Slashdot Mirror
Record Company Collusion a Defense to RIAA Case?
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Is collusion by the record companies a defense to an RIAA case? We're about to find out, because the RIAA has made a motion to strike the affirmative defense of Marie Lindor, who alleged that "the plaintiffs, who are competitors, are a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and of public policy, by tying their copyrights to each other, collusively litigating and settling all cases together, and by entering into an unlawful agreement among themselves to prosecute and to dispose of all cases in accordance with a uniform agreement, and through common lawyers, thus overreaching the bounds and scope of whatever copyrights they might have" in UMG v. Lindor."
Yep, it sure is *a* defense.
The collusion here appears to be legal rather than economic so I'm not certain the anti-trust laws can be applied.
Who didn't know they were going to eventually use this? This is why the RIAA and not Empire, BMG, etc... brought all these suits, so they'd have this last ditch effort to break away should this finally explode in their faces.
Still, I wanna shake this woman and her lawyers' hands for this.
Just settle or admit that you are wrong. The RIAA is doing the right thing by protecting their intellectual property. Even though the only record label represented by the RIAA that doesn't try to sell all crap is Warner Bros. (Madonna is the only musician with any talent and by far the best singer ever), it is still wrong to make unauthorized copies. It is like stealing from a thrift store. It is mostly junk (except for Madonna, she is the best!), but it is still wrong. Downloading music without paying *does* cut into the profits of the labels and artists (all of the artists deserve further pay cuts for low quality product except Madonna). If you couldn't obtain it for free, you would pay for it. It is capitalism working without proper regulation such that those who invest time and money (time is money) into a product can't earn a profit. I think there is somewhat of an inelastic demand for music. If you raise the price by cutting out the free stuff, you will still see demand.
Anonymous Coward Sig 2.0:
--
Madonna has the best voice and content creation ability.
I don't think we'd have to work too hard to find lawsuits (especially class actions, obviously) that inlude two or more nominal competitors sharing resources when facing a common opponent in civil court, or when serially dealing with similar issues on an ongoing basis. Most industries have trade associations that exist precisely to allow members (who frequently compete with each other) to lower their collective overhead on commonly needed marketing, representation, lobbying, etc. One might even say that labor unions (and the meta-unions) - which represent intra-competing parties - are a similar beast. If there was a solid reason to argue that being a member of a trade association somehow torpedoes your copyrights, trademarks, or any other IP turf, that would already have been rabidly pursued.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I think that the MPAA and RIAA are perfect examples of collusion
Given RIAA appears to be trying to do to sound recording rights what ASCAP, BMI and SESAC have done to performance rights, I would expect that the antitrust claim probably has some legs under it, given the consent decree resulting from the DoJ Antitrust Division's lawsuits against ASCAP and BMI in the '40s and '50s.
like a japanese cowboy, or a brother on skates.
I like RIAA no more than an average slashdoter, and IANAL, but I don't think this defense will hold - lots of companies in an industry pull their resources together for a common goal. For example, the popular "Got milk?" commercial was licensed by many industry players - effectively doing similar thing -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Got_Milk%3F
I am sure milk producers are competing with one another, but their common goal is to make the market larger, and that is what the commercials pursued.
WTF does "to strike" mean?
Is it too much to ask to use a more common word for those that may not be legal majors, watch Law&Orders, or are not native English speakers?
If previous cases ruled in favor of the RIAA showed payment distributions being equal to each label within the RIAA, regardless of which labels specific copyrights had been violated, I think she'd have a pretty good claim there.
I'm not going to do any legwork at this late of night, but past victories for the RIAA, depending on the specifics, might come back and bite them on the ass.
One can only hope...
For example, can you say, "tobacco companies"?
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
Labor unions have exemptions from the anti trust laws and such. Several other industry/arenas do to like Baseball and the likes. Class action lawsuits can only be a class action if a judge allows it so there is somewhat of an exemption there too.
But this isn't really like a Class action lawsuit or trade union. This is more like all the grocery stores in a town deciding one day that too many people are stealing milk. So they create a fictional association to protect themselves that goes into each home with or without permission to see if there is milk and if the milk was properly paid for. And then if it wasn't, they determine what kind of container the milk is in, the store who sold it (or should have sold it) sues that person for an obscenely large amount of money and offers to settle for a smaller large amount of money. But both sums of money are more then the value lost by the actions.
Currently, something like that is probably against the law. The defense being offered using colluding isn't going to say "i'm not guilty", it is going to say the evidence was collected illegally by companies acting in an illegal manor against US law for profit above the amount of actual damages and it cannot be entered into this trial. So then UMG says this person distributed our copyright covered materials and here is the evidence which is all gone because of the collusion, so you go, They have no evidence, can we just dismiss this and get on with our lives, The judge says sounds like a good idea and bangs the gavel.
Now this doesn't really touch on their right to sue or anything the accused might have done, it touches on the entering computers in a questionable manor and then attempting to extort funds from people, some of which didn't even have a computer at the time they were accused. So the question is, did the record labels and RIAA collude in a way that was against the law (if it harms one person/consumer, it probably is) and if so, can the evidence they gather when working in that manner be admissible to the cases that they brought about? Generally evidence is evidence except on occasions when civil rights were violated or it was obtained illegally by a party that would benefit.
To strike, here, means to cross out. I assume you know what that means when you edit a document--namely that that part of it is removed. Thus, that affirmative defense would be stricken (removed) if the RIAA's motion to strike was granted. There really isn't anything better to call a "motion to strike" though. That's what they're called and if there's another name for them, it's probably far more arcane.
I'm surprised you didn't ask about affirmative defenses, instead. If you're wondering, they're a defense where the defendant (person getting sued) would have to prove something. In the motion being discussed, the defendant have to prove something about the collusion among the RIAA's record labels.
While normal words do have arcane legal meanings, this particular case is quite tame for legalese. I understood it just fine, and I'm not a lawyer of any kind. If you really need help, try an online legal dictionary.
While I agree with some of the sentiment expressed in other posts, especially to the effect that this is similar to a trade group, there seems to be one defining aspect in this case, namely the tying together of separate copyrights to pursue litigation.
While on the surface, it might be argued that the RIAA is nothing more than an aforementioned trade group (something that is both legal and desirable in many cases), tying ones copyrights into a collective pool is a bit more of a sticking issue.
The companies represented by the RIAA represent 99% of the major American labels (the only reason I do not say 100% is there may be one or two, but the majority are). Upon tying their copyrights together, they effectively stifle competition. How so?
Well, to use a (likely flawed) analogy, imagine if Microsoft and Apple decided to pool all of their resources and patents and copyrights. Now suppose a third party (for profit) company tried to get into the market. Apple may not have prosecuted initially since they did not have access to the patent/copyright pool, and probably wouldn't see this interloper as a direct competitor to be worried about. MS, however, would. So they open up the full force of the patent/copyright pool of both companies and cherry pick the most grievous ones. The company is financially sunk. This couldn't happen without the help of Apple's patents/copyrights too.
Now, I know patents != copyrights, but in a way, it is very similar. The RIAA has access to every song in every catalogue to every major artist. This allows them, by default, to prosecute across borders. It isn't BMG, Sony, and Dreamworks each launching separate suits, it is one company that can attack with a full frontal assault. Essentially, the power has been centralized, which gives too much power to the RIAA, and makes it impossible to resist against them reliably.
Essentially, while we are dealing with intellectual property (ugh, I hate that term) theft, and some of these people may well be guilty, the spirit of the law that was enacted was meant to deter those from doing this, not to crush the offenders into oblivion. And I think that last point is quite important, and also something that many have lost sight of. The laws were created as a deterrent, and as a method of punishment, much like the stocks were of yore. The laws were NOT created (in this country) as a method to crush the individual offenders into the ground (at least, save execution... and that is another issue altogether).
My 2c
Then we'd see fewer cases of sites with only one or two of the big labels licensing content - e.g. imeem.com and lala.com have both managed to convince warner brothers to let them stream music for free but none of the other labels are involved.
Up for it.
Except, it's more like someone bought some milk and then magically made more, free duplicates of that milk and gave it away to neighbors. But now the grocery store doesn't get your money. And then they claim to be doing it in the interests of the dairy farms, but (not so secretly) aren't really giving much of the money for the milk to the farms and sure aren't giving any of the lawsuit money to the farms.
All I'm really trying to say is that there's no theft involved. It's just copyright infringement.
s/manor/manner/g
:) You just keep writing that word, and it does not mean what you think it means.
A manor is a big house. A manner is a method of doing things (or just being polite). Posting AC because I don't want the karma hit, but I'm not trying to be mean
That defense basically explains the situation. Stuff like these are always in contradiction to law of reason. Modern laws are built upon the philosophy that no fraction, group whatsoever should be able to be higher than the others in any possibility modern life has to offer - be it wealth, be it protection be it any right. It doesnt mean that the record cartel is actually a group that with hard work or chance a person or some people can set up a record company and get in. As a group, they are still way too privileged when it comes to business and law, and unfairly so. This contradicts with equality basis the modern society was built upon.
Read radical news here
It means that Slashdot's legal vocabulary questions have really gone downhill since the CPHack Appeal
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
This is more like all the grocery stores in a town deciding one day that too many people are stealing milk.
Actually, this is more like all of the musicians in a town - who all book the same venue to do performances - getting tired of selling 100 tickets to their show, but seeing 1000 people in the venue they rented out to host the performance. And then following up when it becomes clear that people are putting information up on a public network that explains how to get into the show through the building's unlocked back door.
a fictional association to protect themselves
Do you really think that trade associations are fictional? Why do you think that?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I believe corporations are registgered as fictitious entities, aren't they? "fictitious business name" is on the business license they have to post publicly.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Many are crying fowl that this sort of behavior is perfectly legal, but I would like to point out one thing (I mentioned this in another posting, but thought it deserved an entire post for I believe it to be a very scary point).
Imagine if you will the beginning of the free market's existence. Individual companies and groups barter for goods and services. If someone steps on the toes of another, the person who is wronged takes that person to court, and the transgressor is perhaps found guilty, irrespective of anything else he may or may not have done or is doing at the present. Fine.
Fast forward to the present. Now, instead if you step on the toes of one company (because so few major companies are one person alone), an industry group comes in with a warrant, and searches your computer. Not only do they find infringing material for the original plaintiff, but they also find about 500 other songs belonging to other members of their trade group. Well, they simply have the warrant expanded to search the rest of your network and proceed to sue your pants off for those 500 songs that they found. This means that the process has become streamlined in favour of the companies. This is not good.
Now, go a little further into the future. Not only are there trade groups, but Super-Trade-Groups. Perhaps ones dedicated to the entire entertainment industry (MPAA-RIAA-Shakespearean Theatre Company AA-ad nauseum AA) or perhaps there is just one big-super group. Think of it as a catch-all group that includes the MPAA-RIAA-Microsoft-Apple-Book Publishers-Knitting Pattern Companies-Recipe authors-TV broadcasters-GE-GM-IBM-and any other acronym in any industry).
Everyone has broken the law in some way or another. Imagine though, if a super-group could walk into your life, find all of those transgressions, and can now say: pay up (in installments of course, and there might even be an interest-only version of the payment schedule). This would mean a guaranteed source of income, and not only that, but it would also assure them that they could treat you like a criminal at any point.
If such behavior became common, it might even pose as a catalyst to lower the requirements for a warrant -- to the point where the super group can simply have a catchall carte blanche that they can use as they see fit to protect America from pirates and terroristas...
Welcome to 2084, Orwell's sequel.
The only thing fictional about them is the separation from the companies they are claiming to represent. This was what I mean by a fictional association. It is in reality the same as the companies banding together for the purpose of the same goals.
Now a trade association can actually be a separate entity and operate within the confines of the laws. It doesn't appear that the RIAA and the record labels are doing so. So I believe that the separation to stop the companies from colluding isn't real.
No, it's not like milk at all. If you're going to go there, and I don't think you should, it's more like Coke or Pepsi.
Your magic, free Pepsi machine is knowingly interfering with the undisputed property rights of Pepsi. Pepsico holds the exclusive rights to make Pepsi. Coca-Cola holds the exclusive rights to make Coke. You do not have the right to give away more Coke or Pepsi than you purchased. If you bought a bottle and magically made more, congratulations, but you can't give away or sell even a single drop more than that one bottle of soda.
The rest is true about the RIAA and their greed and general worthlessness. But you're skipping the part where you consider that what you're offering for free isn't yours to offer. You can make something similar (as long as it's not derivative) and give that away for free. You can record a cover of a song and give that away without worrying about the RIAA (you may need permission from other entities). You can't give away something that has commercial value and is owned by someone else.
I'm not going to read all the legal documents linked. But I will pull some stuff from my butt by saying that I seem to recall cases where 'the industry' when bringing suit doesn't seem to be particularly discriminating about the material over which they claim copyrights. If I were to be making the argument in the blurb above, it would be largely because the material over which copyrights are being claimed are actually owned by a variety of parties. That is to say only some of the material alleged would be under copyrights of UGM while the rest would actually be held under competing labels.
To be more simple, "if it's music, the RIAA thinks it's copyrighted by one of their member groups and files suit claiming to represent the interests of any one of the member groups." Here's the interesting part, I think. Since these cases are actually brought out as "{Publisher Name} vs {woeful party name}" and often {woeful party name} settles, there's actually nothing stopping the RIAA doing it again claiming to be representing {Another Publisher Name} using the exact same evidence and claims.
it touches on the entering computers in a questionable manor
Phew! I'm safe! I live in a dodgy bungalow....
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Two wrongs make a RIGHT:
I've purchased x number of CDs for an average of z dollars (a price which was illegally inflated by an average of 200%).
I've downloaded y number of albums which were...free.
If xz < yz/2 then I suppose I ought to be immediately dumped into the furnaces of Mordor.
If xz > yz/2 then I am a moral individual and the RIAA can suck it.
It's their RIGHT:
Hey, it's their content. They can dictate what should be done with it. This is America. Constitution. Blah blah blah blah blah if you don't like it, gyet out.
They'll never understand what is RIGHT:
They don't see how badly they've sullied the reputation of every artist they represent, the entire process of making money from playing music, and the beloved image of the American rock star. They'll just keep on beating a dead horse, because they're old, and stupid, and ugly, and they have small wieners, and they don't really care about musicians (let alone music), and did I mention they have small wieners?
We are RIGHT:
Hey, it's our hot music. We do what we want. We do what we want. We fly by the seat of our pants and eat copyright law for breakfast. You aint bad. We bad. We download full length films the day before they come out and watch shitty screening cams that forever ruin the experience of the film, but at least we don't give the MAN our money that we made by selling downloaded music at flee markets. Yeah, look at us. We do what we want.
The desire to profit isn't RIGHT:
Artists can't expect to make money from making music, and shouldn't expect to. They should want to make music because they love it. Yada yada yada...love is all you need.....yada yada yada....the marketplace corrupts.
Newer models are RIGHT:
Just accept that CDs are promotional items to drive other types of sales, and stop suing grandmas. You can't stop progress, and you can't come up with DRM that some pimply teenager won't hack within a few weeks.
The RIGHT thing here is to do what you feel is RIGHT, no matter what the legal RIGHT:
Your right to point and click and use your ears *feels* as legitimate as (or more than) theirs to enforce their right to restrict *every* listening of a song to some type of commercial transaction, yet legally it isn't. Think about the artist. Think about the label. Think about the music. Think about your bank account. When you love an artist enough, you know you'll spend money on them. This is the compromise most of us make. This is the compromise the industry has to get used to.
I have a question,
We are mostly christians, and this question may make some sense. According to christianity Jesus is a good example to follow. But... he duplicated the following items and shared with people he didn't even know:
1) Bread
2) Fishes
3) Wine
Now people are duplicanting mp3 and movies and sharing it with friends and people. Here it comes the question:
WAS JESUS A THIEF? (To the extent that file traders are now labeled as such)
My answer is that I believe the RIAA to be evil, it makes most sense in such a context
Of course, many people would only bother drinking the duplicate milk because it was free. For those people the dairy is losing nothing.
If the RIAA labels were actually competing among themselves, then any one of them would be happy to see the others suffer alleged loss of sales. Paying RIAA lawyers to safeguard their alleged competitors' profits is therefore direct anti-competitive collusion, rather than mere pooling of legal costs: they pay shared lawyers to perform actions which they know will support their "competitors".
If real competition between labels existed, then individual labels would reduce their own prices to make official purchases as attractive as file sharing, and they would provide vast band sites to attract the purchaser, and broaden their music spectrum away from the incredibly narrow current crap, and entice fans into buying the physical albums and accessories later for profit, as fans like to do. (Often much later in life, when they have more money.) In a nutshell, they would compete on product.
If you stand back from this whole scene and try to see it through the spectacles of a free market and competition analyst, you'll find none of those elements present in their music marketting. RIAA labels simply do not respond to drop in sales by reducing their prices or raising their quality and music coverage, like indies do.
It's often described as a cartel, but some cartels are relatively shallow and defensive, whereas this one effectively has the entirety of public media in its grasp and the ears/wallets of politicians too, and has a strategy based on offence and intimidation. It is about as malevolant and anti-competitive as you can get without breaking kneecaps. And while they don't break kneecaps, they certainly have no compunction about destroying lives economically, based on legal theories which they lobbied to create.
Their slimy lawyers will probably slither out from under a charge of anti-competitive economic collusion because the legal system is driven by technicalities rather than substance. But the RIAA labels are certainly guilty as sin of it. They lost any concept of competition between them long ago.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I, personally, drink Regal Cola. It's made locally (Australia) and costs about 40% less than Coca Cola. It tastes closer to Coca Cola than it does to Pepsi Cola, and I've found it has a crisp taste that I haven't found in other cola varieties.
If it was found that Regal Cola had similar ingredients to Coca Cola or Pepsi Cola, the law would provide no "protection" to any of these players. As such, I have the choice which product I want to buy. I can choose which I prefer because they are essentially the same. This can't be said for music.
How we know is more important than what we know.
[bought tape and CD] And now they want me to buy it again, just so I can play it on my computer.
No, I don't think they ever said "please don't rip the CD to MP3 using readily available tools". Downloading is not really and more convenient than home ripping, and home ripping can only be done by people who own the music. (Well, anyone who has borrowed a copy can too, but that's a side issue.)
Downloading's a bit different in that you don't need to have the original to download an MP3. The vast majority of downloaders don't have the originals. Ergo, lost profits.
Like it or not, they were only speaking up for their rights.
HAL.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Can someone let me know when we get up to pizza and beer?
I'm hungry.
This is a prime example of why /. needs a moderation tag "Not even wrong". Not only is your argument wrong, but you're arguing the against the strawman the poster says doesn't exist. Well done.
As others have said, you're free to give away or sell as much Pepsi/Coke as you like, just don't call it Pepsi/Coke or put it in bottles or cans that look like Pepsi/Coke bottles or cans. But they key thing you missed, is that by doing this, you are not depriving Pepsi/Coke of any goods, and as such it is not theft.
If someone clones your car, you still have your car. If someone steals your car you don't have your car. This is the distinction being made by the GP.
If you can read this you've gone too far.
I don't think it matter much in how the extra milk showed up, It is more to them looking and how they are looking compounded with what they are doing after they think something.was found.
Of course the "how" of how the milk was made or got there compounds the outrage. It isn't like it's not important. But it becomes less important if the way they found out about it turns out to be against the law. Especially when it is a cause to get their evidence on what you had and what you did with it to be thrown out of the case they bring against you.
Hell, let stoop to their level and just call it illegal and make everyone think it has already been proved to be against the law. I bet we could get a lot of people thinking RIAA and MPAA are a bunch of criminal. Wait, they already do. I just wish we could google bomb like back in the day and link images of monkeys with plungers and a crack pipe in a cage when someone looks up illegal or RIAA. I bet that would go a long way to their credibility.
Nuff said.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
That's a good call...
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
This could do some very bad things: Suppose the FSF uses a fingerprinting method to detect GPL copyright violations then notifies the individual project of the violation, and the copyright holder sues. Is the FSF an evil cartel collusively typing together copyrights?
It is the same song (otherwise there would be no difference between a low quality, accepted analogue recording and a lossy but perfect digital copy) so why can't I download it for free? I paid for the TV who paid to distribute the music to me.
Well it really depends. If you've gone out and figured it out on your own, you're right, Pepsi wouldn't likely win an injunction against you. However, you still couldn't label it as the Pepsi formula, that'd be a trademark violation.
Also, it's pretty unlikely you'd get it exactly right, even if you performed all kinds of sophisticated analytical chemistry - chemistry isn't currently accurate enough to get the quantities just right. If you did get it precisely right (or even really close), that would be a pretty big indicator that you did something improper to get Pepsi's trade secrets, and they'd sue you on the basis that you got your information illicitly. During discovery, they'd find out how you figured out their recipe, and if it were with the aid of secret information, you'd get you in serious legal trouble. Even if you had legitimately reversed engineered the formula they wouldn't drop the suit, and you'd have to spend an awful lot of money defending your case.
I think some of you are missing the point. The "misuse of copyright" defense is not about penalizing the RIAA and their member companies (I'll just collectively refer to them as RIAA) for being greedy bastards (although that would be nice), or about antitrust activities (although that could be argued as well). It's about the RIAA's "campaign of terror" against randomly selected innocent persons; an effort that they call their "nationwide anti-piracy efforts". The EFF has described RIAA's strategy in it's amicus brief (http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Capitol_v_Foster/a micus_in_support_of_fees.pdf/ - warning: PDF). RIAA has no factual proof of any of their recordings actually changing hands between two people. All they have are "fabricated" screen shots (they've edited them to remove their own IP addresses) of lists of files with unknown content that are allegedly associated with a particular IP address. Then they jump to the flawed conclusions that the files are their copyrighted works, that an IP address is the same as the owner of the allegedly associated account, and that just having the files available is an instance of infringement. None of this is supported by law or precedent (or even fair justice). In fact, none of their cases from this campaign have even made it to jury trial. What has been established in law and precedent is that by using intellectual property (IP) rights to influence others' behavior beyond the scope of those rights (analogy of monopolistic abuse in antitrust cases) is a misuse of those IP rights. It follows that by using their copyrights as a basis for waging this "campaign of terror" against innocent persons, the RIAA is misusing those copyrights. The just remedy for such behavior is to revoke the copyrights.
Even if you support the RIAA's efforts, those efforts are having the opposite effect (see EFF report http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa_at_four.pdf/ - warning: PDF). The report even offers a suggestion on how the RIAA can change their business model so that all sides win. So why does the RIAA persist in it's "campaign of terror" if it is not working? Why do they stick with the same flawed, antiquated business model? In my opinion, they are just like "dinosaurs headed for extinction".
So what can we all do? I'd suggest: write to your elected officials to complain about RIAA and their member companies' behavior; contribute to the EFF; if you know anyone targeted by RIAA, support their legal defense; and to the extent possible, boycott the RIAA and their member companies until they change their ways.
Regards,
Art (IANAL)
Is it made with sugar or corn syrup?
Sounds like fun. At the end of the hugely-publicized trial, you'd have the only bona-fide Pepsi(tm) clone in the market, obtained at expense and risk so great that your competitors are highly unlikely to follow suit. I'm off to find a good lab and a couple angel investors. Cheers all...
I think I'll call it Duck Cola. Is the name taken? If not, I claim copyright.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
One might even say that labor unions (and the meta-unions) - which represent intra-competing parties - are a similar beast.
One might say that fire was cold, and one might say that horses and housecats are similar beasts, but one would be just as incorrect. There are no laws against collusion between workers (as much as the CEOs would like there to be) while there ARE laws against collusion between businesses. And various attorneys general have sued the record companies for collusion.
Yes...because breaking the law because you don't like what companies do is legal to do, right?
Who said it was theft?
It's stealing. You are taking something you do not have a legal right to take. You are interfering with someone else's property rights. You're not depriving anyone of goods, you're depriving someone of their legal right to profit. You're taking what it is not yours to take and asserting ownership over that which you do not own. Plain definition, that's stealing. Stealing != theft.
You're NOT free to give away Pepsi or Coke. You're free to give away cola. If you use the same recipe and formula, you're in trouble. If you clone someone's car (say it's a Toyota Camry), that someone isn't the person who has any legal rights against you. Toyota does. Toyota is the only company allowed to make or distribute Toyota Camrys.
PepsiCo and Coca-Cola DO have "monopolies" over their formulae, methods, and recipes. Competition among colas is a result. If you'd exercised your brain, you'd see that I even specifically said you were free to magically reproduce and distribute cola. You're free to design and build a car and magically give away copies of that, too. You don't own property rights to the specific product. The person who owns the copy or iteration you "magically copied" doesn't have property rights against you, unless you took that copy from him without permission. The person who owns the product has undisputed property rights under the law.
If it was found that RC has similar ingredients, it wouldn't be a copy, now would it? The same can be said for music. Mandy Moore can't be upset because you illegally downloaded a Jessica Simpson song. I sure as hell couldn't tell the difference. You don't own the song on the CD you've bought. You don't. No authority has ever said that you do. The owner reserves all property rights not conveyed. This is a fundamental element of law.
You and a few other misinformed people are the only ones who don't seem to know that.
It's stealing.
Alas, you're wasting your breath/keystrokes. It seems that a lot of people who want artists to entertain them for free would rather have a venomous, pedantic pissing contest over linguistics and semantics than actually address the underlying topic: they want some hairsplitting legal cover so that they can rip off the works by the very artists that they pretend to respect. And, since they're busy cultivating a culture of entitlement because there are technical ways to lay hands on the artist's work without it feeling quite like lifting a CD from a store shelf, they have lots of fellow parasites that are trying to somehow turn ripping off entertainment into a virtue - like some sort of noble gesture against The Man. "Dude! It's just like V for Vendetta, only instead of, like blowing stuff up, I'm, like, getting that new Fergie CD for free. OMG, that'll teach her to... um... want to sell her recordings... uh... anyway, I also ripped a better copy of V for Vendetta - you want to come over and watch it on my new $3000 television? I got a case of St. Pauli Girl - it was only $18.99! Oh, and on your way over, pick up one of those $20 pizzas you always pick up - those are great. You really gotta respect anyone who can make a pizza that good."
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
There has been very little money won and paid out from lawsuits yet. What you really need to be looking at is what happens to the ~$3000 settlements collected by the Settlement Support Center in lieu of a lawsuit being filed. Follow that money, and you may find some interesting results!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Prices were high because of the new technology, but there was the promise that as manufacturing improved CD costs would drop well below the cost of vinyl albums, making music a true bargain in the same way prices have dropped in other fields over time.
Well the originally high cost of CD manufacturing has plummeted, like a stone, over this period of time, and none of this has ever been passed on to the music consumer! Prices have gone up instead.
People are fed up with the fact that they're being ripped off, and finally found a way to fight back. P2P filesharing might just as well be renamed "Screw You, Fat Bastard Record Companies." That would be far more accurate than Online Media Distribution System.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
There is a long standing line of cases (noerr pennington doctrine, I believe) that say this type of collusion is OK. It can be overcome if it can be proven that the litigation is a "sham". Figuring out whether litigation is a sham could take considerable discovery, which I am sure the RIAA doesn't want.
There is also another antitrust issue here, which is that the record companies are using their market power in the music production market to leverage that into market power in the music distribution market. Or something.
Where do you get *your* entropy?
"Is it? I thought that if all petrol stations in a country decided that they band together and *all* of them slap a 500% margin over the petrol you buy would not be OK. It would definitely protect *their* interests, wouldn't it?"
Except for one small flaw in your comparison. Petrol isn't a legal monopoly, like copyright is. Copyright by it's very nature puts it into the "common interest" category. So there already is an implied "banding together".
"Copyright and patent law was created in the interest of advancing arts and science, *not* in the interest of guaranteeing corporate profit margins."
And of course there's two favorite slashmemes in the above. One the believe (unproven) that having copyright over something guarentees any kind of profit. And two that advancing the arts and science is exclusive of making a profit.
The "advancing the arts and science" meme (and the implication of copyright length) also fails the reality test. If I make the *assumption* (the other is that there isn't any copyright and that's another topic for tomorrow) that Queen Anne terms are acceptable? Then any illegal copyright violations that fall within those terms (or are leaked before even being released to the public) prove the disingenuousness of the position.
"It's about the RIAA's "campaign of terror" against randomly selected innocent persons; an effort that they call their "nationwide anti-piracy efforts"."
,of laws is to influence behavior. Redress is the other. To defend one's copyright is well within the scope of the law.
Well you failed your first test. Innocence is ultimately put to the test in a court of law. Presumptions of innocence or guilty don't change that role of the government.
"RIAA has no factual proof of any of their recordings actually changing hands between two people. All they have are "fabricated" screen shots (they've edited them to remove their own IP addresses) of lists of files with unknown content that are allegedly associated with a particular IP address. Then they jump to the flawed conclusions that the files are their copyrighted works, that an IP address is the same as the owner of the allegedly associated account, and that just having the files available is an instance of infringement."
You've rolled a couple things together. First removing one's own IP isn't fabricated.
I'd like to see the proof of the "unknown" aspect.
As for the "association between IP and owner". While there can be disconnects between the two by someone determined to do so. The majority of those who engage in illegal copyright violations don't make the effort to do so.
And last, while having copyrighted files in your possession isn't a violation. SHARING them with the rest of the planet contrary to copyright is illegal.
"None of this is supported by law or precedent (or even fair justice)."
A court of law would look upon each claim separately. Any fault in each claim can break the entire chain.
"In fact, none of their cases from this campaign have even made it to jury trial. "
Why would a jury trial necessarily be in the best interest of the court system? (note: court system, not plaintiffs or defendants).
"What has been established in law and precedent is that by using intellectual property (IP) rights to influence others' behavior beyond the scope of those rights (analogy of monopolistic abuse in antitrust cases) is a misuse of those IP rights."
Ummm. The "scope"
"It follows that by using their copyrights as a basis for waging this "campaign of terror" against innocent persons, the RIAA is misusing those copyrights."
Well aside from the loaded rhetoric the courts are the third line of defense from any kind of abuse. (Civic duty, and government are the other two)
"The just remedy for such behavior is to revoke the copyrights. "
No just is leaving the slashcourt out of this whole discussion and let the courts do their job.
"Even if you support the RIAA's efforts, those efforts are having the opposite effect (see EFF report http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa_at_four.pdf/ - warning: PDF). The report even offers a suggestion on how the RIAA can change their business model so that all sides win. So why does the RIAA persist in it's "campaign of terror" if it is not working? Why do they stick with the same flawed, antiquated business model? In my opinion, they are just like "dinosaurs headed for extinction". "
And another slashmeme appears. There's no "antiquated, nor flawed" business model. There is either success or failure, and reality shows that while some numbers may be down, that's not indicative of any model on it's way out.
"So what can we all do? I'd suggest: write to your elected officials to complain about RIAA and their member companies' behavior; contribute to the EFF; if you know anyone targeted by RIAA, support their legal defense; and to the extent possible, boycott the RIAA and their member companies until they change their ways. "
While I agree, that's not what people are doing. They're using illegal means. Whether is for the purposes of change or simple to satisfy their materialistic urges doesn't matter.
Parent has it exactly. Whether or not the defendants in these cases are guilty has never really been proven, because of many factors that include (but are not limited to) failure to establish the real identity of the person offering the material, failure to prove that the material was what the plaintiff thinks it was (and thus to prove that it was owned by the plaintiff and copyright protected), and failure to prove that it was ever actually distributed to anyone at all. What has happened so far is that defendants have been bullied by extremely well financed campaigns of legal terror and the threat of financial ruin. It is the campaign that is wrong, more wrong and damaging than the acts of copyright infringement it is supposed to address. It's like a vigilante who shoots everyone in the hopes of killing a criminal. The motion is saying "take this gun away from the vigilante."
"Convenient that you use the word "stealing" when none such thing takes place while one downloads music -- change the word and you will see your analogy fall to the ground."
I use the word "oath breaker" so I don't have to play silly word games. It also hits closer to the true nature of the act.
"Stealing requires as a precondition that you no longer have any use for what I took -- because you don't have it: that is the real harm of stealing and without it, the concept of "stealing" vanishes. See you used the word "taking"? Downloading is NOT taking because the original copy remains and still has plenty uses. Period."
There is ONE aspect of "illegal copyright violation" and stealing that's common and important to the whole issue. It breaks the bonds of trust that allows a society to function. Do either one and society suffers.
"That the distributors have the sole right to distribute the music doesn't make it right or fair. In other words -- something holding status quo does not necessarily make it right."
So why should society prefer your definition of "right" or "fair" over any other? The definition slashdot uses is no more fair or right to those who create content, than the unfairness of the present definitions are to you.
Have the grocery stores already been found guilty of collaboration in relation to price-fixing? The music companies have...
You might think the two aren't related, but the fact is that it's a two-part scenario. The music companies have steadily been milking artists while simultaneously keeping music prices artificially high. Moreover, the lawsuits (or threats thereof) they initiate are designed for purposes of pure intimidation... aimed at making penalties so exorbitant for the possible loss that people are inclined to settle... and therefore making the lawsuits themselves a revenue-producing operation.
Finally, you must add the factor wherein the music companies have gotten many cases wrong, yet in many instances thick-headedly pursued innocent victims. Using their massed power, they have abused the corporate system to drive prices/profits up at the cost of the consumer, while simultaneously abusing the justice system to pummel citizens into the ground without allowing a fair court proceeding.
Consumers could create similarly effective collusion by declaring by the millions that they have downloaded music, requesting legal action against themselves.
If the numbers were big enough, literally millions, preferably concentrated in a local area (let's say New York City or New York State), where the court system would suddenly face prosecuting millions of people, sending them to jail (since all consumers would refuse to pay fine, they would insist on going to jail) - suddenly the whole issue would get into a real context.
It would reveal that that an entire city of state could be crippled by removing considerable portion of the work force, it would help to start up nation or even world-wide recession. It would be calculated of course that how much would it cost taxpayers to prosecute and keep in jail millions of people for illegally downloading music.
At the end of the day, politicians, lawmakers and society would have to come to the conclusion that the interests of RIAA is behind the interest of the cities, states, and taxpayers.
The idea is not new and fully tested: Ghandi did it very successfully.
The British had to realize in India, that they couldn't put and keep in jail an entire country for violation of laws.
So... who wants to start up organizing the world-wide civil disobedience movement to put some salt into the gears of RIAA?
Two hundred and eleven posts. Eight years plus. I'm an AC and I don't give a damn what anyone thinks of it. Either you listen or you don't. That's it. I like stories like this and I like the responses. I like the fact that the good guys wear white, and the bad guys don't. I like the fact we all take care of the environment. I like the fact that we respect each other totally. I like the fact that we're honest with each other and never lie. I like the fact that when someone ask us nicely to do something. We step up to the plate and do it. I like all these things about humanity so much, that in celebration I'm going to leave it all behind. I hope all you good people will understand, but I just can't bear to be around such goodness.
I'm afraid that leaving you will mean that I never see the black hats lose, or the good guys win. I'll miss out on the "giving up" and "I can't help myself". My world will never be the same without a quote from Thomas Jefferson, or a slice of the constitution. I'm certain it will all eventually work out for nothing can stand against such goodness. Those who dare to lock up what should be the right of all good people will fail and their desire for income will fall with them. And with all things freed, we the good people will copy new things and advance the arts and sciences knowing that never again will someone risk all of our hard work.
But I wander and I remember I'm not a part of it for I have gone into the wilds were the black hats can never touch me. I'll sing my songs and paint my pictures but I can never share as my parents have taught me to. And I hope society will not miss me too much and the public domain will go on without my contributions. For I know the good people will be there to fill it.
Thank You.
You are completely wrong.
How we know is more important than what we know.
And after only fifteen or so posts. I'm genuinely impressed.
If only wishing made it so. Every court I've been to begs to differ, as do the facts and the laws pertinent to the issue. Your lack of substance shows you know it.
If you can find a single court case where a recipe has been enforced as intellectual property, then you have an argument. Until then, you're the one making the extraordinary claims, you present some evidence.
If a trade secret is stolen then there's some grievance. Reverse engineering to attain trade secrets is not prohibited by law.
If you want to claim it is, present some evidence.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Again, I strongly opposed making a food analogy. The fact that you are fixated on it simply goes to show an attempt to derail the substance. The issue at hand isn't about recipes. The argument stands on the grounds of the current issue. These asshats DO have undisputed property rights and they ARE entitled to exclude them.
You ask "where a recipe has been enforced as intellectual property" but in the very same post, you admit protection by trade secret--i.e. intellectual property. There are also confidentiality agreements, patents, trademarks, service marks, and yes, even copyrights to the product "Pepsi" (or Coke, or RC).
What is it exactly that you need me to provide a case to support? What conclusion are you hoping to draw by harping on protection of a recipe, which is immaterial both to the structure of the law and to the relevant facts of the current discussion?
To wit, you've admitted that I'm correct with the condition of recognized rights. Because these people (the labels) do hold undisputed property rights, according to even your rubric, the argument stands and there's nothing to gain by chasing your detours.
You made the claim that Pepsi and Coca Cola have undisputed property rights over their recipes. I'm telling you that you are wrong. I'm not making any analogies..
Trade secrets are great, so long as you keep it secret. Coca Cola and Pepsi send out copies of their recipes every time they ship product. You are free to extract the recipe from their product if you have the right equipment. That's the way it should be.
How we know is more important than what we know.
So do you have some case law or other evidence to show me to convince me that I'm wrong on these points?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Your duplication is intentional infringement and a blatant attempt to undermine property interests legally held by others. It is not a "happy coincidence" which is the only place court opinions might look favorably on the act.
You're retarded. You've lost, so you're trying to change the argument. I am not interested in arguing whether or not you are permitted to to use Pepsi's logo. I'm willing to submit that you are correct in saying that you can't use their logo without violating trademark law. Trade secret in no way applies to co-incidental similarity between products. It in no way applies to reverse engineering of products to discover said trade secrets. It covers unlawful disclosure, that's it.
Again, if you disagree provide some evidence already. You don't have any.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Yes that's exactly what I said.
Or on the other hand it's not.
Stealing/theft is depriving someone else of goods/services. The semantic games are being played by those who have no other recourse than to lie in order to prop up failing business models. I am willing to pay artists for their work. I have no desire to fund the legal teams of those who have been the major cause of artists not being appropriately rewarded for far longer than Napster has existed. I think you'll find people have been listening to music, and making a living out of producing music for far longer than there has been a recording industry.
Most people pirate music because it's convenient, not out of some desire to get something for nothing. I could traipse about town searching for copies of In Extremo CDs, or I could ask Google without leaving my chair. My preferred method is to give money to Last.fm, and have the music piped directly to my ears.
If you can read this you've gone too far.
Stealing/theft is depriving someone else of goods/services
How would you characterize someone who sneaks in through a concert hall kitchen window to avoid paying for a ticket to see a show by their all-time favorite performer? The artist isn't going to notice one more person standing in the crowd of otherwise paying customers, right? How about two of them? How about 999 out of a 1000 of them? Careful!
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Each person sneaking in is depriving the other concert goers a little of the space in the gig they've paid for. Whereas, duplicating a CD deprives no-one of anything.
If you can read this you've gone too far.
Whereas, duplicating a CD deprives no-one of anything.
Other than depriving the artist of her copyrights, you mean.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You haven't constructed a legal argument requiring an evidentiary rebuttal. You're not talking about the same thing, and you're certainly not talking about aspects relevant to TFA and the issue at hand. Demonstrate relevancy and we'll talk. I haven't lost anything, because you've already ceded the argument to the actual issue of the thread. You're lost in the woods, and it's eminently obvious that I'm not retarded.
Ok, I read this, re-read it, and even tried to find some definition online that would cause it to make more sense. I failed. Anyway you cut it the author still retains their copyright.
If you can read this you've gone too far.