IFPI Threatens UK Academic For Linking To Article

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Apparently the RIAA is getting sensitive about counterclaims. When a British blog author linked to a recent article about a defendant's counterclaims for extortion and conspiracy by the RIAA in a Florida case, UMG v. Del Cid, a record company executive who sits on the board of the RIAA's UK counterpart, the IFPI, threatened the author if he did not take his link down."

Comments

Their strategy

[saibot834]

Their strategy is not to win those cases in front of court. They just want to scare you by suing innocent people. They want you to think "if that innocent guy got sued, maybe I am next". It's a bit like terrorism.

Re:Their strategy

[RuBLed]

"Maybe" /. is next. We had after all linked to the (not-so) recent article. (and linked to the blog, and to the notice and to an older /. article)

Let's see if they would make a threat...

Re:Their strategy

[suv4x4]

They just want to scare you by suing innocent people. They want you to think "if that innocent guy got sued, maybe I am next". It's a bit like terrorism.

I'd buy that if they sued grown & guilty people (even if the guilt is about mere sharing).

But they're frequently found suing kids, or people who never sat on a computer and don't know what an mp3 is.

If you look at the chain up in RIAA and the organisations like it, you'll see the people carrying out those actions don't always directly have some well thought and sound long term strategy in mind.

They just want to report that they're doing what "is necessary" to their superiors, and save their jobs for another day. It's like a drowning man who just wants another gulp of air *right now*, never mind looking for ships passing by or reaching the shore or whatever.. That's not as emergent as saving the next minute or so.

As a counterclaim of the popular "they want to scare you by making examples" theory, I want to ask you: do you know people die every single day in car accidents? Do you drive a car? "It'll never happen to me", right?

Re:Their strategy

[vivaoporto]

It's a bit like terrorism.

No, it is not anything near terrorism. Extortion, racketeering, blackmailing, maybe. But terrorism is a completely different thing. It is because this kind of mislabeling, claiming anything that aims to scare people to be "terrorism", that is so easy for governments all over the world to take away everyone's rights with the excuse of combating it. RIAA blackmailing people is not like terrorism. People discussing ways to blow things up is not terrorism. Disguised people shooting at soldiers in the battlefield is not terrorism.

I'm as much against RIAA tactics as everyone else. Also, I'm against terrorism and every kind of organized violence. But let's call a spade a spade, all right? Everytime someone misuse the word "terrorism", god kills a kitten and the terrorists win.

Re:Their strategy

[suv4x4]

Everytime someone misuse the word "terrorism", god kills a kitten and the terrorists win.

Damn, god's a terrorist.

Re:Their strategy

[WrongSizeGlass]

"Maybe" /. is next. They won't care about /. for one very important reason ... few people on /. RTFA. ;-)

Re:Their strategy

[Joebert]

That explains the missing WMD.

Re:Their strategy

[KiloByte]

It's a bit like terrorism.

No, it is not anything near terrorism. Extortion, racketeering, blackmailing, maybe. But terrorism is a completely different thing. It is because this kind of mislabeling, claiming anything that aims to scare people to be "terrorism", that is so easy for governments all over the world to take away everyone's rights with the excuse of combating it. RIAA blackmailing people is not like terrorism. People discussing ways to blow things up is not terrorism. Disguised people shooting at soldiers in the battlefield is not terrorism.

Wrong. Terrorism, by it's very definition, is hurting non-combatants to make them overcome by fear, in order to make them follow a course of action the terrorist wants to attain. It doesn't matter if you use a shaheed's belt or a lawsuit. The idea is the same.

Re:Their strategy

[sepluv]

They didn't say it was "terrorism" just that it is like it. It is you who seems unclear about the definition as you say "People discussing ways to blow things up is not terrorism" but then refer to terrorism as meaning "organised violence".

Clue: At least in its original sense, terrorism doesn't refer to violent behaviour or killing people (that's murder) but threatening to use violence or suggesting that others will cause violence against someone unless that someone does what you want (e.g.: relinquishes their liberty). So, the Bin Laden video tapes are terrorism (incidentally, whether or not they were really by Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda) and the "war on terror" statements of George W. Bush are mostly terrorism, but someone who kills people without issuing a statement before hand is not a terrorist. In fact, for terrorism to be effective, actual killing is best kept to a minimum (although an occasional bit probably helps).

It can also refer to other things as well as violence (so I'd say that the post you criticize wasn't far off the mark). Basically terrorism roughly means an argumentum ad baculum argumentum in terrorem (more commonly known on /. as FUD).

Re:Their strategy

[91degrees]

Court? Case? suing? Who's suing who here?

Re:Their strategy

[vivaoporto]

They didn't say it was "terrorism" just that it is like it. It is you who seems unclear about the definition as you say "People discussing ways to blow things up is not terrorism" but then refer to terrorism as meaning "organised violence".

I'm not unclear about the definition, and I didn't referred to terrorism as "organized violence". I said "I'm against terrorism and every kind of organized violence" as a disclaimer to dispel any interpretation that I could be endorsing or condoning violence when I mention that "disguised people shooting at soldiers in the battlefield is not terrorism". Notice that anywhere in my post I attempted to define terrorism or attribute a meaning to it. I only mentioned what terrorism is not.

That being, most of your post is nothing but a weakly constructed straw man.

I stand by what I said. There is not "original meaning" for terrorism that includes use of minor threats (like lawsuits, ground up misbehaving kids, whatever) to intimidate a person (our group of people) in order to achieve an objective. Check the etymology of the world, to understand that terrorism must both be systematic and, as the root of the word implies, terrifying.

Re:Their strategy

[Opportunist]

Damn, god's a terrorist.

Hmm... let's see... giving out vague threats that bad things happen to you if you don't comply with his requests, conducts a worldwide network of followers who would religiously do whatever he requests or allegedly requests, kills people (or makes his followers thinks he wants them to kill people) who he deems enemies, promises eternal bliss to those that die in his name and for his cause...

Yup, I'd say you're right.

Re:Their strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not "Terrorism" that needs to be looked up, its "a bit like" that needs to be looked up.

(Hint - it doesn't mean "exactly the same as")

Re:Their strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Extortion, racketeering, blackmailing" are forms of terrorism. The RIAA are using the threat of litigation (even if both parties know that the RIAA would lose) to coerce society.

Re:Their strategy

[jabuzz]

Since when was being sued by a multi million pound corporation for a huge sum of money that would potentially bankrupt yourself as a private individual for something you did not do *not* terrifying?

Given that the RIAA are doing this systematically and a large number of people would classify it as terrifying then by your definition it is terrorism.

The problem is that you are equating being terrified with physical violence.

Re:Their strategy

[mpe]

Their strategy is not to win those cases in front of court.

People who actually have a good case have no reason to make a lot of fuss. Those who make a lot of noise probably have weak cases, which they probably weaken by the fuss they make about them. e.g. even if they made it to court the judge might dismiss the case on the basis of the plaintiff's behaviour.

They just want to scare you by suing innocent people. They want you to think "if that innocent guy got sued, maybe I am next". It's a bit like terrorism.

Or even it actually is "terrorism".

Re:Their strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd buy that if they sued grown & guilty people (even if the guilt is about mere sharing).

But they're frequently found suing kids, or people who never sat on a computer and don't know what an mp3 is.

That's the whole point it's the "you don't want to mess with that guy; he's insane" effect. If someone doesn't seem to care if they get hurt or if they hurt random bystanders or whether any offence is real or imagined, then most people will avoid doing anything that might possibly upset them. It doesn't always work but it's a reasonable strategy until the "insane guy" meets another "insane guy" and it turns into a game of Chicken. If you've never encountered this before then you really need to get out more :)

Re:Their strategy

[suv4x4]

That's the whole point it's the "you don't want to mess with that guy; he's insane" effect. If someone doesn't seem to care if they get hurt or if they hurt random bystanders or whether any offence is real or imagined, then most people will avoid doing anything that might possibly upset them.

So how does a citizen constitute this "messing with the insane guy" activity? By living in USA? The "don't drink at the same bar where RIAA is standing" kinda doesn't work, they'll subpoena the ISP, get the name written behind the IP and sue you. Just like that.

If you've never encountered this before then you really need to get out more :)

You don't wanna mess with me, I'm insane.

Re:Their strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

For all we know, god couldn't give a damn about worship. I wouldn't be surprised at all upon arriving in heaven to learn that god never wanted or intended that we worship him, or anything else for that matter -- that he simply wanted us to respect each other like the human beings we are.

Requiring worship is the ultimate form of arrogance, and arrogance is clearly a human quality -- certainly god would be above that, right?

Re:Their strategy

[martin-boundary]

Sorry, but you don't seem very consistent in your claim to understand the word terrorism yourself, though. You first said:

It is because this kind of mislabeling, claiming anything that aims to scare people to be "terrorism", that is so easy for governments all over the world to take away everyone's rights with the excuse of combating it.

With those words, you're claiming that there is more to terrorism than merely aiming to scare people for some goal. However, now you also say

Check the etymology of the world, to understand that terrorism must both be systematic and, as the root of the word implies, terrifying.

This indicates that you believe that an essential characteristic of terrorism is systematically scaring people, ie without the scaring part it wouldn't be terrorism. Luckily for slashdot, your ideas about terrorism aren't the only ones out there.

Here's webster's definition:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

By webster's definition, what the RIAA are doing certainly does qualify as terrorism on its victims.

Of course, if you prefer to use the White House's definition, you'll get

?activities that involve violent? or life-threatening acts? that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and? appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and? (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States? [or]? (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States?"

That kind of definition is particularly convenient in forum arguments, because the United States can never be a terrorist itself, since it can just fix its own laws whenever it wants to, but anyone else can be one if the US just fixes its own laws to suit the enemy du jour.

Of course, the United Kingdom's definition is also quite useful in arguments, since subsection (1)(b) states

the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

which implies that nothing is terrorism unless it is specifically directed at the UK government or some segment of the UK public. By that interpretation, I think the palestinian suicide bombers are safe, as long as they make sure they don't hit a British subject by accident.

Of course, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, as the saying goes. I don't have Iran's definition of terrorism to hand, but I think it's safe to assume that it would be very handy in certain types of debates too :)

Re:Their strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

So how does a citizen constitute this "messing with the insane guy" activity?

If they threaten you, you pay up. Think about it, they WILL continue with the case even if they have no evidence, even if you reason with them, even if it's obvious you didn't do it. They'll keep going after anyone. Children and grannies or even dead children and grannies. Maybe you'd win in court but they will force you to have to fight, you'll have to at minimum give up massive amounts of your time, probably have to spend a fortune too. Maybe they'll spend 1,000 times more but they'll do it even if they're going to lose, because they're insane. You think you stand a chance to reason with them? It's cheaper to just pay up.

(That is how they want you to think. That is the point)

Re:Their strategy

[Gordonjcp]

Of course, the United Kingdom's definition is also quite useful in arguments, since subsection (1)(b) states

We've had a lot more terrorism to deal with than the US. We've had decades more experience...

Re:Their strategy

[TheThiefMaster]

Well, he did "make us in his image" apparently. Surely that means that he's as human as us?

Re:Their strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you hit the nail.
Such a pattern was perfectly depicted in "Cube". The "cube" is built as a sum of peoples' desires, greediness, fears, indifference - peoples', who do not want/like to see a wider picture. The "cube" is never intended by anyone, but it always grows - kind of basic rule for human beings, like an increase of entropy in the Universe along the our direction of the time dimention.

History repeats itself constantly (but not necessarily literally). Few centuries ago we had land feudalism, now we have "intelectual property" feudalism: you want to plough a field, which belongs to someone - pay a tribute - sounds reasonable, doesn't it, but what if all the land with forests and all animals belong to a king, because he said so?

Re:Their strategy

[Hal_Porter]

Maybe God is a very powerful but non enlightened entity? I never get the assumption that very powerful entities are necessarily good. For example, God could be so powerful that he's as unconcerned about our wellbeing as we are of the wellbeing of bacteria.

Re:Their strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

For all we know, god couldn't give a damn about worship. I wouldn't be surprised at all upon arriving in heaven to learn that god never wanted or intended that we worship him, or anything else for that matter -- that he simply wanted us to respect each other like the human beings we are.
Requiring worship is the ultimate form of arrogance, and arrogance is clearly a human quality -- certainly god would be above that, right?

Don't you think that perhaps he would have told us something about what he wanted then?

Perhaps he already has?

Re:Their strategy

[clickety6]

do you know people die every single day in car accidents? Do you drive a car?

I do - but now I always wear a seat belt. Same way that when downloading, I make sure I use proxies and encryption ;-)

Re:Their strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

giving out vague threats that bad things happen to you if you don't comply with his requests

I built and program my computer. To my computer I am God. I expect my computer to behave as I expect it to behave or I'll take the damned thing apart and fix it. What kind of hubris must you have to think you're God's equal? You are no more to God than Van Gogh's self portrait is to Van Gogh.

Telling your child he'll get spanked if he runs out in the street is not terrorism. Spanking him after he runs out in the street is not terrorism.

conducts a worldwide network of followers who would religiously do whatever he requests or allegedly requests

As the GP said, that also is not terrorism. Neither is networking the computers you yourself built.

kills people (or makes his followers thinks he wants them to kill people) who he deems enemies

He has stated on more than one occasion to the Jews, Chriatians, Muslims, and others that "thou shalt not kill." People killing in God's name, or exhort others to kill, are NOT following God's wishes. The Muslim strapping on a bomb is NOT following Allah's wishes, neither is the Christian bombing an abortion clinic, neither is the Jew shooting rockets at Palistineans. Neither is the oil man American President starting needless bloody wars to raise the price of gasoline. These people worship money and power and don't give two shits about God.

This IS terrorism, but don't blame God. God didn't tell people to do this, people falsely did in His name.

promises eternal bliss to those that die in his name and for his cause

That's not terrorism either. And I must point out that you WILL die, the only question is how and when.

I am insignifigant. I do not matter.

-mcgrew

Re:Their strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in fact extortion, racketeering and blackmailing are some of the methods terrorists use.
So, it is "a bit like terrorism" indeed. If we don't say it *is* terrorism it is because there's no political goal. The difference between a terrorist and a gangster is basically the ultimate purpose, not the methods.

Re:Their strategy

[Divebus]

Their strategy is censorship.

Re:Their strategy

[b4upoo]

Perhaps some of the more talented among us will develop special effects or gifts for the RIAA. That way they will know how it feels to be picked on and singled out.

Re:Their strategy

[astrolux]

I don't think the concept of terrorism can be applied when there's no shocking violence involved. That's what the very core of terrorist means is all about. Otherwise we would have to invent another word. I mean, how else would you distinguish something like a terrorist attack from something like what RIAA is doing? So unless you feel like there's no point in distinguishing real terrorist events from something else, I'd suggest to drop that concept regarding this article.

Re:Their strategy

[bloobloo]

What on earth makes you think that "the public" excludes non-British people? Moreover subsection 1b is not necessary whenever firearms or explosives are involved.

Re:Their strategy

[GuldKalle]

It's as close to terrorism as illegal file-sharing is to stealing. Let's give them a taste of their own medicine

Re:Their strategy

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I don't think the concept of terrorism can be applied when there's no shocking violence involved. That's what the very core of terrorist means is all about. Otherwise we would have to invent another word. I mean, how else would you distinguish something like a terrorist attack from something like what RIAA is doing? So unless you feel like there's no point in distinguishing real terrorist events from something else, I'd suggest to drop that concept regarding this article. I think an appropriate definition of terrorism might be "to attack (a) broadly rather than in a targeted manner, (b) randomly rather than rationally, and (c) with savage and disproportionate, rather than measured, force, all in order to achieve widespread fear among a class of people rather than to accomplish clearly defined strategic objectives".

The RIAA's litigation campaign is clearly terrorism under that definition.

Yes it is a metaphor, in the sense that it usually involves economic rather than physical violence, but the RIAA's thugs have suggested to defendants that if they do not pay the settlement they could be subject to imprisonment, to ruin of their credit ratings, and to public humiliation in newspapers and otherwise.... these are more than merely economic threats.

Re:Their strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ! I don't give a fuck!

Re:Their strategy

[Phroggy]

Something must be done! This is something, therefore it must be done!

Re:Their strategy

[Phroggy]

Don't you think that perhaps he would have told us something about what he wanted then?

Perhaps he already has? And perhaps people haven't bothered to read it?

Re:Their strategy

[Phroggy]

Not only that, but Jesus hated the religious right. The Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells and James Dobsons of that day were called Pharisees; read what Jesus had to say about them.

Re:Their strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

They just want to scare you by suing innocent people. They want you to think "if that innocent guy got sued, maybe I am next"

It seems to me that would have the opposite effect of deterring file sharing. If you can get sued and punished whether you're sharing files or not, you may as well actually do it and get the benefits, too.

Re:Their strategy

[robbiethefett]

you joke, but i seriously doubt they care about /. for another very simple reason. many of the user base is smart enough to fight back, because we know our tech and we know our rights. imagine the look of terror on some riaa stooge's face when he requests info on a poster and cmdrtaco sends him a piece of paper with 1 simple username on it: NewYorkCountyLawyer. "OH SHIT, THE JIG IS UP! RUN RUN!!!" The RIAA doesn't mess with people who know the ins and outs of pesky little details like "law" and "how a computer works." basically they will never sue /. or it's users, because they know very well they would lose, and it would certainly be the straw that broke the camel's back. no, they will avoid that like the plague.

Re:Their strategy

[Lockejaw]

The "don't drink at the same bar where RIAA is standing" kinda doesn't work, they'll subpoena the ISP, get the name written behind the IP and sue you. Just like that.

Sure it does. They're not trying to say "only use the torrents we're not watching." They're saying "don't use any of them at all."

Re:Their strategy

[Alter_Fritz]

1) RIAA's investigation methodes are so fsucking flawed, they accuse people that never ever commited any copyrightinfringements.
2) If it's my name that is on the ISP contract for the leased IP address I risk getting sued even if I had never ever any intention to be a "thief" and "criminal" and have never ever touched any of "their" songs.

blacking out all other issue like morality or law and analysing RIAA's alleged strategy and the real life handling of it, from a strictly logical Point of View the consequence for any person thats name is registered with an ISP would be;

3) So lets pirate stuff as much as I can so that that at least I have made a bargain and not wasted $3750 for nothing when they draw my IP as the next "lucky number" out of their secret "Media Sentry lucky numbers bingo bowl"

disclaimer: No, I vehemently deny that I commit willful copyrighinfringements, but I confess that it isn't my name on the ISP records either ;-)

Re:Their strategy

[Em Adespoton]

Hey... here's an idea: every time corporations misuse the word "Pirate", the people can misuse the word "Terrorist".

When everyone's a Pirate, only Pirates will fight the Terrorists :)

I mean hey... Pirates kill people and steal physical objects. Terrorists kill people and create FUD about conducting legitimate activities. Copyright infringers don't kill people, and neither do entertainment conglomerates (well, for the most part in both cases). So, remove the obvious lie, and if copyright infringers are still considered Pirates, then the RIAA should be considered a Terrorist organization.

Re:Their strategy

[Skye16]

I highly doubted Jesus hated anyone. He may have been upset with them and disappointed in their actions, but hatred? Piffleposh.

Hell, I'm an Atheist and even I don't buy the Biggest Hippie Ever didn't hate anyone.

Re:Their strategy

[Skye16]

Well, terror implies a much more dramatic occurrence of mere "fear", so how about "fearorist?"

Okay, you're right. I don't like it either. But god dammit, they use terrorist to describe hanging up some mooninite posters, we should at least be able to stretch it THIS far. After all, the word "terrorist" is alot like a prostitute's vagina; it's so stretchy by now you could park your Camry inside and still have room for your passengers to get out.

Re:Their strategy

[Adhemar]

We've had a lot more terrorism to deal with than the US. We've had decades more experience...

The way the British authorities used to treat Northern-Irish catholic suspects, improsoning without probable cause and due process, torturing until they agreed to sign false confessions, etc. was every bit as outrageous then as the current US authorities' conduct now. Two differences:

• The US seems to have scaled things up a bit.
• The British did all the torturing themselves. The US outsources this practices more and more to foreign countries.

The case of the Guildford Four is the most commonly known, but only a tip of the iceberg. (I'm talking about treatment of suspects here, situations like Bloody Sunday are a whole other category.)

Re:Their strategy

[olddotter]

Isn't it more like extortion?

Re:Their strategy

[Achromatic1978]

George?!? Is that you?!?

Re:Their strategy

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Isn't it more like extortion? Yes, it's a lot like extortion, too.

Re:Their strategy

[KDR_11k]

I would consider that extortion: "Give us money or we'll file lawsuits and drag them out until you're bankrupt, whether you're guilty or innocent".

Re:Their strategy

[Grishnakh]

He has stated on more than one occasion to the Jews, Chriatians, Muslims, and others that "thou shalt not kill."

Aren't there plenty of passages in the Bible (OT, specifically) where he directs the Hebrews to kill their enemies or others? Here's a few from evilbible.com:

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Death for Fornication
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Kill Men, Women, and Children
"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all - old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they a

Re:Their strategy

[bh_doc]

I built and program my computer. To my computer I am God. I expect my computer to behave as I expect it to behave or I'll take the damned thing apart and fix it.

Then why won't God just fix me, instead of threatening me (which as far as I know isn't a bluff) with eternal hell-fire?

In fact, your analogy is worse than that. The reason your computer misbehaves is because 1) impure materials, 2) poor or incomplete design, and/or 3) poor or incomplete construction due to your own problem or failure. You'll note that all three are in a big way outside of your control, so you get some cop-out. But, supposedly, none are outside of God's control.

So why does this God, after failing to make me and this world correctly WHICH HE WAS QUITE CAPABLE OF DOING, and thus is HIS OWN DAMN FAULT FOR NOT DOING SO, turn around and BLAME ME and PUNISH ME for what was ultimately HIS MISTAKE? It's disturbingly childish.

You might trot out the "free-will" silliness, but all that does is imply that there is some sort of universal law GREATER THAN God - the law of free will. If not, then ultimately we're back at it all being God's doing, and thus God's fault.

What kind of hubris must you have to think you're God's equal?

You're right, I'm not equal to God. I'm better than him: I'm less childish, less violent, less misogynistic, and know more about the physical world than he. And I posit that many people on this planet, yourself included, are better than that God, too.

Re:Their strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for showing your lack of biblical knowledge.

Not going to argue all your points since some of them are prima facie correct. Execution is an appropriate response to certain crimes though.

But here:

Kill Homosexuals?

It seems that one clear reading of this text is purely a statement of natural law, the universe as created by God. Homosexuals infect themselves with deadly diseases, and thus die as a result of their actions. No killing required on the part of believers.

Kill nonbelievers?

Nope, even the summary you give show clearly that this isn't a punishment for unbelief, but for breaking a vow (repeatedly). The people committed themselves willingly to the service of God in order to receive His blessings, knowing full well that the penalty for turning aside was death. Those who never committed would not be subject to this punishment.

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night?

No, in cases of premarital sex the bible actually prescribes forced marriage. This is essentially ratifying the agreement the young people have already made, to give themselves to each other, and preventing the man from taking what he wants and backing away from the responsibility after. The rather lax divorce laws were not applicable -- following premarital sex the man had to support the woman until her death and could not divorce her for any reason.
What is discussed here is actually adultery -- the woman being promised to one man and then sleeping with another. But you already mentioned that point.

Ultimately though, you're right about one thing. The God of the bible, the Judeo-Christian God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, did not tell people not to kill. He commanded them not to murder, and he laid out a number of rules for capital punishment, all of which have the effect of protecting the innocent. One of the central tenets of Christianity to to protect the weak, and sometimes that means killing those who threaten them.

Re:Their strategy

[epp_b]

I don't think the concept of terrorism can be applied when there's no shocking violence involved. That's what the very core of terrorist means is all about. Otherwise we would have to invent another word.

How about "RIAAism"?

Re:Their strategy

[Grishnakh]

You sound like someone who could have a great conversation with Osama about who should be executed.

It seems that one clear reading of this text is purely a statement of natural law, the universe as created by God. Homosexuals infect themselves with deadly diseases, and thus die as a result of their actions. No killing required on the part of believers.

You're a homophobe and a moron. Animals are known to engage in homosexual acts, so there's nothing unnatural about it in humans. Maybe if god didn't like homosexuality, he shouldn't have created humans that way.

Nope, even the summary you give show clearly that this isn't a punishment for unbelief, but for breaking a vow (repeatedly). The people committed themselves willingly to the service of God in order to receive His blessings, knowing full well that the penalty for turning aside was death. Those who never committed would not be subject to this punishment.

You're a moron who can't read:
"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."
Notice the semicolon there? Those who "would not seek the Lord" haven't entered into any covenant to seek the Lord.

What is discussed here is actually adultery -- the woman being promised to one man and then sleeping with another. But you already mentioned that point.

So you support death for adultery? How loving and forgiving of you. I guess Christianity isn't really about forgiveness after all, then. At least the Muslims are a little more honest about their religion (but not much).

The God of the bible, the Judeo-Christian God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, did not tell people not to kill. He commanded them not to murder, and he laid out a number of rules for capital punishment, all of which have the effect of protecting the innocent. One of the central tenets of Christianity to to protect the weak, and sometimes that means killing those who threaten them.

What part of "thou shalt not kill" says that killing is OK? It doesn't say, "thou shalt not kill, except for these offenses...". Of course, the Bible is full of countless contradictions, so I guess it's pretty easy to ignore this one too.

Thanks for reaffirming why I abandoned Christianity when I turned into an adult. Why would I want to associate myself with murderous maniacs like you?

Re:Their strategy

[martin-boundary]

The UK has no jurisdiction abroad. The wording of the Terrorism Act 2000 is utterly irrelevant abroad. However, non-British tourists visiting Britain are of course covered by "the public", for exactly as long as they are visiting, obviously.

Re:Their strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

or it's users

"its".

Re:Their strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

he's as human as us

"he's as human as us is".

Re:Their strategy

[Phroggy]

OK, He didn't really hate them, as people. He just hated what they did. You're right. Still, you get my point.

It's called a "Chilling Effect"

[advocate_one]

see here

Re:It's called a "Chilling Effect"

[rucs_hack]

so, If I get the RIAA to do this to my refrigerator, it will keep it chilled enough to mean I can turn off the power and save the environment? Sounds good.

Re:It's called a "Chilling Effect"

[Opportunist]

Content industry fighting global warming, film at 11.

Re:It's called a "Chilling Effect"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's called terrorism.

We can abuse that word to deny ourselves Constitutional freedoms; the least we can do is abuse that word to try to defend some sort of freedom.

Obligatory ...

[siddesu]

.... and half seriously ...

IFPI, the more legal squeeze you put on the people with your ridiculous propaganda and bribed-for legislation, the more will slip through your loopholes ...

until the day when everyone realises that "intellectual property" thing is itself an excuse that allows you to profit where you should not.

protection money

[timmarhy]

protection rackets operated in the exact same way. heavy guy comes in and gives you notice that unless you payup he'll make you suffer. and don't go to the cops ( or in this case, fight back in court ) he'll make it worse for you and everyone else.

Re:protection money

[sepluv]

Threatening a law suit isn't a protection racket (although I see the analogy). The reason the RIAA and IFPI qualify as protection rackets is their threats against artists and recording labels (as well as their customers) that don't employ them (or don't follow the party line).

Re:protection money

[Anonymous Coward]

So who will sue the RIAA under RICO legislation?

Re:protection money

[Anonymous Coward]

Threatening a law suit isn't a protection racket

Makes little difference to the average victim whether they threaten to bankrupt you
by burning down your bakery, or bankrupt you by taking you to court.

Only difference I can see is the lawyers don't introduce themselves as "Fat Tony" and
"Gas Pipe".

So...

[Greyfox]

When do the RICO investigations begin?

Re:So...

[rucs_hack]

When do the RICO investigations begin?
Rico can't help, he's busy leading the Roughnecks, don't you know anything?

Re:So...

[imikem]

With this administration, I'd say the 12th of Never. Put the Dems back in charge of the executive branch, and it'll get done maybe a day earlier.

Re:So...

[gstoddart]

When do the RICO investigations begin?

Never. It happened in Britain. They may have their own statutes, but RICO isn't applicable.

Cheers

Really?

[Evets]

I'm all for hating the RIAA, but this article is terrible. Looks like slashdot is getting gamed.

In only a few months the Net has gone from being a place of freedom were anybody, anywhere regardless of race or creed, colour, sexual persuasion, physical ability or disability, or anything else, had a home.

1. Gone from to ?
2. were? or where?
3. Sexual persuasion? WTF does that have to do with this topic?

are subject to hate mail as a consequence of hubcap

hubcaps are causing hate mail?

How does an article this incomprehensible make the front page?

Re:Really?

[Angostura]

Indeed. That final link is appalling. The first link is the one you want, it has the full set of e-mails and makes for an interesting read. http://newmusicstrategies.com/2007/06/14/an-ifpi-b pi-board-member-writes/

Re:Really?

[rts008]

No, I think he meant that you get hate mail in your hubcaps.

Hmmm?

Does the size of the hubcaps determine how much hate mail you can get?

*goes outside and removes hubcaps...uses one to supplement tinfoil hat*

Re:Really?

[hoojus]

So that is the real reason for people hating SUV drivers. The hubcups are taunting us to try and fill them.

Re:Really?

[antic]

URL failing. Account has been suspended by its host. Let's hope that's just as a result of high traffic and not some form of takedown threat.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad you remembered to point out that "I'm all for hating the RIAA".

Otherwise you'd have been modded out of existance.

Re:Really?

[Angostura]

Still working just fine here at the time of posting. Curious.

Here's google's cache just in case.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for hating the RIAA

ORLY?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hay, stop holding people to account for their actions. You'll be suing people for using your work without paying next!

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

SUV drivers can go suck big cocks. Fucking faggots. Stop wasting our gas! Especially the Hummer drivers, ~12 miles/gallon and over $100 to fill it up every time! How fucking dumb are you people?

The only reason I'd want a Stone Roses reunion

[Anonymous Coward]

would be so that they could pay Paul Birch another visit.

Footage from documentary series "blood on the tracks", paints Paul Birch in his true colours.

Shocked!

[andr0meda]

UMG! ..as in: Uh, Mi goat?

I never understood how IFPI came about. It exists in almost every Western country, but seems to be a fragmented operation run by some sketchy self-proclaimed industry vets out of a London UK office. It apparently represents anyone who created a releasable piece of music, and lists 1400+ record companies as their clients.

In short, the IFPI is used as some sort of corporate-collared bat swinging bulldog extortion venture. If these type of gangs are forbidden in civil life, how come everyone takes them for granted in corporate life? Where are the laws?

Hardly a threat.

[91degrees]

"Take your link down or I'll make an ineffectual complaint to your employer"

Have we run out of RIAA slimeball tricks? This is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Re:Hardly a threat.

[Joebert]

Not quite, wait untill the RIAA starts outsourcing.

Re:Hardly a threat.

[timmarhy]

actually threats like this are very effective because most managment get frightened by this kind of thing through a lack of understanding and are likely to just cut you loose rather then think it through.

the next phase in the war on copyright will be cold callers from india "Hello mr smith, this is PETER from RIAA just calling to let you know you have been selected to not be sued, this special offer comes at just $2000"

Re:Hardly a threat.

[91degrees]

actually threats like this are very effective because most managment get frightened by this kind of thing through a lack of understanding and are likely to just cut you loose rather then think it through.

But you can't just sack someone for expressing an opinion in Britain. But even in the US, a universtiy is certainly going to protect its employees right to freedom of expression.

Re:Hardly a threat.

[sepluv]

But even in the US, a universtiy is certainly going to protect its employees right to freedom of expression. Possibly, but I can see why the RIAA/IFPI/et al think that threatening his uni might work and that anyone working for a uni doesn't have a right to speake against corporations (particularly protection rackets).

I seem to recall that universities in the US have run away scared and offered money when threatened by the RIAA and not protected their students and staff (or even helped the RIAA sue them) even the innocent ones. Also, academic research is increasingly run for the benefit of corporations in the style of a protection racket with academia rolling over to any corporate demands. Didn't universities co-operate on stopping mathematicians discussing illegal primes too?

Re:Hardly a threat.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I can see why the RIAA/IFPI/et al think that threatening his uni might work and that anyone working for a uni doesn't have a right to speake against corporations (particularly protection rackets). I seem to recall that universities in the US have run away scared and offered money when threatened by the RIAA and not protected their students and staff (or even helped the RIAA sue them) even the innocent ones. Also, academic research is increasingly run for the benefit of corporations in the style of a protection racket with academia rolling over to any corporate demands. Didn't universities co-operate on stopping mathematicians discussing illegal primes too? Even closer to home are the RIAA's unlawful, ex parte, "John Doe" proceedings which have been brought to get the names of the universities' students. I have yet to see a university even attempt to fight one in court. Instead, to date, they have been quiescently (a) waiving their students' due process rights, and (b) turning over their students' confidential information.

threaten slashdot

[Bizzeh]

now, i wonder if they are going to do the same to slashdot for linking to the same thing?

The E-mail Exchange

[jellie]

It looks like his servers are taking a hit, so here's a copy of the e-mail exchange between Andrew Dubber (the academic) and Paul Birch (the music executive). (Stupid lameness filter... I would have posted the text instead.)

Interestingly, Birch posted a comment in response to another person's question about creating backups:

Andrew

Thank you for clarifying these are my personal views not those of the IFPI, RIAA, BPI or others.

In response to Mark I actually think there is nothing wrong with making a copy for your own use, in a sense side-loading to an iPod or similar is an extension of that use. Under current copyright legislation there is a need for customers to be allowed that facility but without it giving rise to them then making multiple copies for sale. The very specific instrument that allows the one and not the other is the difficulty in drafting any amendment.

Paul

Revolver Records So he supports fair-use and time-shifting, but not linking to sites on the web. Yay for stupid opinions!

I may be wrong ...

[DaveCar]

the RIAA's UK counterpart, the IFPI

But isn't the IFPI the International Federation of Phonographic Industries?

I think the UK equivalent of the RIAA is the The MCPS-PRS Alliance?

Re:I may be wrong ...

[Thwomp]

You're right, IFPI is world wide and just happens to have main offices based in London.

Re:I may be wrong ...

[ayana]

I'm pretty sure that we in britain have the BPI as our version of the RIAA, actually...may be wrong though

Re:I may be wrong ...

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK BPI is the equivalent to RIAA

Whereas MCPS-PRS Alliance the equivalent to ASCAP.

Re:I may be wrong ...

[sepluv]

You're right, but the guy who threatened to talk to his employer is a director of both IFPI and the BPI, which is I think were /. messed up.

Re:I may be wrong ...

[DaveCar]

Thank you siblings for the BPI pointer. I forgot about them.

Meh, I was half right ;)

Re:I may be wrong ...

[ayana]

for some reason, i *always* misread "British Phonographic Industry" as "British Pornographic Industry"...

Re:I may be wrong ...

[Anonymous Coward]

apologies, but this popped into my head:

You should see the 'British Pornographic Industry' raids... Porn stars in riot jackets extolling the virtues of copyright via positive and negative reinforcement:

You've been a good boy/girl - here's your treat - me! *intercourse ensues*
or:
You've been a very very naughty boy/girl for pirating 'girls gone wild: Luton'/'young and hung: gravesend' *brandishes whip and ball-gag*

posting AC to avoid indecent materials laws or something else that our lovely overlords come up with to bring about an Orwellian regime

Re:I may be wrong ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope IFPI doesn't stand for
International Federation of Pornographic Industries

That would mean that I have to boycott porn.

Re:I may be wrong ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes that's right, /. messed up with poor journalism as always. +1 mod point for you. :)

Re:I may be wrong ...

[ArtDecayed]

Thats not true. The MCPS-PRS Alliance is a non-profit organisation whose sole purpose is to collect royalties on behalf of artists. I know this because my girlfriend works for them.

Re:I may be wrong ...

[ArtDecayed]

(I'll re-post this as I couldn't spot the link on their site.)
Thats not true. The MCPS-PRS Alliance is a non-profit organisation whose sole purpose is to collect royalties on behalf of artists. I know this because my girlfriend works for them. If you read their About Us page you'd know this too.

Re:I may be wrong ...

[necro2607]

yup, I just read it as that when reading your post! ;)

I don't get it...

[Opportunist]

1. Complain about a blog that makes you look bad and make it known to more readers than it would ever have had.
2. ???
3. Profit.

Now, I don't really claim I understand every move of the mafiaa. More often than not, I do not. But I somehow don't get just how this is in any way beneficial for them. If anything, this information will get spread now. Did you know about that blog before it hit /.? I didn't.

Now it's on /., probably on digg and probably on even more pages. Listed, and most likely soon copied and spread too. If anything, the takedown notice served as free publicity for the blogger, and even if he should take it down, that story will circulate for months to come.

It's just like every time. Trying to hush something up is the surefire way to spread it on the 'net. Because nothing is interesting before it's supposedly "forbidden" to know it. Because then, you have to learn it NOW before it vanishes.

Re:I don't get it...

[Petrushka]

Now, I don't really claim I understand every move of the mafiaa. More often than not, I do not. But I somehow don't get just how this is in any way beneficial for them.

A climate of unreasoning fear is beneficial for them. Fear encourages people to settle rather than countersue.

Re:I don't get it...

[Opportunist]

In other words, if your reputation is already down the loo, why bother trying to pretend you're the good guy.

The more of their antics that I read about ..

[Lunarsight]

.. the more I feel they need to be eradicated as a corporate entity. An entity that behaves in this manner should not be allowed to continue to exist. Period.

Do as they do...

[PontifexPrimus]

...and use emotionally charged words. "Piracy" does sound so much better than "copyright infringement" even though it has nothing to do with rape, pillage and plunder on the high seas; so why not call their tactics "terrorism"? All right, it would mean lowering ourselves to their level - but as long as they are allowed to do this with impunity, why shouldn't we?

Re:Do as they do...

[Hal_Porter]

What if they retaliate by calling you a NAZI?

Re:Do as they do...

[top_down]

The copyright industry can finance media campaigns etc to impress their lingo upon you and make it mainstream. You cannot. So when you use the term "terrorism" for their tactics you might be qualifying their actions, but mostly you are disqualifying yourself as a serious person. You will be merely a radical that can be ignored. Hell, members of the copyright industry might even quote you just as to show how insane the "opponents of copyrights" have become.

Re:Do as they do...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then we win. Godwin rule.

Re:Do as they do...

[PackRat Q. Winnebago]

All right, it would mean lowering ourselves to their level - but as long as they are allowed to do this with impunity, why shouldn't we? Because then we forfeit any right we have to be disgusted by their tactics.

Re:Do as they do...

[mrbluze]

What if they retaliate by calling you a NAZI?

You can easily turn around and call them a copyright DENIER.

Re:Do as they do...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stick your fucking stupid Godwin's Rule up your arse and stop recycling decades old crap jokes.

HEIL

Re:Do as they do...

[Em Adespoton]

The copyright industry can finance media campaigns etc to impress their lingo upon you and make it mainstream. You cannot. So when you use the term "terrorism" for their tactics you might be qualifying their actions, but mostly you are disqualifying yourself as a serious person. You will be merely a radical that can be ignored. Hell, members of the copyright industry might even quote you just as to show how insane the "opponents of copyrights" have become.

Ever heard of the Internet?

If enough bloggers start calling the RIAA tactics "terrorist tactics," it will become mainstream. If everyone on /. started calling the RIAA a Terrorist Organization whenever the RIAA was brought up in their presence, even THAT would probably push it into mainstream parlance eventually. However, slashdot works by providing a forum where everyone who shares this point of view can rant, so they don't have to rant about it anywhere else.

Re:Do as they do...

[Hal_Porter]

If everyone on /. started calling the RIAA a Terrorist Organization whenever the RIAA was brought up in their presence, even THAT would probably push it into mainstream parlance eventually.

Bwahaha. So by sitting around making absurdly hyperbolic comparisons on slashdot ("The RIAA have censored downloads from TorrentSpy? Well you know someone else who believed in censorship? Hitler!") and getting modded "+5 Sophie Scholl" by people that agree with you, you're somehow reclaiming the English language from The Man? Damn, and I thought I was wasting my time here.

Re:Do as they do...

[Em Adespoton]

The key clause in my argument was whenever the RIAA was brought up in their presence. If you leave it on Slashdot, not much will likely happen.

Re:Do as they do...

[Hal_Porter]

How does that work then? Like this maybe -

Geek in bar: I'm thinking of getting an MP3 player.
Girl in bar: Get an iPod. Cindi has one and it's great. They are a bit expensive though. Why don't you have a drink by the way? You've been sat here all night not talking to anyone and I've never seen you drink anything.
Geek in bar: No way, the iPod is a tool of the RIAA, DRM is poisoning software freedom and the RIAA are a bunch of terrorists killing innocent GNU Monks. Did you hear that Dimitry Skylab was arrested for writing code in Russia when he visited America. And in GNU/Kenya blind people have been prevented from backing up their Audio books. Cory Doctorow wrote a great science fiction story about a version of Star Wars where DRM prevented the Bothans from copying the plans for the Death Star, it was called "Many Bothans were KILLED BY THE MAFIAA1!1!". Isn't Bush like Palpatine of even Hitler! I'm going to buy the Venezualan ChavezTunes MP3 player. It has DRM so it only boots Debian Linux, and it knows how to send malformed packets to M Dollar Zunes over Wifi so they crash. The hardware companies said that Free Software wasn't allowed to use Wifi because of security concerns but that's just like Big Alcohol tells people that safe and perfectly natural herbs make you paranoid. That's why I don't drink, I don't want to support those BASTARDS.
Girl: ....

Re:Do as they do...

[Em Adespoton]

You've got it on the first try :)

But seriously... there are a LOT of slashdot users. If ALL of them actually left their computers, went to bars and behaved like that, it would make the front page of most newspapers.

However, I'm thinking more along the lines of:

[Geek at computer] --trolling on Slashdot while phone rings--

[Rich Uncle] Hey Duane, I want to give my daughter something special for her birthday, and have heard a lot about these new iPhones that can play movies and music and work as a phone too. Do you have any advice? Oh, and I have some questions for you about getting that internet thing working, so we can all see those pictures you set up for Cousin Millie.

[Geek at computer] No way, the iPod is a tool of the RIAA, DRM is poisoning software freedom and the RIAA are a bunch of terrorists killing innocent GNU Monks. Did you hear that Dimitry Skylarov was arrested for writing code in Russia when he visited America. And in GNU/Kenya blind people have been prevented from backing up their Audio books. Cory Doctorow wrote a great science fiction story about a version of Star Wars where DRM prevented the Bothans from copying the plans for the Death Star, it was called "Many Bothans were KILLED BY THE MAFIAA1!1!". Isn't Bush like Palpatine of even Hitler! I'm going to buy the Venezualan ChavezTunes MP3 player. It has DRM so it only boots Debian Linux, and it knows how to send malformed packets to M Dollar Zunes over Wifi so they crash. The hardware companies said that Free Software wasn't allowed to use Wifi because of security concerns but that's just like Big Alcohol tells people that safe and perfectly natural herbs make you paranoid. That's why I don't drink, I don't want to support those BASTARDS.

[Rich Uncle] ...

[Geek at computer] (now maybe he'll stop bothering me...)

[Rich Uncle] (I wonder where I can buy one of those iPhones? He's got a point about Bush though... maybe I'll let him buy the iPhone for me....)

An important part of the message:

[Anonymous Coward]

"there is a need for customers to be allowed that facility but without it giving rise to them then making multiple copies for sale"

Yup, so non-commercial copyright infringement needs no legislation.

And, that seems to be how this legislation is "sold" to the MP's but is missed out on the actual legislation. So the law can then be used for reasons that do not follow what the law was sold as being for.

Re:An important part of the message:

[jabuzz]

No, the problem is that under current UK copyright law, copying a CD to your iPod is as illegal as downloading it from some P2P network. He is reasonably recognizing that this needs to change as firstly nobody takes any notice of it anyway, and secondly in for a penny in for a pound; if copy the CD to the iPod is illegal then I might as well download it anyway.

Paul Birch is a hypocrite

[Anonymous Coward]

Paul Birch is somebody who once violated a bands moral rights, it's interesting to hear what his former artists think of him.

We told him we weren't happy about the video. He thinks he's got some sort of immunity because he's 'in the biz', (he thinks) we're not real people, we're just f---ing puppets, performing monkeys that he can earn a buck off. "He told us to make an appointment and that's when it kicked off. He's earning a lot of money off us and he tells us to make an appointment. So then we painted him. And his office and his motor. Full tins.

Full article For a record label owner, he doesn't have a clue about copyright either; "download our copyrights" indeed!

Re:Paul Birch is a hypocrite

[Achromatic1978]

Paul Birch is somebody who once violated a bands moral rights

Interesting, though, that The Stone Roses never mentioned the phrase "moral rights", let alone commenced action for breach of contract.

It would also be an utterly contentious point that said video was a "threat to the integrity of the work". Many people have voiced the belief that it was more the re-release of Sally Cinnamon that pissed the band off, something their label was perfectly within their rights to do, and that the whole "painting the office" was a ploy to get out of their contract early, rather than "trying to uphold their moral rights" (by throwing a tin of paint over cars of employees at their record label, how hardcore). ESPECIALLY when you consider that they came to the label equipped with the tins of paint, BEFORE meeting with the label boss, which kinda indicates they had intended to do it, regardless of the outcome of any discussions with him.

Have you read that article? Apropos of anything else, that 'reporting' is utterly simpering. Seems like the writer can't get enough of how he thought The Stone Roses walked on water:

Co-operative to a fault, The Stone Roses patiently signed T-shirts galore and posed for an endless stream of snaps with their arms around madly blushing girls.

Knackered and justifiably keen to get back to their Mancunian beds for some long overdue kip, the lads, nevertheless, remained outside the court for some 45 minutes, obliging fans with kisses, autographs and treasured snaps.

The concept of "goverment funding"

[gilgongo]

Is anyone else flabbergasted by the BPI chief's statement that "allowing indiscriminate criticism of the RIAA is inappropriate for a Government funded institution"?

Surely in terms of editorial integrity at least, it should be case that it would be wholly appropriate - if not actually desirable - to criticise a private company if you are being funded by the government?

Paul Birch of Revolver Records is probably not alone in seeing the government as being simply a tool of corporate influence. This just shows how bad things have got - that people like him now need to make no secret of the fact that they expect governments to work exclusively for commercial interests. I mean, we know that the military industrial complex is now one and the same as democratically elected government in the West, but to flaunt is like this is just staggering I think.

Re:The concept of "goverment funding"

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Is anyone else flabbergasted by the BPI chief's statement that "allowing indiscriminate criticism of the RIAA is inappropriate for a Government funded institution"? Surely in terms of editorial integrity at least, it should be case that it would be wholly appropriate - if not actually desirable - to criticise a private company if you are being funded by the government? Paul Birch of Revolver Records is probably not alone in seeing the government as being simply a tool of corporate influence. This just shows how bad things have got - that people like him now need to make no secret of the fact that they expect governments to work exclusively for commercial interests. I mean, we know that the military industrial complex is now one and the same as democratically elected government in the West, but to flaunt is like this is just staggering I think. Yes I was totally shocked by it. And offended. And outraged. These are some evil people.

Re:The concept of "goverment funding"

[dhasenan]

I'm not sure what 'indiscriminate criticism' is. It sounds like libel or slander -- if there's a valid reason to criticize an entity, then such criticism is not indiscriminate. Or perhaps it's simply criticizing an entity without doing any fact checking.

In that case, it's wholly appropriate for a government funded institution to be forbidden from indiscriminate criticism of any entity.

The issue is that I don't see how the professor in question exercised indiscriminate criticism, or actually any criticism -- he simply linked to a site featuring criticism.

Re:The concept of "goverment funding"

[Interested Bystander]

I wonder, would an indictment would be considered indiscriminate criticism? Cause if so I guess all sorts of corporate misbehavior would have to be tolerated!

Re:The concept of "goverment funding"

[gilgongo]

I'm not sure what 'indiscriminate criticism' is either, but if it's random negative critical statements, then the blog post isn't it. And yes, of course I agree that a publicly-funded institution should not be allowed to criticise anyone with no grounds for the complaint - but then nor should any institution, or person, if they do so in public, but that's completely irrelevant to what we're talking about here.

Implicit acceptance of YouTube?

[pcardno]

Am I the only one who noticed that he seems to suggest that he has no issue with YouTube containing copyrighted material, even outside of agreements? Seeing as he seems to be talking as a representative of the IFPI (and almost the RIAA by extension), surely his statement regarding YouTube would seem to be agreement that it is valid and legal:

"Consumers that enjoy music have a lot of options and enjoying it free on the radio is at least one of them, with last FM and You Tube there is near on demand service free at the point of use."

So is he stating on behalf of the IFPI that he has no issues with copyrighted content appearing on YouTube without the agreement of the copyright holder? If so, that's a pretty big statement to make. In fact, it breaks their whole model, as he seems to be suggesting that some channels are fine to break copyright law, whereas others aren't, and my understanding is that you can't have that kind of position..

Thoughts would be welcome!

Re:Implicit acceptance of YouTube?

[ardle]

You can be sure that he has a problem with copyrighted material being available without payment to the industry on YouTube. The fact that he mentions YouTube in the same sentence as radio stations as a means for making copyrighted material available to the public suggests that he has either witnessed or participated in conversations (possibly in a basement night club in the early hours) where industry execs convinced themselves that they'll still get paid at the end of the month (and that's the important thing, isn't it?). So is Google going to pay them a fee to cover royalties for copyrighted content? I presume it'd be something similar to what radio stations pay.

Here is a particularly insightful post from that blog. I RTFA :-)

Re:Implicit acceptance of YouTube?

[Anonymous Coward]

he's got issues allright. i have talked to lots of people -- from the news business (afp), print business, music and film -- i can assure you that everyone hates and envies google, but they are also afraid of it. so, they are piling up material, and waiting for the opportunity ... but they are waiting for the opportunity to make em pay rather than put em down.

kids have buying power too

[CarpetShark]

They just want to scare you by suing innocent people. They want you to think "if that innocent guy got sued, maybe I am next". It's a bit like terrorism.

I'd buy that if they sued grown & guilty people (even if the guilt is about mere sharing).

But they're frequently found suing kids,

Well, kids also have media buying power these days. Just because the law draws a distinction between adult and child, doesn't mean that the business world does the same. In fact, there are lots of other examples proving that they don't.

or people who never sat on a computer and don't know what an mp3 is.

Oh, they'll just put those down to Casualties of War. I'm pretty sure they're not trying to develop the perfect algorithm here.

Why are RIAA lawyers not ostracized/disowned?

[Morgaine]

I've never been too surprised at the evil antics and methods of the RIAA, because their total miscomprehension of the link between music and society is a breeding ground for misguided money-grabbing. From an evil, totally inward-looking worldview stems an equally evil, vampiric legal MO.

What has susprised me however is that the RIAA lawyers have not been utterly disowned by the rest of the legal profession. It is precisely their kind of behaviour that has caused the status of lawyers to plummet from respected professionals to something really appalling that I don't even want to name here. I'm sure that you've felt that taint/stigma yourself too, despite all your great work in recent years --- you cannot be happy that professional "colleagues" at the RIAA are doing what they are doing.

So why is there no movement in legal circles to lance that particularly nasty infection in the body legal? It's not the only example of lawyers losing their sense of proportion, but it has to be one of the most putrid and hateful, and certainly the one with the highest profile.

Aren't the RIAA lawyers subject to any ethical, moral or social standards at all? Doesn't the profession have any standards of conduct of its own, beyond mere adherence to the letter of the law? Does nothing else matter? Am I the only person to find the lack of professional censure of RIAA lawyers nothing short of incredible? Lots of questions. I wish I knew the answer.

Re:Why are RIAA lawyers not ostracized/disowned?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

What has susprised me however is that the RIAA lawyers have not been utterly disowned by the rest of the legal profession. It is precisely their kind of behaviour that has caused the status of lawyers to plummet from respected professionals to something really appalling that I don't even want to name here. I'm sure that you've felt that taint/stigma yourself too, despite all your great work in recent years --- you cannot be happy that professional "colleagues" at the RIAA are doing what they are doing. So why is there no movement in legal circles to lance that particularly nasty infection in the body legal? It's not the only example of lawyers losing their sense of proportion, but it has to be one of the most putrid and hateful, and certainly the one with the highest profile. Aren't the RIAA lawyers subject to any ethical, moral or social standards at all? Doesn't the profession have any standards of conduct of its own, beyond mere adherence to the letter of the law? Does nothing else matter? Am I the only person to find the lack of professional censure of RIAA lawyers nothing short of incredible? Lots of questions. I wish I knew the answer. I do believe that once they are dumped by their client, these lawyers will have a tough time trying to reenter the legal profession.

Re:Why are RIAA lawyers not ostracized/disowned?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do believe that once they are dumped by their client, these lawyers will have a tough time trying to reenter the legal profession.

With respect, Ray, that is not the same thing as suggested by the parent, which was censure from within the ranks of the profession, and not a mere "let the market decide". (It will anyway, but not on the basis of ethics.)

I'm trying to be generous here, but I see that even you yourself hesitate to censure your legal brethren, while being perfectly happy to target their client.

I'm afraid that's not good enough.

This is exactly why we have this problem in the first place. No one in your profession will speak out against the people who choose to deliver the evil.

Well fine, that's all part of freedom, but lawyers should not then complain when they are tarred with the same brush as amoral mercenaries. The public's perception of lawyers is in their own hands. Sadly, the future certainly doesn't look good.

PS. It doesn't work this way in Engineering. Chartered engineers work to an ethical standard that goes beyond the mere laws of materials physics, and take pride in being helpful members of society. There is no law to enforce that, nor a profit motive, it is just a matter of self-esteem and a responsible view of oneself as a member of society. The legal profession seems to be lagging in that regard.

Re:Why are RIAA lawyers not ostracized/disowned?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I see that even you yourself hesitate to censure your legal brethren, while being perfectly happy to target their client. I'm afraid that's not good enough. I'm afraid that your reading is not good enough, as I have never hesitated to censure the RIAA's lawyers for their misconduct.

Being my adversary and fighting hard doesn't make one a bad guy.

Conducting onesself improperly and in violation of legal ethics and ordinary standards of morality does make one a bad guy.

I have never hesitated to point out to many instances in which the RIAA lawyers have shown themselves to be bad guys.

My post suggested that they will be ostracized by the legal profession.

Re:Why are RIAA lawyers not ostracized/disowned?

[CorSci81]

I suspect the real question is why the bar itself hasn't taken action against these lawyers. Surely it seems that if the same lawyers are continuously bringing meritless lawsuits on behalf of the RIAA and dismissing them when it becomes clear the defendant won't settle and the plaintiff's case is sorely lacking evidence that their professional conduct is at least questionable and worthy of investigation. It's my understanding the courts generally don't like to have their time wasted with nonsense where the plaintiff is clearly lacking a credible case and it's in the bar's interest to reprimand the lawyers involved in perpetuating this behavior.

Re:Why are RIAA lawyers not ostracized/disowned?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I suspect the real question is why the bar itself hasn't taken action against these lawyers. Surely it seems that if the same lawyers are continuously bringing meritless lawsuits on behalf of the RIAA and dismissing them when it becomes clear the defendant won't settle and the plaintiff's case is sorely lacking evidence that their professional conduct is at least questionable and worthy of investigation. It's my understanding the courts generally don't like to have their time wasted with nonsense where the plaintiff is clearly lacking a credible case and it's in the bar's interest to reprimand the lawyers involved in perpetuating this behavior. You guys are showing a little naivete.

1. There is no single "bar". There are 50 different state bars.

2. Until the RIAA lawyers start getting slammed by judges, no one is going to assume that their conduct is frivolous or unethical (as you and I know them to be). Keep an eye on Capitol v. Foster where the Court has slammed them hard. But there are going to have to be a lot more cases like that.

Re:Why are RIAA lawyers not ostracized/disowned?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Instead of pontificating about why the "bar" hasn't done something, you guys should be out there doing something to help the defendants fight these cases. I don't see anyone setting up a legal defense fund, do you? That's what's needed.

Re:Why are RIAA lawyers not ostracized/disowned?

[CorSci81]

I'm actually aware there are 50 separate state bars, but haven't there also been multiple cases in some states? And to further demonstrate my admitted naivete of legal matters I have more questions.

I thought many of these cases had been brought in federal courts? I'm aware of there being separate jurisdictions, but I would hope courts also aren't unaware of decisions that occur in other jurisdictions. My question is why the courts haven't seemed to notice the recurring pattern of behavior that you describe in your blog in How the RIAA Litigation Process Works.

At least to people like myself who only see a small fraction of the high profile cases that get posted on sites like Slashdot, it's a little dumbfounding that behaviors such as the John Doe cases and ex parte discovery motions (with little supporting evidence) are even being entertained let alone granted.

Re:Why are RIAA lawyers not ostracized/disowned?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

'm actually aware there are 50 separate state bars, but haven't there also been multiple cases in some states? And to further demonstrate my admitted naivete of legal matters I have more questions. I thought many of these cases had been brought in federal courts? I'm aware of there being separate jurisdictions, but I would hope courts also aren't unaware of decisions that occur in other jurisdictions. My question is why the courts haven't seemed to notice the recurring pattern of behavior that you describe in your blog in How the RIAA Litigation Process Works [riaalawsuits.us]. At least to people like myself who only see a small fraction of the high profile cases that get posted on sites like Slashdot, it's a little dumbfounding that behaviors such as the John Doe cases and ex parte discovery motions (with little supporting evidence) are even being entertained let alone granted. 1. Yes there are multiple cases but almost no victories on either side.

2. They are all in federal court.

3. What decisions? I'm not aware of any decisions. I do not know of a single fully contested case that has been decided either way.

4. Courts deal with the case that is before them; they do not look for trends.

5. It is dumbfounding to me as well that the ex parte discovery motions have been granted, since they are clearly insufficient legally. It may be that some such motions have been denied... but I have no way of knowing where or when.

6. Keep an eye on Elektra v. Barker; if they get bounced there, they are going to start getting bounced everywhere.

Re:Why are RIAA lawyers not ostracized/disowned?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of pontificating about why the "bar" hasn't done something, you guys should be out there doing something to help the defendants fight these cases. I don't see anyone setting up a legal defense fund, do you? That's what's needed.

Absolutely not. By asking for that, you're doing exactly what the parent of the parent pointed out --- indirectly helping to perpetuate the malpractices of the RIAA, by focussing only on the defendents instead of attacking the RIAA lawyers head on.

Individual cases are SYMPTOMS of the malpractice, and not the disease itself. As long as people fight only the symptoms, the disease isn't going to go away.

I strongly recommend that you accompany your work on case defence with action within the ranks of the profession against the practices of those lawyers. Without that, you appear as an unintentional *beneficiary* of those RIAA predations, and that's less than nice.

The ethical position here would be to work within the profession to get those RIAA lawyers' practices censured. You've documented their methods well, but it's not *us* to whom you should be preaching. Letters to the 50 or so bars would be a good start.

Re:Why are RIAA lawyers not ostracized/disowned?

[Anonymous Coward]

My post suggested that they will be ostracized by the legal profession.

No it didn't. It suggested that they wouldn't easily get another client. You wrote:

[RB]: I do believe that once they are dumped by their client, these lawyers will have a tough time trying to reenter the legal profession.

There's a huge difference.

We've yet to see the slightest hint that "they will be ostracized by the legal profession". Where are the high profile expressions of concern? Where are the procedural questions in legal journals? Where is there any sort of condemnation of the practices from within the profession, as opposed to as part of countersuits? Where are the individuals responsible actually being named, alongside their misdeeds?

There is nothing happening within the profession to stop the rot, on ethical grounds or otherwise. It's quite clear that lawyers just stick together on such matters.

Re:Why are RIAA lawyers not ostracized/disowned?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of pontificating about why the "bar" hasn't done something, you guys should be out there doing something to help the defendants fight these cases. I don't see anyone setting up a legal defense fund, do you? That's what's needed.

Some typos there, let me correct them for you:

Instead of pontificating about why the "bar" hasn't done something, you guys should be putting more of your money into lawyer's pockets. That's what's needed.

There's that's better, "legal defense fund" really obscured the heart of the matter.

The legal profession doesn't condemn the RIAA lawyers because defending against them is a source of revenue. Arguing that this isn't so is vacuous in the absence of evidence that the legal profession is distancing itself from the antics of its black sheep.

Re:Why are RIAA lawyers not ostracized/disowned?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I strongly recommend that you accompany your work on case defence with action within the ranks of the profession against the practices of those lawyers. Without that, you appear as an unintentional *beneficiary* of those RIAA predations, and that's less than nice. The ethical position here would be to work within the profession to get those RIAA lawyers' practices censured. You've documented their methods well, but it's not *us* to whom you should be preaching. Letters to the 50 or so bars would be a good start. Dear AC,

1. Until the judges start slamming the RIAA lawyers, any disciplinary proceedings against the lawyers would be futile.

2. In order for the judges to start slamming the RIAA lawyers, more defendants are going to have be fighting back hard, with strong legal representation.

3. Instead of telling me what I should do, in addition to what I am already doing, you should be looking at yourself and asking yourself what you should be doing, what things you could be doing to help RIAA defendants vigorously defend their cases... such as helping to set up and support one or more legal defense funds.

Re:Why are RIAA lawyers not ostracized/disowned?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Until the judges start slamming the RIAA lawyers, any disciplinary proceedings against the lawyers would be futile.

Who mentioned disciplinary proceedings? Come on Ray, you know better than to reply with a straw man. The suggestion being made was that lawyers who see an ethical problem with RIAA methods could open discussions about it within professional circles. Nobody mentioned disciplinary proceedings.

2. In order for the judges to start slamming the RIAA lawyers, more defendants are going to have be fighting back hard, with strong legal representation.

This follows on from the straw man of your point 1, but I'll reply to one specific part of it, about "judges". As you said yourself elsewhere in this thread, courts do not look at trends. This makes looking to courtroom judges entirely inappropriate, since they will necessarily focus only on the antics of the lawyers in the case before them. Indeed, it would be highly inappropriate for them to look further, even to the point of being unjust.

3. Instead of telling me what I should do, in addition to what I am already doing, ...

You're a lawyer, and most of the rest of us are not, which means that you could initiate discussions within your professional circles about this, whereas we cannot. And that's what this thread was about --- censure of RIAA lawyers from within the profession. It's very clear that you have no interest in such discussions, and that's fine, it's your choice. But in that case you can't claim the moral high ground, because you're not standing on it. Like every other lawyer you're just working for your client ... just like the RIAA lawyers are. I was hoping for more, a defence of the ethics of the profession.

you should be looking at yourself and asking yourself what you should be doing, what things you could be doing to help RIAA defendants vigorously defend their cases... such as helping to set up and support one or more legal defense funds.

Another post already dealt with that. "Legal defence funds" are very effective at funnelling more dollars into lawyers' pockets, but achieve little else: case lawyers deal only with the symptoms of a specific case, and not with the disease itself.

I gather that this discussion is effectively at an end, but I'll let you have the last say after this, if you wish.

For my part, I see the subthread poster's point as having been verified, at least as far as your single point on the graph is concerned: there is no real desire to censure RIAA lawyers from within the ranks of the legal profession (ie. beyond merely condemning them here and on your website). Apparently RIAA antics are just "business as usual", and all is well in the legal world. That seems to be the message.

Re:Why are RIAA lawyers not ostracized/disowned?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

You're obviously one of those people who thinks he knows it all, so what can I possibly add to "all"?

And you are obviously a big talker and a do-nothing, who prefers to backstab, second guess, and malign others, than to actually do anything.

And you're obviously someone who hates lawyers, and thinks lawyers are supposed to (a) work for free and (b) spend their days having "discussions.... within professional circles".

And you are someone who is too lazy to read about the things he talks about, because if you had read you would know there has not been a more vocal critic of the RIAA lawyers' antics than I.

You reside in a complete dream world of your own creation, which you have designed to keep yourself ignorant of reality, which I guess is some folks' way of staying comfortable and safe. I personally pity folks like that, and would prefer the discomfort that comes from being aware of reality and from trying to make it better. You can go back to sleep now. Sorry I tried to wake you from your nap, Mr. Coward.

Re:Why are RIAA lawyers not ostracized/disowned?

[Anonymous Coward]

doh what a moronik ending no need to anser anything cos its from ac huh

pathetik mister nylawyer

Deep Breath

[bflynn]

Take deep breath and read between the lines. P2pnet is not known as an unbiased "news" source. I place news in quotes because it is questionable as to whether this kind of story even qualifies as journalism.

The blogger himself said there was nothing sinister going on, that this was a technical and traffic issue, probably caused by the blogger himself. The blog was not taken down by the RIAA. And no, I don't like their tactics either, but I'm not about to compromise my own integrity to "get them". TEHNC people (The emperor has no clothes.)

This is a non-story, other than the RIAA has asked a blogger to step out of the discussion. Big surprise there, eh?

Brian

When will they learn?

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

When will these organizations learn that by trying to suppress this stuff that they only generate more publicity for it?

Re:When will they learn?

[laffer1]

Does it? We see it on slashdot and in blogs. I don't remember seeing it on CNN. The media could change the RIAA by airing stories about what they do and how they accomplish it. If my grandmother saw something on the evening news about the RIAA falsly accusing little girls and grandmothers for CI, I bet she'd start bitching. My grandmother refuses to own technology for fear of identity theft. I blame the media for that. If she knew the RIAA goes after people WITHOUT Internet access, I bet she'd want them stopped. At 78 years old, she still occasionally buys a CD.

Re:When will they learn?

[olddotter]

Some would say generating the hype is their goal. The only defense is if enough counter claims result in damage awards to make a financially painful impact to the companies backing the agencies.

It's amazing.....

[Stanislav_J]

Every time I think these dinosaurs have reached an unsurpassable level of outrageousness and chutzpah, they keep topping themselves. Do they not realize that every time they open their yaps, they lose more and more credibility and probably make downloaders and file sharers even more determined to persevere?

You know, you can argue about copyright law and the industry's legal tactics until you're blue in the face, but the fact is that the world has changed and these suits are going to have to eventually adapt or die. There's a whole generation of young people out there for whom file sharing, if it carries any "moral" weight at all, is looked upon as, at worst, a "sin" on a par with speeding or jaywalking. Rightly or wrongly, millions are growing up freely sharing their music as they see fit, and they scoff at being compared with hardened criminals for doing so. You're not getting this genie back in the bottle -- a "law" that is routinely and easily ignored by a significant proportion of the populace has no teeth.

Re:It's amazing.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I beg to differ...

a "law" that is routinely and easily ignored by a significant proportion of the populace has no teeth.

That's what we said about the marijuana laws back in the '70s. Hell, you couldn't go to a rock concert without smelling pot. Nobody cared if you were a potsmoker, and the laws against reefer were going to be repealed Any Day Now.

Fast forward to the sci-fi 21st century (now). You can't get a fucking job washing dishes without being drug tested.

If the past (which this geezer lived through) is any indication, you are dead wrong. You make changing these stupid laws sound like a walk in the park; it's not. If we want to defeat the mafiaa and the government it and the other corporations own, we have a hell of a fight ahead of us.

BTW, you might be interested in an article I wrote a few years ago (history, politics, music), or another article in the same place around the same time if you're interested in getting free RIAA music (I'm not; at least, not the new stuff. IMO, Buckcherry is the only decent band signed to an RIAA label this century.)

The dinasaurs need to die, and the asteroid may have hit in the guise of the internet, but it's no sure bet they will die but it IS a sure bet that the thrashing and flailing of their death throes will badly hurt many of us little mammals.

-mcgrew

Please...

[jgoemat]

Can we PLEASE stop using this inappropriately?

1. Complain about a blog that makes you look bad and make it known to more readers than it would ever have had.
2. ???
3. Profit.

This is only appropriate when talking about ridiculous business models. For instance, an appropriate use would be:

1. Sue customers for downloading music
2. ???
3. Profit

This story seems to be about public relations and not a particular business strategy.

Re:Please...

[Opportunist]

So you consider the business model sensible where you try to make your enemies hush up but instead offer them free advertisment?

Favorite part of TFA

[GeffDE]

From this article,

As an example you probably saw the case earlier in the week of a Chinese Laundry in the United States being sued for $54M for loosing a pair of trousers, belonging to a lawyer.

Obviously, it is not only slashdotters who are loosing their minds...

Re:Favorite part of TFA

[pcardno]

And it was a Korean laundry..

I can live with that

[Anonymous Coward]

can't you?

Where's Alanis?

[rajafarian]

It's just like every time. Trying to hush something up is the surefire way to spread it on the 'net. Because nothing is interesting before it's supposedly "forbidden" to know it.

Hey, Alanis, THIS is ironic.

Pardon?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

IFPI, the more legal squeeze you put on the people with your ridiculous propaganda and bribed-for legislation, the more will slip through your loopholes ...

until the day when everyone realises that "intellectual property" thing is itself an excuse that allows you to profit where you should not.

That makes sense. A group of companies blatantly exploit holes in the legal system, use the lobbying system to buy politicians completely contrary to the intended purpose of both systems. And what's worse, it isn't a new or even localised problem. It spans through multiple industries and individuals, with no common element apart from the fact they are rich and can afford such abuse. So what do we do? We turn around and blame intellectual property. Really smart.

Re:Pardon?

[siddesu]

The biggest abuse of IFPI, which makes them unleash the other abuses you're talking about is the abuse of the copyright system. When the copyright contract between the society and the artist was established, about after the invention of the printing press, the rationale for copyright was to grant a _limited_ monopoly (granted by the society) that allows profit (and it was even then profit to the -- presumably rich -- publisher, rather than the author), in exchange for the _purported_ increase in creative work due to these profits, and also in exchange for the right of the society to use the work for free when the monopoly expires. This contract is now being subverted by the likes of IFPI (and their likes) -- mostly by bribing or pressuring governments into the establishment of an "intellectual property" -- a thing unheard of before WIPO, IFPI and the MAFIAAs started to promote it in the late 70s.

As laws become more complex (and more insane), the risks associated with doing artistic (and creative) work _outside_ the WIPO-MAFIAA-WHAT-YOU-NOT umbrella are growing. Thus the MAFIAA (and the governments it bribes) are given an undue influence over the culture, and the quality and variety of art works diminishes.

Such attempts to violate the said contract, perpetuate copyright and promote the nefairous concept of "intellectual property" are therefore acts of highway robbery with respect to human culture. This act is even more audiacious, because the current Hollywood riches were made on what is now referred to as "copyright theft" -- which happened a lot in the US before Hollyword became a proponent of "intellectual property".

Re:Pardon?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

OK, so you'd rather blackmail them to stop them abusing the system by threatening to revoke copyright. That is a valid approach. However, wouldn't it be better if no-one were able to abuse the system in that way? Would copyright still be a problem then? And if we revoke the IFPI's copyrights, does that mean we have to start revoking corporation charters for corporations who also abuse the system in the same ways? What about individuals? It would be easier to just fix the problematic systems rather than punishing each perpetrator on a case-by-case, and copyrights aren't seriously undermined.

Re:Pardon?

[siddesu]

you misunderstand, or mis-represent what i say. i am not talking about _revoking_ copyright. i am talking about stopping attempts to _sell_ copyright (and related rights) as "intellectual property" -- that is extending copyright terms beyond anything reasonable, practically forever. that is the gravest threat that comes from WIPO and the likes.

currently, copyright laws are changed all the time so copyrights have practically stopped expiring. attempts to do the same with patents are ongoing. this happens because of "IP" lobbying, not because this is the public interest.

the motives for such extensions are obvious: if the companies that are IFPI/WIPO/MAFIAA/BSA can hoard up "IP", they don't need to do more innovation or creative work, they can enjoy their monopoly and live off exploiting what they already have. i can't easily see benefits from this.

also, punishment to copyright violations are being made tougher and tougher, to the point where it is less risky to commit murder, than to copy an obscure work of art or software, or try to _circumvent_ copyright protection measures. this is also ridiculous, and enforces hoarding and not creativity. there are also the various chilling effects on all sorts of artistic and scientific fields, limits on what consumer hardware can do, etc. etc. i don't see the benefits to society from that either.

to sum it up, the red herring you are waving -- _revoking_ copyrights -- is pointless and stupid. what i am talking about -- _limiting_ copyright terms, making sure they stay limited, and burying the ridiculous concept of 'intellectual property' and draconian punishments is justified and necessary.

as for the rest of your post, i don't quite understand it. i don't see how copyright laws are equivalent to corporate charters, or how are they relevant to the topic.

Re:Pardon?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

you misunderstand, or mis-represent what i say. i am not talking about _revoking_ copyright.

You're right, I apologise. However, my argument, despite its opening, is still valid. I still think that we spend too much time concentrating on copyrights (for whatever you to do with them), and not nearly enough time on the legal and political systems. I think we could deal with the extended copyright terms, the trading of IP, and whatever else if the holders of those copyrights were less empowered, and less aggressive. As I was trying to get through in my rant, reforming the legal and political systems could solve the common problem of rich people/companies buying favour in our society. It's a long overdue change.

Re:Pardon?

[siddesu]

yes, reforms of the system are the way forward. there are two issues then. the strategy -- what are the reforms that are needed, and the tactics -- how to get these reforms executed.

the legal and political system is defined by the body of law in general, and by the laws that governs copyrights in this particular case. so you can't talk reform without talking about the problems with copyrights (and related rights) as well. to me, the strategic issue is the peddling of "intellectual property", the extension of the copyright/patent/trademark monopoly, and the risks such lobbying brings to society (including authors of creative works, see for example this insightful article by an author i like on the issue. http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1 .html). corporations (and gubbermints they have on pay) having excessive power over ideas is bad for everyone except the said corporations. so, IMHO the strategic goal is to keep a perspective on why the legal monopoly on ideas exist -- to foster innovation -- and make sure the legal frameworks upheld this goal.

then, there is the tactical issue. the public is facing a determined, smart and well-funded lobby, which goal is to extend their monopoly. they are not creative people, they are in the business of making profits from art. if they have a sure-fire money maker, they won't invest in new art. that's why they need monopoly -- it saves them from hard work.

they are going about promoting their interests in a large, concerted, international campaign that includes bribery (aka lobbying), smear, intimidation, outright racket, frivolous legal procescution, and even armed raids. when dealing with such a force, the issues have to be clearly defined so that the general public can understand them, understand the risks, and made up their mind. it is an uphill battle, and one in which information is the key -- and it is what the "enemy" wants to control ;)

the state of monopoly over culture is definitely bad. the state of no copyrights is arguably not ideal (although standard economic theory would suggest otherwise if one ignores transaction costs). there is balance to be struck somewhere, but it is not where we are now, and definitely not where we're going to.

Can we complain about this?

[LingNoi]

As a British complainer where can I submit my suggestion card to get this ass in trouble?

Re:Can we complain about this?

[Nom du Keyboard]

As a British complainer where can I submit my suggestion card to get this ass in trouble?

Send it to Paul Birch's IFPA masters at the British record companies!

Missing Word

[NickFortune]

Of course, the United Kingdom's definition is also quite useful in arguments, since subsection (1)(b) states

the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

which implies that nothing is terrorism unless it is specifically directed at the UK government or some segment of the UK public.

I think that in order to support that assertion, you need the word "British" in front of the words "government" and "public".

Re:Missing Word

[martin-boundary]

Not at all. "the government" only refers to the UK government. It's the only unambiguous interpretation, and it follows established practice for government publications. Similarly with "the public" etc.

If the Terrorism Act 2000 was intended to apply abroad, it would contain specific language referring to other countries, like the US wording I linked to. Of course, such wording would be meaningless, since the UK (and US obviously, its wording notwithstanding) does not have jurisdiction abroad, which is why it isn't included in the UK document.

The closest the UK (or any country) can legally come to defining terrorism abroad is to agree to abide by any such determination which would fall under local laws. So if the Egyptians called something happening in Egypt an act of terrorism, then the UK could accept that an act of terrorism did indeed take place in Egypt. Of course, the UK is also free to not recognize foreign definitions of terrorism. None of it matters since the UK only has jurisdiction in the UK.

Re:Missing Word

[NickFortune]

Not at all. "the government" only refers to the UK government.

Of course it doesn't. Suppose I travel to Canada and start discussing "the government"; to which government will people most likely think I refer - Canadian or British?

I'll grant you that the meaning is highly contextual, and that in the particular context you quote the only possible interpretation is the British Government. But that doesn't mean that the variable stays bound when you re-contextualise the definition; if you want to change the discussion to Palestine, the definition becomes attempts to influence the Palestinian government or the public or a section of the public.

Now if we were drafting laws, it might be different. But you appear to be arguing that the definition is semantically null outside the United Kingdom, and frankly I think that's completely unsupportable.

Pushback

[Nom du Keyboard]

RIAA: We own you!

Internet: Really?

Re:Pushback

[jZnat]

Actually, it would be more like:

Internet: O RLY?

Magical Mystery Slashdot Fortune Cookie Machine

[Nom du Keyboard]

Bing's Rule: Don't try to stem the tide -- move the beach.

Got this fortune cookie from the Slashdot Magical Mystery Slashdot Fortune Cookie Machine for this article. Could there have been anything more appropriate today?

A Government funded institution

[Nom du Keyboard]

...a Government funded institution

Seems to me that if there was ever a government funded institution, it's the RIAA member companies themselves, with their ever lengthening monopoly rights over artist created media, and continuing erosion of Fair Use rights.

Get off my lawn!

[edittard]

I guess you're very young and used to digital-to-digital copies, which are an exact replica. But back in those days, 6000 years ago if I remember right, it was all analog and a certain amount of degradation's to be expected.

Re:Get off my lawn!

[TeknoHog]

But back in those days, 6000 years ago if I remember right, it was all analog and a certain amount of degradation's to be expected.

DNA is digital, and since god only created the world 6000 years ago, he may as well have used DNA which has been around much longer ;)

I hope he reminded the RIAA:

[JustNiz]

that the RIAA is a USA organisztion so has no power overseas, and that in the UK free speech actually means what is says, unlike the USA where free speech means free until someone with power doesn't like it.