the outside investing in Russia should know full well that it is a high-stakes gamble. The state could shut you down at any time - but ont he other hand, Putin can't afford to do that too often since he'd scare all that money away. So you just try to keep your head down and not be one of the ones he picks on.
Why is it that the best online music store (in terms of reasonable price, freedom of use, and audio quality) is the one of questionable legality? I doubt it'd be effective, but I'd like to see the EFF or similar get involved with somehow using allofmp3 as an example of a reasonable distribution model.. because seriously .. this is the best system I have heard of.
Anybody else agree?
Surely the "R" doesn't stand for "Recording". Must be for "Racketeering"
The Racketeering Industry Association of America. Thats more like it.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
A trill-what dollar? Is that money? I never found such a coin in my wallet. Let me have another look, I just got some change from the grocery...
Anyone want to speculate that RIAA might start taking action against credit card companies who process payments to websites such as AllOfMP3.com?
If AllOfMP3.com gets shut down permanently, another cheap MP3 site can just spring up in its place.
But if credit card companies are ordered to block payments to such sites, and regularly updated about each new naughty 'infringing' site, that just might start to seriously disrupt the business models of such sites.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
Ask for the WTO to censure the US and the RIAA for coercive business tactics.
Better yet, allow the unrestricted imposition of punitive tarrifs on all RIAA member company merchandise by all WTO member countries.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Does the RIAA realize that many Russian businesses are owned by ex-KGB and by Russian mobsters?
The RIAA bigwigs may get a sturgeon head in their bed one night.
So why isn't the RIAA suing the RIAA equivalent body that AllofMP3 paid fees to, you know, the ones who are supposed to be taking care of all of the copyright stuff? Russian law dictates that AllofMP3 go through that body, which they did. If RIAA has a problem, they need to address it there.
It must be nice to 'win' all your arguments by just applying labels to everyone who disagrees with you. Anyways, back on topic, allofmp3 might well be perfectly legal, in Russia - but the artists dont get *shit* when you buy your music there. You're the kind of person who loves to point out that often the law isn't whats important, but the morals at the centre of the issue, yet completely ignores any morals at stake when they might stop you doing what you want.
Botom line is, like 90% of posters on Slashdot, your morals are selective, your thinking is entirely predictable, and you argue like a coward.
Oops, they can't, can they ?
...
Maybe the RIAA should stick to going after defenseless single mothers, because it's just
not smart to fuck with the Russkis. They have their own rules : there ARE no rules.
Don't believe me ? Ask Mr. Markov
International law is mainly a game of diplomatic arm twisting, and this could get very ugly if the US isn't careful.
Russia has quite a few energy resources as well, and it's already demonstrated that Russia is not shy of using that power when it needs it (a bit like the US military power, but more subtle and with less ugly after effects).
At the moment, Mastercard and Visa are playing the "do as we tell you or you will not be able to play with the US" card, but by doing so they may well break international trade agreements, and the US is forgetting that especially Europe is (a) dependent on Russian gas and (b) not exactly fond of the US habit of abusing monopolies anyway (MS is a good example).
What can thus happen is that AllofMP3 could set itself up as a political toy breaking a US stranglehold on the market, and if that happens I'd sit well back as the fallout could be far uglier than the RIAA (and MPAA) can imagine.
Do you really think for one moment that Putin will allow the US to dictate the laws in his country? All AllofMP3 needs to do is to ask Putin to cosy up to either the EU (if it gets its act a bit more together) or China (who have the same lack of eagerness to see the US dictate what they should do) and settle this matter and the game will be over for the RIAA.
Even Bush isn't stupid enough to risk major international fallout over something like the RIAA, and AllofMP3 has enough buyers to prove that, well, probably the rest of teh planet is quite willing to pay for music if the price makes sense. That's also still the best way to beat privacy. Remove the economic benefits of piracy and piracy is no more, but that would leave quite a few people out of work, lawyers, 'investigators', MediaSentry. Now THAT is worth examining as a separate motivator..
Just my 2 cents..
"Mediaservices' sites sell millions of songs by their artists without paying them 'a dime' for the right to do so."
"As part of their claim, the labels are seeking $150,000 USD for each of the 11 million songs that were downloaded from June to October 2006 from the AllofMP3.com website.
If hell freezes over and they do get paid $150,000 for each song.
That would be one hell of a Tax windfall for the government.
Let's be blunt here, that biz makes money, so it's likely that those guys have their fingers in it. Now, when you've tried to shut down a Spammer or a trojan host based in Russia, you know that you're fighting windmills. Because ... well, guess whose they are?
I've had my share of 'fights' with them, so I know they are a formidable enemy. And I can only hope that they are behind AAMP3, too. Because then, we'll see what happens when two criminal cartels clash.
I'll bring the popcorn.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
AllofMp3 will never see court. Instead they will offer a deal: turn over all the records of people who bought songs there outside of russia and pay some nominal fine and they walk.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
LOL. His dick just went limp!
What happens when someone, prone to mischief and with re$ources, sues these monkeys for say $2T at the 3rd Circuit Court in Mogadishu.
Fantasy, yes, but imagine a court seizing Disneyland in Japan and France to pay for some judgment, as funky as the one that we will see here.
...that the Russian response was something along the lines of:
Xa,Xa,Xa,Xa,Xa,Xa....!!!!
Digital rectal extraction a.k.a. "pulling a number out of their asses".
Hmmm... I guess you could bash America, but then no one was bashing Russia. In fact no one was really bashing Putin either. That's pretty low... Although, we could blame the republicans. They did vote for Bush. Twice...
Yet I think that not even the deffest of jams merits compensation sufficient for an interstellar platinum plated Hummer-- which I can get you, for $1.65 trillion, I promise. Heck, I'll to it for half that. But I need it up front.
When you buy a CD or a DVD you are not paying for a license to do anything, you are buying media. Nobody, not even the RIAA, is claiming otherwise. You still can't do whatever you want with your media, because there are laws that restrict certain uses (such as copying, distribution, public performance, etc.)
/. bring it up because they conflate software with other copyrightable works. EULAs are very extraordinary. There are no EULAs for books, CDs, DVDs, etc.
This licensing thing is getting really fucking tiresome. People on
They are also unnecessary.Yyou don't need an EULA to use software (note, this is separate from whether EULAs are enforceable), because any infringing acts you commit in order to use your software are actually exempted in the Copyright Act itself. Consumer level licensing exists for virtually no other copyrightable works, and they wouldn't need to exist for software either. The fact that they do is insane, really.
So, please stop it with this licensing bullshit. It makes you look like a fucking idiot and just instigates other fools into repeating you thinking you have a clue.
As opposed to the US, where being on the correct side of the law means investing millions in lobby groups and election funds.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
Maybe it is time for the russians to realise who's the bitch now.
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
Oops, they can't, can they ? Maybe the RIAA should stick to going after defenseless single mothers, because it's just not smart to fuck with the Russkis. They have their own rules : there ARE no rules. Don't believe me ? Ask Mr. Markov ...
I wouldn't waste your time. Mr. Markov has no memory whatsoever. All he knows is his current state; not how he got there. I doubt there is much benefit to asking some Russian dude with a bad-ass case of Alzheimer's about RIAA intimidation tactics.
GMD
watch this
So this is how the US plans to solve its national debt?
The friendliest digital photography forums on the net!
American corporations love doing business in countries where labor laws are lax. They do business where labor laws are lax because they can work people there in ways that would be illegal to do so in the United States. The corporations would call this "globalization" and point the great benefits of the "global economy" at work.
American corporations also like to do business in countries where organized dissent to their activities is suppressed by "friendly" governments (friendly to their interests, that is). They do so because organized dissent is legal in the United States and has on more than one occasion 1) aired the corp's dirty laundry, 2) stopped them from performing harmful (but profitable) acts, and 3) called for the corp's to strike a balance between shareholder value and respect for the laws of the country in which they live.
What does all of this have to do with AllOfMP3? Well, American corporations have a long record of doing business (and making bundles of money) by going to places where they aren't restrained by such trite formalities as "laws". American corporations love to extol the virtues of the "global economy", just as long as they're the ones who benefit from it; after all, transnational capital alone should benefit from international business.
But for some reason, the average Joe using the internet to do THE EXACT SAME THING that American corporations have been doing for years is deemed wrong, illegal, unethical, and Lord knows how many other bad things. The average Joe who buys a song from AllOfMP3 is engaging in exactly the same type of transaction that corp's have done for years: gain financial advantage by offshoring their transactions.
Am I oversimplifying? Maybe. But chew on this: Either we have a global market (as we are told that we have as our jobs are outsourced), or we don't. And if we do have a global market, the rules were written long ago by the same people that are trying to stop us from following them.
Governments are not necessary.
Great publicity for AllOfMP3.com, however... don't you think?
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seuss
I agree with you about the radioactive retribution, but can you really call the other half of the Cold War "third world", a nation which is still the second greatest nuclear power?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Stick that up your a$$, RIAA!!! Btw, I illegally dowmload music. Oops! There, I said it. Try and sue me you sluts! I'll shoot the first one of you bastards that steps foot on my property. Muhahahaaaaa!!!!!
Blame the republican party, not republicans.
I'm republican (or should I say conservatives?) and the first time around, I voted McCain (in the primary) and didn't vote in the general election, and the second time I was so disgusted I voted Kerry (though he is nearly as bad).
Now I see that I perhaps should have voted for Gore in 2000 - but I know plenty of republicans who voted for Bush in the first election but not the second, usually abstaining the vote in general.
Our party has strayed from its stated ideals, but true blue republicans (not the neo-cons) have not been well served in the last 6 years either. Both sides have lost in all but name.
Once, you could get 10 songs on a CD for $20.
Now they cost $150,000 for each song.
I guess I havn't bought a MAFIAA song in a while.
America was founded not long after the 100+ year publishing monopolies in Europe were dissolved, and the US allowed only a 14 year copyright monopoly.
Now, here we are again. If you want to find a place where you can freely exchange ideas for the sake of advancing science or art, well, the US is not currently that place. If you have a new composition based on Bach, great, but anything based on any work from the last century would be illegal to even give away without paying the owning corporation whatever they demand. And the software that you created is also illegal to give away, because the trivial algorithm you used was patented last year by another information holding company.
Fuck, you fucking people are giving me a brain haemorrhage with this shit.
Works are fixed in media (see 17 USC 101). These media are called copies. So music and software are fixed on CDs and DVDs (and harddrives and RAM), and novels are fixed in hardcover books, etc.
When you buy a CD, you buy a CD. Period.
When you buy a book, you buy a book. Period.
You can lend your book, your CD, to someone. You can rent it. You can sell it. You can burn it. Etc.
You do not buy, and do not need, a license for the work on the media unless you plan to do something with that work that would violate the copyright holder's exclusive rights (see 17 USC 106).
THERE ARE NO EULAs FOR CDs OR DVDs.
You are buying media. Period.
You have to understand that. You can do anything with the media you want. That doesn't entitle you to the "work." The work is an intangible thing. It is unownable and unpossessable and therefore nobody owns nor possesses it.
Copyright grants copyright holders certain rights assoicated with the work -- FROM WHATEVER SOURCE -- but this is separate from the work fixed in a medium: which is a physical thing, just like any other physical thing.
The reason you can't do whatever you want (eg, make copies) is because the copyright statute says you can't. It's not because a license says you can't. You need a license in order to make copies*, sure, but you're not buying one when you buy a CD.
* you can also make copies if you have one of the few exceptions under the law, etc.
If you're allowed to make backups, btw (about which there is no brightline rule, only the fair use test), you're allowed to keep them when you resell your CD, etc. But since there's no general exception to make backups generally (software is an exception IIRC), the whole circumstances have to fit the four factors of the fair use test. So, e.g., if you intended to sell your CD, and made a backup so you could keep the music knowing you planned to sell it tomorrow, that's probably not a fair use.
Of corporate presidents and high powered lawyers over to Russia to "Negotiate". Once those lawyers apply their legal acumen in the new enterprising Russian venue I'm sure the corporate suits will get a resolution they deserve.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I, for one, welcome our new Trillionaire overlords.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
And you looked at it?
That's not even something RIAA people claim. It's just a fucking fictitious argument Slashdotters made up.
There are no licenses associated with buying music on CD. NONE AT ALL.
If you lose your CD, you've lost your CD. It's just like any other physical piece of property. You're not "licensing the music on the CD." YOU ARE NOT. NOBODY CLAIMS THAT YOU ARE, EXCEPT IDIOTS ON SLASHDOT. And the only reason idiots on Slashdot claim that you are buying licenses is because a) people who sell software claimed they sell it pursuant to a license agreement and b) people on Slashdot, like people everyone else, want to be able to do things with music which they're not allowed to do, so figure they invent this licensing strawman to create a loophole in which they can do it.
These licenses simply don't exist.
YOU OWN YOUR CDs. THEY ARE NORMAL ACTUAL PROPERTY. YOU CAN DO ANYTHING AT ALL IN THE WORLD WITH THEM EXCEPT THINGS THAT ARE ILLEGAL.
You can't kill someone with your CD because a criminal code somewhere says you can't. You can't copy the CD because a copyright statute says you can't.
THERE ARE NO FUCKING LICENSES YOU FUCKING FUCKS.
BS (at least w/ the lobbying groups).
Lobbying groups have far less influence than most people think. (I work on the Hill - I know.) Unless the group represents someone that is a constituent (or business that employs large numbers of constituents) of the politician or the politician is corrupt (roughly 1 in 50 is), the group will not get face time with a Senator. They might get to meet one of his legislative assistants (many who are law students), but the influence a LA will have on his / her Senator varies greatly.
If you were to poll the Senators before they ran for office, you would find that their views are already in alignment with the RIAA and MPAA. That is why they get money donated to their campaign - not for influence when they are in office, but to get elected (pure and simple - cause when they are then elected the RIAA / MPAA does not need to worry about them). The American people at the moment do not care enough about the issues (that the RIAA and MPAA do) to vote based on them (and given our current problems - this may be a good thing).
When the movie / music organizations throw receptions here (they did a special dinner and advance screening of Eragon 3 weeks ago), not a single Senator went (I know - I had nothing better to do, so I rsvp'ed and showed). Heck, I bet less than 10-15 legislative assistants were there also. Most of the people that go to their meetings are either interns, people that think they're important or rarely IT people that are tired of coding (me). Now many of those interns may be your future Senators - so you could say that they are buying influence in advance... but I doubt it - given most interns pirate music left and right (a few are dumb enough to do it at work).
Anyhow - they (lobbying groups) don't buy influence, Americans simply elect people that support the lobbying groups views (i.e. an uninformed voting populace).
There is always a frontier where there is an open and willing mind
If you are tired of seeing this crap, there is one simple solution. STOP paying for music or for movies. Just download everything. It stops the money flow, so they can't use that money to make these insane court cases. That is all.
If you check your voting records, the Dems run copyright.
So, if you want to complain about how evil the RIAA is (and have legitimacy), you have to complain about the Dems.
Well, if Russia changes its laws so that AllOfMP3's service becomes illegal... the RIAA can't sue for alleged moetary losses before it became illegal, as there was no law to make it illegal before.
It would be like if the US made recycling of lightbulbs mandatory (giving the lightbulb-makers the right to sue you if you didn't bring broken lightbulbs) and then the lightbulbmakers try to sue you because you threw away a lightbulb ten years ago (instead of recycling it). You cannot break laws retroactively. Even if the lightbulbmakers ran big campaigns and threatened to sue you if you don't recycle those lightbulbs, they cannot sue you for doing something in the past that now would break the law.
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
Russia(and its businesses) may get away with this due to its size, but I predict that, just as Iraq was invaded for its oil, the future of war may include intellectual resources.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
Not just people from outside Russia. Anyone who's born and raised in Russia needs to know that great success is a high-stakes gamble. Remeber Boris Berezovsky or Mikhail Khodorkovsky?
The 'new' Russia is very much like the 'old' Russia in that if you piss off the people at the head of the table, you'd better run or you'll wake up in prison or dead.
Zeropaid is reporting that as part of its ongoing lawsuit, the RIAA will be seeking the maximum of $150,000 per song for each of the 11 million MP3s downloaded from the Russian AllofMP3.com between June and October last year. This amounts to roughly $1.65 trillion, probably a tad more than AllofMP3 has made in its lifetime.
Everyone gets their panties all caught up over how the amount concerned is ridiculous. There's a simple reason why it's supposed to be ridiculous. I'll see if I can explain.
Say you could commit a crime (let's not debate whether it should be a crime, that's a whole other debate). Say the crime allows you to profit by $1,000 and the risk of getting caught is 20%.
Now let's assume that you're only allowed to be sued for the profits you've made.
One guy is essentially back where he started. It sucks but no great loss. Four other guys are $1,000 up.
The simple mathematician in me says this beats the hell out of Vegas. 20% chance of losing nothing more than what I got from it, 80% chance of keeping my money... Statistically, if I do this enough times, I'll make $800 for every infraction.
People play games at Vegas because sometimes they win many times what they put in, many times they lose, but the chance is enough even if they lose very slightly more than they put in on average. Statistically they know they'll lose overall but they'll take the risk for the big win.
In the above 20%/80% model, you're not even going to lose overall. You're going to win overall and you'll never lose more than you get from it. That's a pretty awesome deal.
So, without arguing whether a given act should be illegal or not, accepting that it is: Simply taking away the benefit of commiting the act, with anything less than a 100% success rate in apprehension, means you've created a model where it's statistically profitable and are, effectively, encouraging it.
How do you discourage it? By making the cost punative.
In this new model, say you only have a 5% chance of being caught but, upon being caught, you lose thirty times what you gained, anyone with a grasp of statistics will realize the average attempt will cost them 150% of what they gain, making it not worthwhile and hence discouraged.
Of course this assumes that people are smart and, as Vegas proves, they're not - most people will take odds where they lose overall if they figure there's a good chance of sometimes coming out on top.
This is the problem with speeding tickets ($100 or $1000, it's semi meaningless if people know that 999 times out of 1,000 they'll get away with it - the large fine just feels unfair at that point as it's something they never really considered they'd be lumbered with).
This is also the problem with the RIAA file sharing lawsuits. $4,000 for one in a hundred thousand violators is just random unfairness. A $100 fine, if you knew you'd absolutely get hammered with it the moment you committed the act, would be far more effective at discouraging people. Not understanding how human minds work means they keep on being perceived as unfair as opposed to changing perception of the act to a bad idea.
Still, accepting they are going after businesses with things like the $150,000 fine, and not individuals, it does shift somewhat back to the statistical effect model. $150,000 per violation seems ridiculous but the whole point is to make it absolutely clear, "If we get you, we won't just take what you've made but we'll take everything you've ever made, will ever make, your investors have ever made and anything associated with it. Still want to play?" It's not supposed to be fair - it's supposed to somewhat balance out the statistical chance of getting away with it.
Curiously, we bitch when we perceive those suing as evil and yet we bitch when large corporations play those same odds. Take a car company that knows it can pay $2m per case to settle 100 fatalities caused by a known safety issue - rather than pay $500m as a recal
A couple of points:
While you are correct that the courts determine the outcome, the parent poster was attempting to justify behavior which is clearly in conflict with the laws of the US.
Also, I'd suggest that opinions about moral behavior are quite relevant. Legal systems are a societal attempt to codify moral behavior.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
What, proof that people bought music legally in Russia and then imported it?
This is ridiculous -- people are so caught up with the RIAA, apparently, that they've forgotten that none of it makes sense: not only is AllOfMP3 operating within Russian law, the RIAA isn't even suing in a jurisdiction that has any power whatsoever to enforce a judgement! The RIAA is on a witch hunt, and that's the nicest thing that can be said about it!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The music is not illegal in the US, where as Hash is.
If I fly to England, buy a cd, I do not have to pay for it again when I enter the US.
Also, the industries that outsource are often appluaded for their ingunuity from others within that industry who also out source. Not by the US worker.
They're ingenuity is also appluaded by the country they go to.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Paying your own money to allofmp3 angers and upsets the record execs and RIAA. That is worth a great deal to me. They are motivated by exactly one thing - greed. Pure and simple. They can see directly all that money going to allofmp3. It upsets them to incredible heights that consumers clearly are willing to pay money for music, but aren't willing to pay for crippled DRM ladden low-bit-rate automatically deleting crap.
I give money to the EFF for the same reason. You can debate how successful they've actully been in fighting their battle, but the fact that the EFF exists and tells people that they have fair use rights makes the RIAA and MPAA so very unhappy.
Good job ??AA for fostering such great contempt and hatred in your customers!
Yeah, there is.
It's the regular fucking copyright law. It doesn't matter where the other server is located. You're not allowed to make unauthorized copies at the US end, and, as an American, in America, you're liable for your actions. This is well settled law. Check 17 USC 101, 17 USC 106, then read the Napster decision for how downloading is making a copy, or if you don't believe that, read Utah Lighthouse Ministries, or if you don't believe that, just go shoot yourself because you're a worthless meatbag really.
And don't start blah blah blahing about importation and misquoting 17 USC 603 (or whatever) which has nothing to do with it. If you read the Utah Lighthouse Ministries case as I mentioned above you'll see why.
We've been over this about 100,000 times.
Wouldn't it be better to just sue ROM and create better licensing policy. RIAA could USE ROM to make Media Services to pay more money for licensing.
On the other hand, RIAA is bunch of dumb asses so I guess the point is mute.
\
...is the noose around the country.
There's still a lot of money in US. It will come out. But what if the dollar loses its value?
Why should the dollar lose value? Good question.
America is the chosen destination for millions across the world. There is a bit of truth to that - to make a decent amount of money in a short period, US still rules. And if you have a child born in US, he/she is still a citizen. But the attraction ends there.
I am seeing the beginning of the end - those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.
I've looked all over the site and can't find one. It's a shame, because I have a flaming bag of poop to leave on their doorstep.
Uh, more like if you steal billions of dollars, murder a few people here and there, evade taxes for several years, and piss off the president you might go to jail. It's a bit lenient, no?
[n/t]
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
1 trillion usd in brazil currency = 2.13500 trillion Brazil reais
The music is not illegal in the US, where as Hash is
While the music itself isn't per se illegal, improper importation looks to be a distinct offense, defined in 17 USC 602. I'm not sure whether part (a) or (b) governs, since the language gets a little obscure without more (complex ( (mathematical) expression-styled) ) use of parentheses.
IANAL. HAND. FOAD. YABA.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Wikipedia has a fairly good definition ofAstroturfing:
Note the part "formal public relations (PR) campaigns". That doesn't mean "everyone of a dissenting viewpoint", it's about organized, covert attempts at manipulating opinion by distorting open discussion with an explicit unacknowledged agenda.
A buncha folks with a different opinion, including those with the same different opinion, are not automatically Astroturfing. They may be (in your opinion) misguided, they may be (in your opinion) misinformed, they may even being quoting (in your opinion) propaganda, but unless you've real reason to suspect more sinister motives then mere difference of opinion don't go crying "Astroturfing!" at every sign of opposition.
Do the RIAA/MPAA/et al engage in underhanded covert public relations? Sure. I've no doubt they've got their hands in as many front groups as they do in their publicly acknowledged relationships. And they've never shied away from hiring folks to lobby on their behalf, in Washington or in public discourse.
But let's keep some perspective: Slashdot, as high visibility as it is amongst a certain set, is not where they're going to be hiring a buncha paid mouthpieces to burp up poorly articulated postings. I'm not saying it couldn't ever happen, but there's no good evidence of such and certain folks trying to netcop by shouting down every dissenting opinion is as harmful as any possible Astroturfing.
So, until you've got some persuasive evidence that there is more then the usual level of dissent, unoriginal argument, poorly understood implications, and simple bloody mindedness please don't go trying to shut down folks with "Aftroturfer!" ad hominem attacks. Anyone who plays such intellectually dishonest games should be immediately modded down into oblivion.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Let's see the RIAA try to find a bank that wont laugh in their face when they try and collect. O RLY?
This points out one of the problems with an economy based on brain share products. Valuation. You may be able to get a dollar for it in the US but only a penny in Russia. How are you ever going to enforce valuation in another economy when the product doesn't have intrinsic value based on hard assets? It's insane to even try, but insanity doesn't stop the recording industry.
Companies can get away with it here because our Congress is corrupt and we're wealthy. It doesn't bother us to spend 10 bucks on a CD, but that's a week's pay in some places. Same principle applies to movies, software and most entertainment products.
The day will come when one of these countries we're into for a couple hundred billion in trade deficit, maybe a country that provides most of our manufacturing is going to call bullshit.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Neither pirate nor purchase RIAA music.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
On the other hand, when U.S. consumers take advantage of consumer-friendly copyright laws overseas, they're criminals.
I think the RIAA would agree.
Try purchasing a legally-made DVD in country "X" and try playing it in country "Y". Region codes will prevent this. So you are left with two choices:
1) Violate the DMCA and play it using some workaround/hack.
2) Purchase another copy...
Its bad enough to "accept" that "ownership" of a "DVD" is only a "license" to view the DVD... I find that unacceptable and further find it completely nonsensical that I cannot even exercise the *license* if I move from "A" to "B" to "C".
Despite hundreds of years of "democracy", I'm starting to wonder if we have re-entered feudal times in terms of access to the "arts".
Ok - so I mis-spoke. The distinction (for lawyers) is significant when I use the word license to mean "right to copy." It's an error, and I understand your response.
:)
However, my understanding of copyright law is that I have the legal right to produce archival copies for personal use in the event that my original media is destroyed. In the case of the original post (to which I replied) the situation was that the person whose media was destroyed during Katrina had failed to make an archival copy of his media, and felt it was acceptable to download copies of the music he paid for originally. I suppose he considers it a retroactive archival copy. I'd suggest that this is not in the letter of the law, but may be within the spirit of the law.
Your quote about "No...rights to.. reproduce additional copies" may be inaccurate. I believe that the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 allows unlimited personal copies of music. As I said, IANAL, so you might want to check with one before making any copies of anything.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
You know, back in my first year of college, I used to get dinged for units a lot. Then I realized that the world made more sense once you started thinking in terms of units.
[number of powerful weapons] != [money spent]/[number of people] != [quality of life]
To put it into plain words, big guns and bombs don't make for economic development and they don't make for a high quality of life. All big guns and bombs do is kill people, and in the era of communism when they were built, they suck away even more of an already weak economy, causing famines that killed thousands, or millions.
It's been a long time.
Since they are, by definition, second world, you really can't call them third world. Well, technically they aren't second world anymore... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World 3rd world, 1st world and second world are actually political terms, it just happens that most non-democratic, non-communist countries were poor, so it got mixed up in most people's minds.
They've gone from regular villainy to cartoonish super-villainy.
I am not a crackpot.
Thank you for the correction. Everyone speaks in terms of licenses, and so I was thinking in terms of them. Good to know that it's solid law the RIAA is exploiting to its own ends.
Unfortunately, it's a lot harder to revoke a law than a license...
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
The demographics the Republican party has aimed at have shifted dramatically over time. Lincon freed the slaves and lead the north to victory. Bush tried to get an anti-gay constitutional amendment passed to please his core demographic in the south. No, I'm not making a value judgment about whether people from one area or another are more moral or just or intelligent or whatever assertion might be inferred from that statement, it's just a pair of facts which, as long as they're true, serve to illustrate my initial conclusion. As a result of the demographic shift over time, I think the core values the party claims to have (and tries to demonstrate in their public media image) to get themselves elected have also changed.
The best thing to do is to realize that anyone trying to pigeon-hole you into a label like that is trying to use you. Myself, I have this lovely thing I call a brain. It's a large thing, it's sort of a pain because I always need to find a helmet before I get on a motorcycle because it gets all cranky if something hits my head too hard, and sometimes it gets me into trouble, and sometimes it even makes people dislike me because I have put thought into something and come to a conclusion they don't like or don't agree with, but it has this amazing ability: It allows me to look at a situation, and not only decide which side of an issue I'm on, it allows me to decide that both sides are full of shit and there's a more logical conclusion, or even that something being argued isn't worth arguing or giving thought to in the first place.
I know it's kind of a tangent from what you were talking about, but I get frustrated every time I see people trying to make distinctions between the subgroups of some group or another they're claiming affiliation with. You're not a small R republican or a small C conservative, you're a human with a brain.
Probably.
It's been a long time.
I did not think the RIAA would go and buy the max amount of music on AllofMp3 that they could. Supporting them is the last thing I thought they would do.
Oh wait......
I asked Google and it said 10 trillion rubles is 379.859832 billion U.S. dollars.
In America, you can always find the lunacy of the RIAA! In Soviet Russia, the lunacy of the RIAA can find YOU!
I regret spilling a glass of ginger ale on an achritect!
I hate paying for music when the money doesn't get to the artists, I hate IP laws, RIAA, Microsoft, DRM and everything that is around it.
...
That's why I'm using free software and not ever buying music from record companies again. iTunes is a great choice, because it has the right price for commercial music, but the DRM invoked to keep the RIAA semi-happy is not for me. If it weren't for the RIAA, Steve Jobs would probably not consider putting up with the arbitrary DRM. But anyway, I'm not even paying a dime to Apple for my music.
My solution is the indie movement. Yes there are hundreds if not thousands of artists out there that make their buck selling music, cd's and more straight off their websites, getting known all over the world and even making movies shown on major movie events as we speak with a budget of a few thousand dollars. They get their advertisements through their podcasts and while they might not earn a million dollars each year, they get by making an honest living, either full or part time, spinning tracks for clubs, having shows in their local environment or even being a store clerk or your average sysadmin.
Give those people a chance, listen to their podcasts and buy their stuff if you like them. They get the full benefit of your contribution minus the costs they make off course but they don't have to get by on 4,5c/download while the rest of the industry is making the rest of your dollar. I'm at the moment listening to someone's podcast and it's mighty good, much better than any commercial music I heard in the same genre. Some do indeed have recording agents and some middleman but usually they get a better deal than another 'known' recording studio like Sony, BMG,
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
BMI, an organization representing music publishers, controls performance licensing for at least 6.5 million musical works. ASCAP and SESAC control performance licensing for millions of other works but don't appear to advertise the number. Works can be recorded more than once, and many recordings are of pre-1923 works that aren't counted in any U.S. copyright repertory because they don't have a U.S. copyright anymore. Therefore, 11 million works doesn't sound too off-the-wall.
The methods of distribution have changed, costs have dropped and they still want us to pay the same insane prices we've been putting up with for years. Regardless of whether the artists make any money or not (they seem to be doing pretty good for themselves don't they?) out of a download, the only place I've felt I was paying a fair price for a song was in allofmp3. I don't see why I can pick a game out of a bargain bin for 5 bucks after a year or two yet a 30 year album will never really drop in price. And of course, after seing just how just evil, mean and greedy the RIAA guys are, there's no chance in hell I will ever pay for an album again... I'd rather see a singer starve than feed those fat bastards ever again.
P.S.
Fuck off.
That's what insurance is for. You lost something you bought and you have no right to steal back another copy. When you buy something it is your responsibility to insure that it is protected. There's no "free replacement" right.
...Just another way of looking at it.
... or those penalties are a wee bit silly.
Now either Russia doesn't have a very big GDP (the world's 14th largest)
One more indication that the underlying problem here is an overvaluation of
intellectual property.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
There's got to be WAYYY more than 11,000,000 downloads from allofmp3.com. At ~5 cents each, that's only $550,000 revenue.. That's ridiculous..
I'd say the site would have more like 100,000,000 downloads.. giving it $5million.. Eh, even that seems pretty low for such a popular website. Google farts and makes that much.
But anyway.. 100,000,000 * $150,000 per song.. $15,000,000,000,000. Maybe the RIAA plans to pay off the US National debt?
--- We need more Ron Paul!
They are, as explicitly stated by law, NOT limited to actual damages, NOT limited to actual number of infringing copies, NOT even a function of actual damages.
The law is completely absurd, and this case proves it. Who in their right mind could support this?
This is absurd on the level of sentencing someone to death for stealing a candy bar from a convenience store.
Just societies are founded on the principle of proportionality of punishment: the punishment must fit the crime.
The RIAA doesn't dare sue for the full amount against U.S. citizens, because they know that the day a college student is fined a billion dollars for sharing mp3s, is the day that this law is overturned.
No sane person would tolerate this, one hopes.
Matthew 7:2
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Someone has a problem. They think there may be a legal solution. They come to us. We tell them what can be done on the legal front.
So you have no moral standing of your own at all? You can never say No when $$$ are flashed before your eyes?
It doesn't matter who asks you for help, they're all equal in your eyes, and you will do your best to help, regardless? You would be happy to assist the mafia or terrorist organizations, as long as it's by legal means? You believe you are not at all tainted by your client's activities, regardless of what they may be?
Well, let me tell you something, because clearly your intellectual capacity does not permit you to see it for yourself.
Your work as a lawyer FACILITATES those abhorrent activities funded by the music industry, and without the lawyers they would not be happening. So, you are DIRECTLY implicated in these RIAA actions. Wash your hands you cannot.
It just belies belief that a lawyer can be so blinkered.
Well, given that the number of the world is determined by your part in the Cold War, Russia cannot be third world. The US and everyone who sided with the US was the First World. Russia and their supporters were the Second World. Everyone the two countries fought over and tried to recruit was the Third World.
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
Steal a car, get probation; infringe on an RIAA published works and get seven years. I'd rather steal your Yugo!
Just wondering: why do you download crippled, lossily encoded music from iTunes (and with the not-too-large selection they have), when you could get a perfectly good CD, including booklet, backup, ability to play in your car radio for maybe even less than the iTunes price (say, Amazon)?
Sure, it takes a couple of days, but quality is much better, and it will play on any music player in the next 20 years (cause you can rip it to any music format), and people should learn about being able to wait, too. I don't think it's good to teach your kid to get his fix any second he wants to.
Money travels through New York, all of mp3 can completely ignore any legal action, but if a ruling is decided upon, then any assets in new york can be frozen. This causes a sort of embargo on the company since almost every penny goes through new york at some point or another. Them deciding to ignore the action does not mean that this action will not financially cripple them.
The next best place to sue someone is zurich, but often there the banks won't even know enough to be able to freeze an account.
Although suing someone like thepiratebay.org for example in New York does shit all, because it's just copyright violation and they aren't in it for the money.
check the older news "Russia Agrees To Shut Down AllOfMP3.com"
wtf?
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
That's the music industry for you. Also note this little scam they have going, information courtesy of All You Need to Know About the Music Business:
Royalties are only paid for each record sold. Rather than sell a hundred records to a shop for 85c each, the record label can sell eighty-five records for $1 each and give them the last fifteen for free. While this makes absolutely no difference in reality, it means the artist is only paid royalties for eighty-five records rather than the full hundred. These are called phoney free goods and about half of the record companies engage in this practice.
Why would Putin accede to the WIPO/WTO if doing so meant he had to render a Russian firm liable to 1.56 trillion dollars?
Would he instead say "well, according to the Berne convention and Russian implementation thereof, we are completely in compliance with copyrights and AllofMP3 is in complete accordance with these laws".
Alternatively, are Adobe Ebooks still uncrackable? Maybe a 2 trillion dollar lawsuit for selling a defective product and coercive interference in Russian internal procedures would be in order...
Note also that the US seems to be ignoring WTO and internal laws regarding online betting and working to make lawful this breach. Being part of the WTO doesn't seem to be a detriment for saying "fuck you" to other sovereign countries.
In Soviet Russia $1.65 TRILLION sues RIAA for AllOfMP3! No, wait...
In Soviet Russia RIAA sues YOU for $1.65 TRILLION! Nope, not good yet...
In Soviet Russia AllOfMP3 $1.65 TRILLION you! (Oh, my...)
In Soviet Russia... oh, nevermind... I think I will never make a good "in Soviet Russia" joke...
So say we all
I get frustrated every time I see people trying to make distinctions between the subgroups of some group or another they're claiming affiliation with.
Hmm...
to please his core demographic in the south
It would appear you have no objections when any such distinctions originate from your own brain.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
For christs sake, wont people learn and get a brain cell these days.
0 -4.html
h ist1.txt
If ONE drug dealer sells $10 worth of drugs to an addict, then that dealer pays two addicts $5 each to wash his car, then they later
buy $5 each of drugs, thats equal to $30 GDP from the same $10.
All total sales from 10000000s of companies != total dollars in circulation (go check your M1/M2 money supply)
http://internationalecon.com/v1.0/Finance/ch40/F4
http://www.federalreserve.gov/Releases/h6/hist/h6
The same one dollar can go back and forth lots of times, (possibly max 10-15 times before tax eats it into zero)
Theres the truth, TAXES are not there for the government to spend (they can borrow it), but its there to control inflation which the
central banks create, as they make all the money and are not owned by the governments.
Its like two mafias, one makes all the counterfeits, the other 'collects fees' for letting it happen.
If you make too many fakes, the taxes go up.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
How come ?
Read radical news here
Listen, if you sell your original, give the guy the backup, dont keep the backup! All solved and everyone is happy.
In a real world where real objects can be lost or stolen or destroyed, backups are NEEDED!
Ripping your CDs to your ipod is a backup, the original can be kept safe.
But get over it, its just music. Not ground braking science patents.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
I hope that when people see these ridiculous strong arm tactics of the RIAA to influence foreign governments, and to waste peoples time with frivolous lawsuits, that it does not discourage you from supporting a good, legal service for downloading music. Every time you see news like this you should pop another $10 on AllofMP3.com account and get yourself a couple albums.
So this is why they award a large punative amount so the government then benefits from the 45% tax collected.
"justice was served", but the govt financially benefited from the crime..... how ironic.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
If you don't want it published, don't make it.
For the "what about surruptitious photos/video" crowd - the cat's already out of the bag. Have you never browsed in the alt.binaries.* heirarchy?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I think a grey import analogy would be better, after all the credit card transactions etc.. all happen in Russia.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
All this argument has done is made me feel that I'm doing the right thing by NOT paying for music. At least my money isn't going to a corrupt and evil organisation (RIAA or the Russian Mafia).
The RIAA were going to invade my country, and were within 45 minutes of developing a nuclear device.
....
... they are really nasty people who every right-minded citizen agrees ought to be removed...
Or they had not complied completely with one of the UN directives
Or
And they were responsible for the WTC attack.
So it's all right to murder them.
Besides, if I say so, that makes it legal, due to national security considerations which you aren't cleared to know about.
This is what passes for current US/UK law and foreign policy at the moment. I'd say that killing a few shysters who are trying to keep an outdated repressive monopoly going might be one of the few ways you could justify it.
the closest comparison I can think of is somebody looks at your car, builds one for themselves and Ford is pissed off as it looks like the one they designed.
You forget that there is a lot more in D.C. than legislation (very few bills are passed each year). Another major thing most lobbying groups work on is government contracts w/ the various agencies. When it comes to contracts - money does talk, and a lot more frequently than legislation, since they are not usually scrutinized that much.
There are other issues as well, such as foreign governments and making connections w/ other people in your industry. Lobbying isn't solely about getting laws passed for you.
There is always a frontier where there is an open and willing mind
"But what I'm doing is explaining to him why leagally obtaining music is the right thing to do."
What are those reasons? Just so we, uh, can fully understand them as well...
100k - you've got to be kidding yourself. Hillary Clinton has dinners were the attendance fee is half that. Unless you're from a small state, I seriously doubt that would get you face time. As for the million, I stand my my previous comment - unless you are from their state, I doubt they'd meet w/ you (although they would take the money).
You've also got to remember there are rather strict ethics rules. Staff are limited to somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 gifts (which means lunch at most). (Note: I'm not saying those ethics rules are always followed... but they are there).
If you want to meet w/ your elected representative, contact them when session is out. Most are in their home states - and usually host town hall / county meetings or like. Show up - and pay them a visit.
I wrote some journals on this - here and here.
There is always a frontier where there is an open and willing mind
"I dare you!"
"I dog dare you!"
"I triple dog dare you!"
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Nah, I didn't steal my neighbors house, but I did make my house of the same design as his and as mine was before. He still has his house. The architect of our houses still got paid (just not twice).
So what is your problem, that the architect didn't get a repeat fee for the same work?
Right or wrong, this is American hybris at its best, thinking they can summon any one person, company or even country to their own courts, paying them a fantasy sum of money.
a)Go to the UK. Buy a CD. Go back to the USA. Legal copy.
b) Go to France, buy a track from iTunes. Go back to the USA. Legal copy.
c) Go to India, buy a track from iTunes. Go back to the USA. Transfer to another computer. Legal copy.
d) Go to Brazil, buy a track from iTunes. Burn to CD. Go back to the USA. Legal copy.
And variations on a theme thereof.
How is this different from
y) Go to Russia, buy a track from allofmp3. Go back to USA. Legal copy.
and how is that any different from
z) Get a computer in Russia to make a copy of a track from allofmp3, sell you that track and you copy that one incidence to the USA and the russian copy sold deleted.
The copy made to your computer in the US is allowed by the licensed distributor and is an inherent requirement to get the product you bought to you, the customer. Copies necessary to the operation of a copyrighted work sold is not a copyright violation. It is why a memory copy of a program isn't violating if you have a license. It is why your DVD player can keep copies of the A-frames and add the I-frames (creating a derivative work of the A-frame) yet is not a copyright infringement. If they were banned, then you did not buy anything and so you can sue the seller for selling goods not fit for the purpose.
After reading the entire thread, can someone please explain me if there is any point of filing this lawsuit besides continuing getting publicity to RIAA's case?
17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
You asked for a citation for the assertion that the recording artists don't get paid. The problem is that the record labels deduct so much from royalties that the artists often get little or nothing of the revenue from record sales. Here are Steve Albini's take and Courtney Love's take.
so that would mean that if I bought a legitimate CD IN Russia, i would then, after bringing it into the US, pay the MSRP of the same item, just to make sure I was lining the right pockets the right amount of money?
The RIAA isn't concerned about your downloading Britney; she's on the radio. You can sample her stuff off the radio, legally (in the US at least), at far better quality than the highest quality MP3 or WMA.
The RIAA wants to kill P2P (actually, the entire internet but even they aren't retarded enough to believe it possible) to keep you from discovering indie music.
It's not the RIAA's music the RIAA doesn't want you downloading, it's their competitor's music. The RIAA has empty-v and radio, the indies only have myspace and P2P. Killing P2P kills the competetion.
Get a P2P client that you can download into a non-shared folder, DL less than the maximum the NOTA allows, and you're legal. You have the added benefit of finding some quality indie music while searching for RIAA dreck.
Economists Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine detail the rent-seeking behavior of those frightful miscreants, the RIAA, in their book Against Intellectual Monopoly. Slash-dotters should be pleased to see economic and game theoretical arguments levelled against copyright and intellectual property.
I was going to elaborate on this in some detail, but on consideration of the chutzpah of this legal action by the RIAA, I find myself agreeing with posters that the RIAA should sip a Polonium spiked tea.
Weird Al Yankovic's Don't Download This Song is amusing, though he understates the social and economic evil of the RIAA. These people are the scum of the earth.
RIAA=shit; therefore, Sony is a piece of shit. QED. Boycott PS3. Period.
Given what you say, when I buy a CD with music on it, or a DVD with movies on it, I can:
Open a club and play the music/movies for the audience.
Open a radio/TV station and broadcast the music/movies.
Fight Spammers!
1.65 Trillion dollars. Hmmm. To misquote Asterix, "these Americans are crazy".
What happens when this kind of call for money hits the US legal system? don't judges just give the prosecuting lawyers a hard stare and say "don't be silly, come back tomorrow with a sensible figure" ?
Over the other side of the pond we hear now and again about people sueing for stupid money, ooh, a million dollars when they twist their ankles on a broken paving stone or spilling hot coffee down themselves. Don't USian judges just turn round and offer sensible amounts ("so you've damaged your ankle on that broken paving slab and you'll be off work for two weeks, ok you earn 2000 dollars a month so how about we say 1000 dollars to you and another fine of 500 dollars to the local city council to make them pay for somebody to come out and fix that sidewalk"). Or is it just the first round of hyper-inflated horse trading Monty Python style?
From the CIA Fact Book:
Russia's GDP 2005 (Est.)$1.58 trillion if you compare purchasing power...
$740 billion if you go with the exchange rate:
CIA Fact Book
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
What about counterfit bills which can be legally produced outside the U.S. and brought in. What if the foreign state (sea land) dosen't recognize copyright and you download 10,000 songs.. is it then still legal to bring these otherwise LEGAL and LEGITIMATE products in the region you aquired them wherever you want?
I don't think the RIAA's argument is absurd. It's a cop-out to try to dismiss it as such. There are significant legal issues involved, not the least of which is the questionable power invested in the Russian agency which negotiated with AllofMp3 to create an agreement which is binding on U.S. companies.
Those who want to blast the U.S. courts for daring to seek power over a foreign country may want to check with their ideologue about the blantant hypocracy inherent in an argument that demands that the RIAA members submit to Russian authority to govern the WORLD WIDE distribution of their copyrighted material, but denies them a court in which to challenge the deal.
-GiH
Judges? Sensible? What zip code is the rock you are living under? ;-)
Hopefully Allofmp3 is smart and ignores the lawsuit in federal ct. in NY. After all, the federal court in NY has no personal jurisdiction (let alone subject matter jurisdiction!) over allof mp3.
Allofmp3 should ignore the suit, I mean, why even consent to allow the federal court in NY determine if proper jurisdiction exists? Even if the RIAA, because of this, got a default judgment against allofmp3 in fed. ct in NY, it is worthless unless allofmp3 decides to open up shop in the US in which the judgment would all of a sudden become enforceable.
If someone files a lawsuit against me in Malaysia, I wouldn't dare do anything BUT completely ignore it since the courts in Malaysia have no jurisdiction over me. They cannot compel me to court, and they cannot force me to pay up to the scumbag.
I hope allofmp3 has good lawyers advising them of this.
> He is allowed to buy off of iTunes with prepaid cards, and cannot use bittorrent, or any other p2p.
I can understand that you don't want him to commit copyright infringement, but why ban the legitimate uses of P2P as well as the illegitimate ones? That makes no sense.
I mean, do you want him to go: "Oh, I'd like to download that Linux ISO, but they can't afford a huge bandwidth bill so they only make it available on bittorrent. Too bad I'm not allowed to use BT simply because pirates use it, too."
I say this because too many clueless folks are overeager to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and BT is a great tool, no matter what you use it for.
Normally damages come from some objective calculation of value (2 weeks of work costs me $5700 for instance), then you work in hospital bills (in the U.S. that's always more than it should be - but that's the healthcare system, not the lawyers) so we hit say... 6000 dollars for an x-ray, an ankle brace, and off work 2 weeks. Then, you add on punative damages. Punatives are recovery as punishment - it's about instructing municipal entities that leaving sidewalks in dangerous condition is bad. The Supreme Court has placed the limit for punatives around 2-3X the base damages - so here.. at most $18,000 + $6,000 = maybe $24,000. Jurries often exceed this - especially when the plaitiff is cute, fragile, or otherwise sympathy attracting. That's when the judge steps in and lowers the damages to within what is "reasonable" within our legal system.
It's good to bear in mind that punative damages, and damage calculations generally are heavily policy driven - the ammounts in question are meant to shape the society we live in, not to simply reflect the cold facts of harm.
-GiH
I'm not a big fan of the RIAA, but I'm also not a big fan of AllofMP3. Yes, it's legal in Russia (through a loophole in radio licensing they're trying to close), but not here in the US.
Um, exactly how is it illegal in the US? Did Congress pass a law making it illegal? Did your state or local government? I'm not aware of any such laws. No, it's illegal because you, my friend, have sadly bought into the RIAA's position that it is illegal. Such a position may or may not hold up in court. As I have said before, care to guess why the RIAA has not sued American's for buying from AllOfMP3? It might just be because they don't want to try it out in court and have a precedent set that makes it legal to buy from AllOfMP3. The RIAA doesn't have to have the law on their side when people like you believe every word they say.
...doesn't that serve to immediately suggest that the RIAA is seeking damages that clearly do not reflect even their most preposterous possible loss due to file sharing?
I mean, has the music industry, over recorded history, even made a trillion dollars yet? Surely they can't accuse the site of such losses, then, right?
Loading...
In Soviet Russia, RIAA sues YOU! Oh...wait...
Mike
Inverted Mind: Useless stuff to read when you should be working
http://www.invertedmind.com/
because the bits aren't the same ones as left Russia. So now that we've shown that you cannot read the black-and-white I'll go on to the real argument.
In order to get ANYTHING from the internet, you must make a copy of it. The licensed distributor is allowed to make copies required to sell the copyrighted work. allofmp3 is licensed correctly. They sell you a copy (licensed) and send that copy to you (also not a copyright problem). If your reading were correct the internet would not work. Neither would DVD players, nor computers in general.
If you don't want to be subject to US court jurisdiction, don't do business in the US.
I have AOL which has XM Radio who's quality is that of a CD. Using my software I record hours of this music (CD quality) and place it in my shared folder after using an MP3 splitter to edit and tag each song with the appropriate artist. The shared folder allows my wife or daughter when they're using their PC's to play any song they desire on my local area network. Attorney's with the right knowledge should be able to blow the RIAA away with that and force the RIAA to show evidence music was DL illegally. Sirus radio works the same way, just plug the output into your soundcard and record CD quality music uintil your heart's content.
Chevy
"Gentlemen, I propose we send a message to tobacco companies everywhere by fining the El Dorado Cigarette Company infinity billion dollars!"
"That's the spirit, Frank! But I think a real number might be more effective."
I cannot be the only one who thought of that.
Seriously, I know that statutory damages are supposed to be ridiculously high as a deterrent, but at some point you just have to laugh them out of court. Can anyone name any other case, fictional or real, where the amount claimed was in the trillions? What's the largest real amount of money actually won in court?
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
As someone up the chain indicated, the law explicitly indicates that I don't have that right. I have the right to the copy I have, and no other copies. If I have the foresight to make an archival copy, then it's acceptable for me to recover from my archival copy. If I don't, then I'm out of luck. Why would that law ever be changed in favor of consumers? I can't imagine a scenario where that would fly.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I work in communications and PR for a trade association (lobbying group), and I can tell you that some of our largest member companies incorporate forum astroturfing in their PR efforts. It's extremely cheap, as it can be done by paid interns with bullet-point scripts to work from. And for any specific campaign, there are typically only about a dozen "top-level" sites to track, and those sites only typically have a few stories/posts/threads per day on that particular issue. I can't give the companies any credit though--it is typically the PR companies to push this service as a way to do two things:
1) Get the message out there in a consistent way.
2) Harvest the counter-messages and qualify their effectiveness.
#2 is actually the point of the whole exercise because it helps you craft the messages of future campaigns.
A good way to spot a turfer is to look at how well they stick to their guns. A real turfer will only post once or twice per thread; they don't know enough to go deeper. If you really get into it with someone over like 6 or more responses they are probably just some guy with too much time on his hands who likes to argue.
- Posted anonymously for a reason
"Those who are lazy or stupid will go with a big label in hope of instant fame and pay almost all the money to the label."
You forgot the ignorant.
Also, have you considered how hard it is for someone who is already on a RIAA label to get off it? Think of George Michael trying to leave Sony or Prince trying to leave Warner Bros. Most RIAA artists who want to stop recording on an RIAA label stop recording altogether while they try to get free. And since many tour venues (say, the ones that use ClearChannel to sell tix) want only artists in the RIAA...[sigh]
I agree that it is smarter to be an indie. But you don't have to blast all the RIAA artists to get your point across.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
American criminals vs Russian criminals. Both, unsurprisingly, are legal :(
First, Heather Mills McCartney is not a Beatle. She is only married to a Beatle, and that only for a few months longer.
John Lennon and George Harrison definitely don't need more money.
It doesn't matter if Paul McCartney or Ringo Starr need more money. Anyone who is actively boycotting the "MAFIAA" will have to boycott them altogether, p2p downloads and internet radio included. This will hurt, since I believe Paul McCartney is one of the best artists in the known universe.
Pete Best is off the RIAA radar, though, or so I think...
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Those are the statutory damages set out by US Copyright Law. The $150k figure was set by our lawmakers as a statutory damage for copyright infringement and thus has no grounding in reality. Depending on the circumstances, you can sue for actual damages, statutory damages, or both.
The reasoning behind them is to simplify the process of suing someone for copyright infringement. When they were written, there wasn't this huge amount of non-commercial infringement by the masses going on, it was generally something along the lines of your average commercial pirate bootleg operation. Wanting to spare the copyright holder the trouble of proving exactly how many copies those people had sold (which would entail expert witnesses, evidence & whatnot), they instead provided them with a simple number to give to the court with their blessing.
Removing the ability to collect statutory damages from anyone who didn't receive money for the infringement would make it a lot harder to get anything if you sued someone for infringement and would prevent litigation en masse like the RIAA is currently fostering. That's probably why I think it would be a good, if small, step towards making copyright law a little less onerous.
b) Go to France, buy a track from iTunes. Go back to the USA. Legal copy.
c) Go to India, buy a track from iTunes. Go back to the USA. Transfer to another computer. Legal copy.
d) Go to Brazil, buy a track from iTunes. Burn to CD. Go back to the USA. Legal copy. Well, for one, all of these involve going to $jurisdiction and returning with a copy. And they're not all legal, either. Imported copies are not legal if they would not have been legal to make in the US, for instance. And variations on a theme thereof.
How is this different from
y) Go to Russia, buy a track from allofmp3. Go back to USA. Legal copy. That's actually probably not legal. See 17 USC 603. z) Get a computer in Russia to make a copy of a track from allofmp3, sell you that track and you copy that one incidence to the USA and the russian copy sold deleted. This is where you totally misunderstand what's going on. A copy is a physical thing: an instance of a song on a computer is not a copy, by law. If there's a song on a disk, the disk is the copy. If there are 1000 identical instances of that song on the same disk, there's still only one copy, the disk. Read 17 USC 101 for the definition of a copy. Most importantly, a copy is not a transmission. The bitstream of the song going over the network is not a copy. Unless you're sending physical disks over the Internet (which you're obviously not, since it's impossible), what's happening is that a new copy is made in US, by you, when you write the song to your disk. Your disk becomes the copy. That act is an infringement unless its authorized.
It's irrelevant if you think these are stupid definitions of copies, etc. They are the statutory definitions and they courts apply them.
When you download from allofmp3, and make a copy, this happens in the US, at your direction, and you're liable.
Note "unauthorized." A Russian law or a Russian copyright holder cannot authorize you. Only the US copyright holder under US copyright law can authorize you.
All of this "go to Russia" crap is beside the point. You're not going to Russia. The infringing act happens in the US.
... allowed to make personal copies of legally purchased music. There is no such exception, you're either making shit up or you believed someone who was making shit up and are repeating it.
There are two parts to 17 USC 602 (the law on importing copies):
602(a) says you cannot import into the US copies that have been acquired outside the US without permission from the copyright holder, unless a) you're the government, b) the importation is for private use and not for distribution, provided you bring in no more than one copy, and c) you're an organization operated for certain non-profit purposes and you bring in no more than five copies.
602(b) says you cannot import into the US copies that, if they were made in the US, their making would constitute copyright infringement.
It's important to understand that you have to satisfy both provision. You can't use an exception to 602(a) to beat the prohibition in 602(b).
If making a copy from, eg, allofmp3 would have been illegal in the US, you can't bring those copies into the US, for any reason, even personal use.
This is all beside the point, because downloading from allofmp3 from within the US is not importing copies, but making new ones. Making those copies is an infringement unless you are authorized by the US copyright holder. ROMS giving allofmp3 permission is irrelevant. That you paid good money is irrelevant. That the copies would be legal to make in Russia is irrelevant.
In short, this is all smoke and mirrors.
According to Wikipedia,, they were originally termed with respect to their alleigances, but the modern definition refers to nations with a low UN Human Development Index, not any particular political affiliation.
It's been a long time.
Actually, you've misunderstood what I've read. Epically.
I never said I was or was not part of the demographic the Republican Party is generally accepted to try to target.
Your reply is a non-sequitor.
It's been a long time.
So fine distinctions are appropriate as long as you're not claiming membership in the group? Don't kid yourself, your response wasn't especially "epic" in the first place. Snide and condescending, yes, but consider the possibility you merely failed to express your opinion with sufficient clarity. Why is it inappropriate for the original poster to claim only partial agreement with his party, yet you feel it is entirely appropriate to subdivide that party into different groups for the purposes of your argument? I see no difference.
Perhaps you should focus that "very large" brain you're so impressed with on more basic pursuits. I assume you mean to suggest I misunderstood what you wrote, not "read," and the word is spelled "sequitur."
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Judge to RIAA: "I'm awarding you Russia. The whole country. Enjoy!"
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
b) just says that if the copy was made illegally at the point of origin, it is considered illegal when imported into the United States. (i.e. chinese bootlegs)
You seem to have missed the phrase the phrase if this title had been applicable in the first sentence of 17 USC 602(b). If making the copy in a US jurisdiction would have violated Title 17, then the copy is illegal to import whether or not it was legal to make the reproduction under applicable local law (EG, allofmp3.com using the loophole in Russian law).
The other comment's point about "copying" is a little better, except that once you have a legal copy within the US, making further reproductions for personal use (IE, turning the ethernet bits into a copy on hard drive, and then into CD, iPod, and Wax Cylinder recording copies) might be defended under "fair use". (Whether it is fair use might need to go before a jury, as a question-of-fact.)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
But Allofmp3 uses dollars on the English-language page.
Also, while Allofmp3 may be in Russia, the American downloaders are not: they are sitting in front of computers in America.
Of course, the RIAA is not suing the American downloaders (and I tremble to think of what we'll say when they do), but an "uploader" in a country that does not believe in extraditing people out, regardless of guilt. [sigh]
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
At the same time, you don't want to visit a juristiction even as a tourist afterward where a judgement has been made against you. Once you go there all hope is lost and you have to fight through the courts... even if there was a default judgement issued.
I hope the lawyers you mention also advise them of this as well, not that NYC is necessarily close to Russia as a place they would "accidentally" get to.
I'm not sure if the EU would honor an extradition request for a civil suit like this, but I've heard of worse. Particularly if the judge in this case decides to get cute and file a contempt charge that would turn it into a criminal matter, given the statement that they believe the court has no jurisdiction and is openly giving the finger to the judge from across the Atlantic.
This has already begun. Russia has already changed its laws (though I don't know if the changes are in effect yet), and under the new laws Allofmp3's current business plan will be illegal. Visa has already withdrawn service from Allofmp3. Allofmp3 may be shifting to an ad-supported model, and even had free DRM'd trax on their site at some point.
I hope this is closer to real reality.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
A "Funny" mod is actually an attack against the person who you gave the mod to
"to whom you gave the mod".
That doesn't seem right, somehow.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
If you bought the CD in a store, you probably aren't. What's infringing is making the CD and then selling the unlawful copy. AFAIK it's not illegal to buy an unlawful copy (or to own and use it). It would be illegal for you to sell that CD, though, or even to lend it out.
This is different when you download, though. The reason why you would, OTOH, be on the hook for downloading from a seemingly legitimate music service is that downloading requires making a new copy (by the legal definition of "copy"). In other words, you're not buying an existing copy, such as the pirated CD. That act -- making an unauthorized copy on your computer -- is as infringing as the guy who infringed by making the pirated CD.
Assuming the EFF is wrong, how does what you write above apply?
Let's say I have a lawfully made CD. I put the CD in the drive on my UNIX box, mount it, and serve the raw contents via Apache. Now, when people connect to download the contents of the CD, if uploading is distribution, I'm distributing. But I'm also distributing (from) a lawfully made copy, so wouldn't the first sale exception apply?
Or, let's say I was allowed, because the fair use analysis came out on my side, to space shift my songs from the CD by creating mp3s of them. If those copies are lawfully made, and I share them in a P2P shared folder, again I am distributing, if uploading is distributing, yet again I am distributing (from) lawfully made copies.
The thing is, I'm really not distributing copies (eg, tangible, material objects). Rather I'm transmitting the work over the internet, from the copies.
So I suppose that answers my own question.
But it just doesn't seem like 17 USC 106(3) should apply at all. I'm not distributing copies. I'm transmitting the work. It's like if I read the work over the phone to someone, I wouldn't be distributing it, I'd be performing it (although not publically). Isn't radio transmission, which is more analogous IMO, performance and not distribution?
Wouldn't it make more sense that, instead of infringing the reproduction right, what I actually did was contribute to the infringement of the distribution right?
Unfortunately, my argument doesn't have legs, but not for the reasons stated.
The problem is is that my trouble is with people who become their ideology despite their own real wishes. "I am a conservative or a liberal therefore I must be against or for issue X, not because I have a strong personal opinion independantly regarding this issue, but because I am a conservative or a liberal, or a Democrat or a Republican, and that's what a conservative, liberal, Democrat, or Republican believes. If I decide to 'go against the grain' and disagree with the party too many times, I'm either to believe in the other ideology, including the things about it I disagree with now, or I am to create an imaginary demarcation within the party or ideology which allows the dissonance between my disagreement with the party or ideology and my stated total devotion to the philosophy of the party or ideology(the 'small c conservative'). I never should have gotten caught up in linguistic semantics, I should have instead just stated that groupthink of this kind is distasteful.
You were right to disagree, but not for the non-sequitur reason you presented. To demonstrate why, consider the sentence: "Some groups, like the Ku Klux Klan, express hatred towards certain races. You should try not even to notice a person's race. To notice a persons race is the first step towards forming negative connotations based on race. The concept of race should be ignored altogether, and we should just consider other homo-sapiens as simply human, which I do." isn't paradoxial for the same reason my earlier comment wasn't. It isn't the neutral point of view observer stating the groups well-known agenda who is singling out the race, it's the group themselves. Similarly, the Republican party has a well known and publicised strategy which looks towards certain groups of people, such as the "freedom-moms" demographic they claim exists which they also claim to target, as well as the southern demographic I mentioned. As I mentioned, this is based on fact, and this image from wikipedia shows the recent and dramatic switch between states which voted for one party over the other over the course of the nation's history. Editorials I've read have indicated that this shift was due to a change in strategy by the republican party in an effort to change their strategy with regard to ceertain demographics. Ironically, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. People claim to be 'a conservative' or 'a liberal', thus they vote for the party which claims to pander to their ideology, ignoring both that neither party actually follows the philosophies implied by the words 'conservative' or 'liberal' or 'democrat' or 'republican'.
It's been a long time.
I must still disagree that subdividing a group from within is somehow automatically more dishonest than subdivisions made from without.
That being said, I do agree with literally everything else you have written this time around, and have been saying essentially the same thing myself for the past several years. I am still partial to the conservatives (in the current definition) simply because they're less attractive to the loose-cannon bad-kind-of-freak demographic, though I am certainly not one of "them" -- it is a sad case of having to choose the lesser of two evils. Fractionally lesser is still less.
I appreciate the reasoned responses.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
It would be hypocritical if I presented opinions that weren't, after all that arm waving. :)
It's been a long time.
Except that 17 USC 1008 does not apply. People read it and ignore the rest of that chapter, particularly the defintions of what constitutes a digital audio recording device. Computers are not digital audio recording devices. If they were, they'd have to implement the SCMS DRM required by 17 USC 1002 and manufacturers would have to pay royalties in accordance with 17 USC 1003. It simply does not apply. AHRA is very limited and does not apply to rips made on computers.
So if a USian goes to Russia, downloads a song there, and goes back to the US, all of the suddden it is legit according to your warped view of the Universe?
And what about a Russian moving to the US with a terabyte of music downloaded legally in Russia?
If the RUssian company is not breaching copyright law (where they are based) and the downloaders are not breaking the law (where they are based) I fail to see what legal claim they may have.
If anything that only shows that maybe RUssian copyright law is not what US based cartels would like it to be, but frankly that is just bad luck for recording companies.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Interest groups invest millions in lobbying groups because they don't work.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.